Proof - of what? (page 8)

cantleave

Telemetry, I thought you might enjoy this discussion with someone who actually understand highly advanced chemistry

Really? As a Chemist myself I see no evidence that Tele has anything over O-level knowledge.

cantleave

Tele - when are you going to use your knowledge of chemistry to rebut the video I posted?

I am now especially intrigue since like me you work in in the field of Chemistry.

cantleave

1975 - your ignorance of the subject is astounding too.

I keep coming back to this thread because I am always questioning my understanding of evolution. I have a question for you cantleave - I don't know much about chemistry but from what I do know (very little) wouldn't a chemical intervention/event cause a sudden change in the evolution of an organism and wouldn't this argue against the gradual adaptionism of natural selection? just curious

Ruby456

dolt - strange

That's the point, if we have enough attempts to create life, eventually, we will succeed.

but here the creation of life would be intentional and not spontaneous. Dawkins argues for spontaniety like you but then makes evolution by natural selection both intensional and intentional as in his his famous memes depiction

cofty

Ruby - There is a horrible confusion in this thread between abiogenesis and evolution.

Abiogenesis is about the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. Tele has posted some crazy numbers based on a complete misunderstanding of this topic. It is straight out of the old "Creation" book.

Scientists in this field have some fantastic progress in recent years but as yet there is no definitive answer.

Evolution is about the way that this original replicator became all of the myriad of living things, from biologists to rhubarb.

When something replicates it will inevitably make copying errors. This results in different varieties of replicator code called alleles. Some of these will be better able to survive and replicate than others and will tend to become more numerous in the gene pool. On a chemical level our DNA code consists of 4 bases identified with the shorthand A.C,G & T. If these letters are changed by copying errors they might result in a different sequence of amino acids. I say "might" because there are different three-letter sequences known as codons that result in the same amino acid. A different sequence of amino acids may result in a protein molecule with slightly different properties that may be more or less effective.

Other parts of our DNA code switch genes off and on in complex cascades. Changes in these switches can result in significant changes in the body or phenotype that is coded by the DNA. For example the loss of a single letter might prevent the growth of a limb of cause the growth of an additional finger.

So to answer your question, very small chemical changes in some parts of the genome may result in small changes in the phenotype or no change at all. On the other hand changes in other parts can be more significant.

I hope that helps? I am still very confused about what you think memes have to do with biological evolution.

Ruby456

thanks cofty, that was very helpful. you are right memes have to do with cultural evolution rather than biological evolution

The_Doctor10

To get anyone who is a current JW to be open to taking an honest look at the WTS and the Bible, they need to have already questioned something in the organization or the Bible themselves first. Otherwise they're just full on regurgitaters of the "truth," they've been indoctrinated in.

For myself, simple research into the 1914 belief started my decline. 607B.C. not being the year that any secular historian accepts as the correct year of Jerusalem's destruction, which really should be enough to go, "The WTS got this wrong. This should be backed up by secular history, that would be what makes this belief right and what makes it believable. Our beliefs are always touted as being backed up by worldly facts, why is this one wrong?"

The original date of 1914 was preached to be the end, not the beginning of Christ's rule, they changed this to fit under their, "new light," premise. Then you find out about other failed dates, 1874-1878, 1925, 1975, etc... And every time the WTS dismisses the claims with, "While some in the organization felt this way, this was never the direction of the GB." If you don't go, "Well then why were these dates in your literature that you disseminated to your followers?!," then you're still too indoctrinated with your beliefs about the "spirit-directed" organization to move forward. This started my decline. Then that lead to questioning the Bible itself, then the loss of faith altogether.

There has to be a self-made crack in the armor of their belief before any further progress can be made.

cantleave

I don't know much about chemistry but from what I do know (very little) wouldn't a chemical intervention/event cause a sudden change in the evolution of an organism and wouldn't this argue against the gradual adaptionism of natural selection? just curious

Ruby I am not sure what you are asking but hopefully this will answer your question.......

For abiogenesis to occur simple molecules needed to bind in a specific order to create more complex molecules (nucleotides) that eventually resulted in a very complex molecule that had the ability to replicate itself (RNA and subsequently DNA). At this point natural selection started to influence the process favouring variations that made replication more efficient.

In the lab complex biochemical synthesis, such as the manufacture of peptides, uses a technique called solid phase synthesis whereby the amino acids making up the peptides are built up on tiny porous beads in a controlled way. There are different hypothesises as to how nucleotides were built in nature but it would seem that a vehicle, acting as the equivalent of solid phase bead, was utilised to allow the step by step combination. For example, the vehicle may have been Iron disulphide found in hydrothermal vents or it may have been a clay such as montmorillonite, the actual conditions are of course one of the big unknowns of abiogenesis. The bottom line is, once these initial reactions occurred, in the order required, nucleotides were created which then combined to form self-replicating molecules. These molecules used their own molecular structure to provide the vehicle which ensured successful replication.

To answer your question directly as I understand it................

Evolution at the chemical level occurs due to changes in the arrangement of the base pairs in the self-replicating molecules. Some chemicals are mutagenic and these can result in such changes, most of which are neutral to the viability of the phenotype. Some of these mutations may be detrimental to the phenotype and will result in cell death or uncontrolled division of mutated cells (cancer). It is also possible that such a mutation could potentially be beneficial and theoretically if a beneficial mutation occurs in gamete (sex cell) it could be inherited and subsequently be important in evolutionary terms. Mutations that do not occur in the gametes have no influence on evolution.

Ruby456

thanks cantleave

Proof - of what?

Share this