RufusAtticus

Missouri Synod 2004

nogods4me

Burn Heretic, Burn

Peez

??? The precise definition of the terms is not defined in a way that is universally accepted, but that does not suggest that the "subject... is controversial" at all.You have failed to present any "probability problem."Really? Where?I did, and found that you were in error, but who cares? The probability that we are calculating is irrelevant to evolution (it is even irrelevant to the origin of life). This has been explained to you.Already calculated and posted. Did you read my posts?It does not, as has been repeatedly explained.??? Exactly what is the problem? You have failed to give any reason that the universality of "left-handed" amino acids in living systems is a problem for any facet of evolution.It is amazing how many errors you can cram into a paragraph. You have given no reason that having all "left-handed" amino acids would be inconsistent with evolution, "random selection" is not part of evolutionary theory, and evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.So what?We can talk about the origin of life if you wish, but this is an evolution forum and so the origin of life is off-topic.Who do you think is claiming that "all this" (origin of life? evolution?) happened by "chaotic randomness"? Certainly not us.Logic should tell you that if you know little or nothing about it, you should refrain from making such absurd statements.[quote][b]How can you explain the vast variation in numbers of chromosomes in different species and then say they had common ancestors?[quote][b]Evolution. Why would you expect that the number of chromosomes could not change?What has the complexity of DNA got to do with it?You have yet to identify any "obstacles for Macro-evolution."If you mean the origin of the first life, certainly not by evolution. Abiogenesis is a very interesting area, but if you are more comfortable you can easily assume that the first living thing was created by your god (we won't ask you yet where the god came from). Perhaps this would allow you to focus on understanding what evolution is.This is a grandiose claim, but entirely unsupported.Actually, humans have replicated billions of times. I assume that you mean that humans cannot and will never be able to create a living thing from non-living components. This is a silly claim, given your lack of knowledge of biology and your lack of knowledge of the future.I doubt it, but you can believe that if you wish. It certainly does not contradict evolution at all.Actually, you can make proteins as complex as you like in the lab. As for living cells never being created, think about these:from here Of course, unlike you, these people knew at least a little about the subjects that they were being wrong about.I am amazed at just how off the mark you are. Note that "man in all his wisdom and technology can't even make a" star, but physicists have a pretty good idea of how they form, and that "man in all his wisdom and technology can't even make a" raincloud, but meteorologists have a pretty good idea of how they form, and "man in all his wisdom and technology can't even make a" continent, but geologists have a pretty good idea of how they form. More to the point, the origin of life is not the theory of evolution. Let me repeat that, since you seem to be having trouble with the concept: THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS NOT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Who claimed that it did?LOL!! You are accepting that you don't know much about it, but still have the arrogance to proclaim that the people who do know a lot about it are all wrong. Nothing like an open mind

Peez

Peez

Wrong. In fact, it would be hard to be more wrong if you tried. I am not sure that there is any point in responding when you are ignoring what we post.

Peez

Wounded King

Jim, by suggesting that proteins cannot work without an exact aa sequence you are showing a fundamental ignorance of not evolution but the very biochemistry you claim to study.

If your claim was true then the many examples of phenotypic rescue in knockouts using homologous proteins from other species, proteins with different aa sequence, would not work (your claim about proteins not studying biochemistry). Since they do work the proteins can obviously stand a few aa changes.

But even your biochemistry should be sufficient to allow you to know that many of the aa's have very similar biochemical properties and consequently would not have an adverse afect in a substitution.

Wounded King

Dear Pz,

I realise I might be rather over exaggerating with my western patriarchy comment. I am certainly not a hardcore genetic reductionist but comments such as

seem to be casting rather too wide a net. It may be an admirable goal to eventually form a synthesis of all these many factors, but presently it seems far too unfocused to be anything more than an exercise in 'just so'. It may just be that I am taking all the things in the paper I like no matter what side they are ascribed to and labeling them evo-devo and all the ones I am skeptical of DST, I'm not infalible after all, not being the pope or even the anti-pope.

Al Fresco

Sorry for going off-topic, but just thought you might like to know that the latest Skeptical Inquirer contains an article that seriously questions the authenticity of that quotation.

Peez

Thanks for the heads-up!

Peez

Doubting Didymus

Oooh, close but no decaying plant matter wrapped in more decaying plant matter charged with carcenogenic chemicals and set on fire.

Two points: First, that there is a heck of a lot more to evolution as a whole than mutation and selection, but you probably don't need to know too much in the way of those specifics: just keep in mind that those two factors are not the be-all and end-all.

Second: You have your words in the wrong order. It should be random mutation and natural seleciton, not the other way around. This is the crucial point that you, like most evolution denyers, are missing. When you couple random mutation with the natural selection of the best mutations for survival, the end result is not random.

Thats: Not Random.

It has a random component, but the end result is not random at all. Here is an analogy based on poker that should help.

There is a big difference in the probability of getting good hands in poker between hands simply drawn at random and hands that are then selected. If you are unfamiliar with poker, your first hand of five cards is drawn at random, and is very rarely any good. But then you get to select any number of cards you don't want, discard them and replace them. This vastly improves your chances of getting high cards in good combinations. The analogy with evolution goes like this: each generation produced by sex is like a fresh hand: some good cards, some not so great. Then, the generation of such organisms goes out in the world to make their own way. Usually, most of them die. This is equivalent to ridding your hand of the low scoring cards. The next generation fills your hand up again, but you will still be keeping you high cards, and simply filling the rest of your hand with a new set of random cards. Like poker, your second run will be much much more likely to be filled with high scoring cards, representing organisms with beneficial mutations. UNLIKE poker, you are not limited to just one redraw: it happens every single generation. Hopefully you can see that the end result is not at all random.