Is evolution proven science or theory

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

I am by no means anywhere near you guys' level in this debate, but the words above ring true to me, that Darwinian evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. This German scientist he talks of is scared of excommunication from his church. There was another point that the scientists talk about the lack of evidence behind closed doors but their "public" side denies these problems. Where is the science in that?

To Thine Own Self Be True!

Arguing over the definition of theory vs speculation is a straw man. There is either evidence or not. The search continues.

Thank you

[Dusty]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...ntcmp=features

[PRB]

The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else?

What do the stats guys say is the probability of this...1 in what?
A simple question about this if probable....why don't we see self assembly inorganic to organic if the evidence suggests it is so.
Was this a one time deal or is self assembly taking place today unbeknownst to us?

[PRB]

Doc,
I'd rather keep the discussion at a quasi scientific level and not delve strictly into ones beliefs....We do touch on that a tad but that is a peripheral event due to some subject matter expressed by outside authors when discussing their science. It should not be the central theme.

[PRB]

Ok Doc but that tar baby is on you......good luck

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Oh, I'm not saying it will be pretty or gain any traction, but I'll throw it on the wall at some future point.

In reference to self assembly, I thought it already had been disproven. It used to be called the Spontaneous Generation theory. The attachment shows the experiments which disproved it.

And I'd get into Biopoiesis, but Trapper's thermodynamics stuff pretty much led us down that road.

Doc- PLEASE, spontaneous generation, really? Self assembly of macromolecules and spontaneous generation are not even remotely related. What next the alchemists dream, lead to gold? I am trying to bring true science to this discussion.

See the Whitesides paper I posted earlier. This guy is one of the leading chemists in the world. I have already posted papers on self assembly of macromolecules in this thread.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Always trying to pull a leg...




Okay, self-assembly happens. This opens a whole 'nother can of questions, namely, why did the physical laws in place at the time of the origin of life constrain constants to some particular set of life-starting values? Can impersonal physical laws influence parameters in order to allow for the start of life?

Or can we pull Chance off the shelf for this one?

We could go down the 'designed by an intelligent agent' road, but remember, PRB has ordered a quasi scientific environment.

I have been trying to post a couple of good papers: one shows self assembly of lipids to form a lipid bilayer membrane - an essential component of cellular life as we know it. The other shows the self aggregation of yeast to form a new multicellular yeast complete with cellular specialization and compartmentalization of the multicellular form. What is most interesting is that this form of yeast replicates not in the single cell form but as the multi-cellular form. A new species of yeast?

The problem I am having is that when I try to upload these files, I get a message telling me that I have already uploaded the file to this thread. I didn't think that I had and I cannot find where I have in any of my posts. So, until I can figure out what I am doing wrong, anyone wanting these papers, just send me a PM with your email address and I will send them by email. (I doubt that I will be inundated with such requests, but you never know).

As to the governing laws, these never changed. Same laws then as today and will be the same tomorrow.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I have been trying to post a couple of good papers: one shows self assembly of lipids to form a lipid bilayer membrane - an essential component of cellular life as we know it.

Do the specific lipids involved in the self-assembly occur in nature in the absence of life?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

The folding of polypeptides into proteins is an example of self assembly, among other things already observed. I, too, am wondering about the absence of life condition.

GC & Doc - Yous guys are raising a couple of interesting questions - the ol' chicken or the egg conundrum.

The lipids and other macromolecules that are involved are the same that are found in living organisms. So, did they arise from life or did they initiate primitive life? This is truly a matter for conjecture. Finding these very same building blocks in comets and meteors suggests that they have an extraterrestrial origin. Still that leaves open the question, are they from life elsewhere? We simply don't know for sure.

Having said that, I believe either is a possibility. But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe. When the conditions are right (temperature, pressure, presence of water, etc.) they organize in predicable ways and rudimentary life arises. (Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.) How far this goes depends on the environment and a myriad factors of chance.

For instance intelligent life arising, IMO, is not a given - more likely an accident. In my view it is entirely possible that we are the most advanced life-form in the universe. Taking this view, leads to a very, very humbling philosophy. And hence, why I said that, based upon the genetic engineering example I mentioned, that intelligent design is a fact. That intelligence is us! Think about it.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else?

What do the stats guys say is the probability of this...1 in what?
A simple question about this if probable....why don't we see self assembly inorganic to organic if the evidence suggests it is so.
Was this a one time deal or is self assembly taking place today unbeknownst to us?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to you CSM. Wasn't sure if (1) you meant by inorganic "abiotic" (not arising from life) or (2) being a non carbon based molecular entity (e.g. sodium chloride v ethanol). If you meant (2) that is not chemically possible unless you are in a nuclear furnace like the sun. If you meant abiotic then my response is as I replied to Doc and GC.

