Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About forex

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

2517 profile views
  1. Although the public acceptance of the Evolution theory and the Flat Earth theory is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation, which makes them equally pseudoscientific. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for understanding their pseudoscientific character. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the Flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriousl
  2. According to the most generous interpretations of the fossil record, the longest possible time frame for the theorized evolution of a land dwelling animal into a whale is 9 million years. Now, transforming a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep, into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale requires many new genes to be formed. For a demonstration let us compare the two structurally highly similar organisms - human and chimp. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002379 This study identified 60 new protein-coding genes that originated
  3. Given the evolutionary narrative, the traits in a population that are advantageous in a certain environment get passed down to future generations because those traits helped the organisms to survive. That's a nice story, but it begs the question: from where did the functional traits come from? Saying that an individual who owns a gun will be selected(will survive) in an enviornment where the gun is necessary for survival, does not explain the origin of the gun. If we appeal to random mutations for an "answer" to the origin of traits this is like appealing to random re-arrangement of particles
  4. If it was proven you didn’t commit a murder, then you would not have been obliged to provide a court with the explanation of a murder or some information on the eventual suspects. Likewise, if you have demonstrated that a proposed explanation for a phenomenon doesn't add up, than you are not obligated to provide an alternative explanation. Given your logic, you are guilty of a murder until you prove who the real killer is, although it was proven you didn’t commit it. Science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Bo
  5. No, my argument is that due to the lack of mutational resources it is impossible to find the information for the bio-structures that we observe in living systems. From that it follows that the current explanation for the emergence of higher life forms doesn't add up. By saying that a proposed explanation for an event doesn't add up I am not saying that the event didn't happen. My eventual dishonesty or my posting history changes neither the available mutational resources nor the level of degeneracy in the DNA information. So, please stick to the topic.
  6. @Moderator Note I have opened this thread to discuss one particular question - available mutational resources vs. required mutational resources. My personal or mainstream explanation about a possible mechanism for the emergence of the higher life forms is completely irrelevant to this question since explanation of a phenomenon is not causally related to the properties of the phenomena. It is not my personal speculation that there is a high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular bio-structure. This is the claim of the peer review papers I linked in my OP. The res
  7. Off-topic. I will try to keep this discussion within the bounds of the topic at hand.
  8. In order to rearrange the sequence of nucleotides and thus, find the information for bio-structures that are beneficial in a particular environment, an organism(or population) requires resources(mutations). Given the most optimistic estimates, there have been only 10^43 mutations in the history of life(1). But, the adaptation to a particular environment is pretty demanding in terms of resources. For e.g., we need 10^11 mutational resources in order to extract simple ATP binding function(2). Given the fact that binding(sticking to something)can be achieved with myriad number of 3D shapes this i
  9. All bio-structures are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur (CHNOPS). They differ only in the number and spatial arrangements of these ingredients. Hence, if we start with the simple self-replicating molecule, then the only way to find evolutionary selectable spatial arrangements of CHNOPS is by re-arrangements. The idea of evolution is based on two fundamental premises. The first one says that mutations cause variations a.k.a. re-arrangements or different spatial arrangements of CHNOPS. The second one says that the
  10. Thanks for providing a straight-up answer, but unfortunately you just described how people differentiate between 'living system' and 'lifeless system'. Description is an abstract mental construct created in a human mind. If humans define something as 'live' because it is self-sustaining, from a physicochemical point of view it just means 'existence in time'. The stone in my backyard is able to exist in time the same as E. coli in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. After 60,000 generations Lenski's bacteria are still ... bacteria, with little structural changes. In the same period of tim
  11. I asked a straight-up question: How does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also? I expect a straight-up answer. If you don't have the answer, that's OK. But please stop spamming my thread.
  12. I'm a skeptic by nature, so I question everything. If you have a problem with that then don't enter into a discussion. Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism). This is NOT an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules because 'lifeless' molecules are heading towards equilibrium or towards a state of minimum potential energy and not towards a functions and conditions in which complex molecular component parts will maintain and replicate themselves. This is science that can be o
  13. I asked this question from a physicochemical point of view and not from a philosophical or theoretical point of view. The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves and because chances for that are practically zero. But, like I said: the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. Exactly the s
  14. Often brought up in the origins debate is that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things due to the mutability of organism or its ability to reproduce. But, the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. But exactly the same possibility exist in some lifeless chemical system also - some new molecular structure can be added to the existing lifeless chemical system. Natural selection of this chemical system is then differential survival(existence in t
  15. No?! You deny the existance of experimental support despite the link I provided just a few moments ago in the post #75? Well, that's what I call denial. Here is another experimental support for the extreme rarity of functional sequences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970 In this experiment Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer reported that on average, only 1 in every 10^63 sequences are functional for a protein 92 amino acids long. - "The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold." Don't forget that we are at the micro-level.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.