Now as to the statistical question: This is not a statistical driven process. It is thermodynamic. The rate of assembly will be statistically driven, however. Higher concentration of lipids less time required for self-assembly.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

GC & Doc - Yous guys are raising a couple of interesting questions - the ol' chicken or the egg conundrum.

The lipids and other macromolecules that are involved are the same that are found in living organisms. So, did they arise from life or did they initiate primitive life? This is truly a matter for conjecture. Finding these very same building blocks in comets and meteors suggests that they have an extraterrestrial origin. Still that leaves open the question, are they from life elsewhere? We simply don't know for sure.

Having said that, I believe either is a possibility. But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe. When the conditions are right (temperature, pressure, presence of water, etc.) they organize in predicable ways and rudimentary life arises. (Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.) How far this goes depends on the environment and a myriad factors of chance.

"Correct conditions."
This is a big driver of the extra-terrestrial theories.

Trying to nail down such conditions on Earth leads to problems because such possible conditions are subject to testing and measurement.
Essentially infinite, untestable possibilities exist if you remove the problem to the rest of the universe.

Or so it seems.

How much time would it take for these problems to be solved elsewhere?
How far would the transport vehicle (comet) have to travel?
How much time is available?

Once the math is actually done, the time and distance involved require speed and accuracy which defy probability.

Furthermore, no comet has ever been seen with a distinctly hyperbolic incoming orbit.
Theories attributing the origin of comets to outside the solar system are not supported by the evidence.

Where evolution is concerned, specific timelines and starting conditions remain elusive.

[Trapper John]

So, you agree that it is highly unlikely (or at least not necessarily) that the molecular building blocks of life that are known to exist outside of earth, arose from extraterrestrial life. Ergo, they arose from abiotic processes governed by the laws of chemistry and physics.

[Surf n Turf]

Excellent, excellent thread --- I am working, trying to keep up with the conversation.
With a dictionary in one hand (figuratively), and math and chemistry classes now dimming in my memory, I would ask the following:

Originally Posted by Trapper John

But I will take the POV that these building blocks arise universally from abiotic chemistry and that they are very common throughout the universe.
(Doc, the laws of nature are universal constants and do not vary.)

Trapper John,
You know this is "universal" how ?
It seems to me that we (papal non)postulate daily, but remain in the infancy in the study of mathematics.
Chemistry provides us with a window to our limited physical world -- might not "universal" chemistry alter our construct of the science ?

Originally Posted by Trapper John

For instance intelligent life arising, IMO, is not a given - more likely an accident. In my view it is entirely possible that we are the most advanced life-form in the universe.
Taking this view, leads to a very, very humbling philosophy. And hence, why I said that, based upon the genetic engineering example I mentioned, that intelligent design is a fact. That intelligence is us! Think about it.

I doubt that a "like-form" that evolved from a grass eating, bug infested, simian creature to the dominant animal on this planet in less than 300,000 years is a candidate for "most advanced life-form" in the universe. Having said that, the rapid evolution of the species might lend credence to some cosmic genetic engineering experiment.

Your "humbling philosophy" would have the solar system revolving around the earth
SnT

[Trapper John]

The universality is based upon the observation that the basic organic building blocks for the chemistry of life are found in comets and meteors. If they exist there could they not also exist everywhere else. The basic elements are derived from stars, the laws of chemistry and physics that made them are laws everywhere in the universe. If they did not come from life (biotic) they must have arisen abioticly.

I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise. However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life (bear in mind that there is no driving force for intelligent life to emerge in the first place) presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur and we know that these catastrophic events do occur. So, if an intelligent life form were to emerge there are any number of events that can and do occur to reduce the ecosystem back to single cell organisms or obliterate it altogether.

Our existence on this planet is finite and if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, the sun will ultimately strip away our protective atmosphere and this planet will be reduced a barren rock. So, yes, it is conceivable, even likely, that we are the only or most advanced intelligence in the universe.

The humbling aspect of that thought has nothing to do with the solar system revolving around the earth. It has everything to do with the responsibility we have as the only species capable of contemplating the meaning of life, contemplating questions that we are asking in this thread, understanding universal laws and truths, and charting its own destiny. To me the responsibility that comes with that knowledge is very, very humbling. To put it in more figurative terms, we have eaten the forbidden fruit and now it is all up to us to act accordingly.

Are you up to the challenge?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

I do agree, but am trying to fit that notion alongside your intelligent design claim resting upon the fact that we, as humans, are intelligent life.

Or are you hinting at an agent capable of making rational choices "guiding" the work of nature's laws toward the formation of living creatures rather than a cosmological soup?

Wait, this may be straying too far toward religion again...

Not hinting at all Doc. I am flat out sayin' it! And this leads me to say what i did in my reply to SnT.