Posted on 01/20/2003 7:01:47 AM PST by forsnax5
That enduring metaphor for the randomness of evolution, a blind watchmaker that works to no pattern or design, is being challenged by two European chemists. They say that the watchmaker may have been blind, but was guided and constrained by the changing chemistry of the environment, with many inevitable results.
The metaphor of the blind watchmaker has been famously championed by Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford. But Robert Williams, also at Oxford, and Joäo José R. Fraústo da Silva of the Technical University of Lisbon in Portugal say that evolution is not strictly random. They claim Earth's chemistry has forced life to evolve along a predictable progression from single-celled organisms to plants and animals.
Williams and da Silva take as their starting point the earliest life forms that consisted of a single compartment, or vesicle, enclosing the cytoplasm that produced polymers such as RNA, DNA and proteins. That cytoplasm was partly dominated by the reducing chemistry of the primitive oceans and atmosphere from which it formed, and has changed little since, says Williams.
As these primitive cells, or prokaryotes, extracted hydrogen from water they released oxygen, making the environment more oxidising. Ammonia became nitrogen gas, metals were released from their sulphides, and non-metal sulphides became sulphates.
These changes forced the prokaryotes to adapt to use the oxidised elements, and they evolved to harness energy by fixing nitrogen, using oxygen, and developing photosynthesis. But these oxidising elements could also damage the reducing chemistry in the cytoplasm.
For protection, there was just one option: isolate the elements within internal compartments, says Williams. And that gave rise to eukaryotes - single-celled organisms with a nucleus and other organelles.
Harold Morowitz, an expert on the thermodynamics of living systems at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, says these ideas are very exciting. "It's part of a quiet paradigm revolution going on in biology, in which the radical randomness of Darwinism is being replaced by a much more scientific law-regulated emergence of life."
According to Williams and da Silva, eukaryotes also had to evolve a way to communicate between their various organelles. The surrounding raw materials dictated how this could be done. Calcium ions would have routinely leaked into cells, precipitating DNA by binding to it. So cells responded by pumping the ions out again.
Eukaryotes evolved to use this calcium flow to send messages across internal and external membranes. Similarly, sodium ions formerly expelled as poisonous became the basis of communication in nerve cells.
Life continued to react to Earth's oxidised environment. Hydrogen peroxide gave rise to lignin - an oxygen-rich polymer that is the chief constituent of wood. And eukaryotes used copper oxidised from copper sulphides to cross-link proteins such as collagen and chitin, which help hold nerve and muscle cells in place. Such evolution of materials suitable for multicellular structures paved the way for plants and animals.
Not everyone is convinced. Evolutionary biologist David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, says the claim that evolution followed an inevitable progression should be qualified: "The inevitability depends on the origin of life and oxygenic photosynthesis."
He agrees that life arose in vesicles, but says that oxidative chemistry cannot explain everything from prokaryotes to humans.
Williams admits their theory has limitations. For instance, he agrees that Dawkins's argument is correct in that chance events drive the development of species. But he does not believe random events drive evolution overall. "Whatever life throws away will become the thing that forces the next step in its development."
However, David Krakauer, an evolutionary theorist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, says Williams and da Silva have simply listed the chemical processes that coincided with each evolutionary transition, which does not prove that the chemistry caused the transitions. But Williams says that the environmental changes had to come first, because they occur faster than changes in biological systems.
The Holy War. Education won't cure the hard-core creo posters, but it will help sort out those lurkers merely confused and a bit intrigued.
A useful picture of why and how the geologic column tells a story and "one big world-wide flood" isn't it.
http://www.ketchum.org/bridgecollapse.html
Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse
http://www.jcpreports.com/html/articles/liquefa.html
Hazard Information - Liquefaction
http://clifty.com/hazard/archives/1030114-140134.html
Evidence of sand blows as contemporary and paleoindicators of liquefaction produced by earthquakes
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/globe-plates.GIF
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/plates.GIF
You rang?
It's my own personal impression that there are a great many "people so inclined" out there, and the people who write books about these theories are simply taking advantage of an available market. No need to actually believe what you write about -- just write what the market wants to buy!
You were looking for another book idea, right?
After all these years of debunking kook theories, you should be able to craft a very convincing one of your own. The possibilities are endless...
;)
We could "prove" that the moon landings were faked, filmed in a studio ...
Nah! Too far out.
Pointing out that the man neither addresses the theory as presented nor accounts for dissipation of pressure across an ever widening fissure is not waving one's hands in the air. This stuff too deep for you? If it is, then run away again, your absence was no substitute for answering tough questions. Your beligerance is no substitute for intelligence. And if you're that dishonest, I've little use for further discussion with you.
HOw many people in here do you think are so stupid as not to realize that pressure is different on water exiting a hose with a wide opening as opposed to attaching a sprayer with a smaller opening. If the smaller opening becomes ever larger, pressure falls with the size of the oriface. As pressure falls, so too does precipitation of Heat, speed, and steam. Learn some physics or stop lying about it.
No, but I used to play one in the orchestra....
Bada-bing, bada boom!
aka "Galloping Girty"
One doesn't need it explained, one needs it proven in the evidence - ie that it happened the way you intend us to believe. Or have you gone so far off track into obtuseness chasing different arguments than that which I posited that you need be argumentative with your imagination. Mercy me.
No matter how long you leave the pan unaffected by other than wind, it will not sort itself. It's a matter of physics.
In fact, if the pan of cat litter is exposed to sufficiently strong winds or running water, sorting will occur.
Wow, just shoots right by you doesn't it. Won't grasp or don't like the argument so you find another. Read again. And try to actually read what's said - might help reading it slowly and pronouncing the words.
I already have explained it; see above remarks. I do not need any geology lessons from you, thanks anyway.
You want to explain how it works in theory, I've been asking you to prove how it works in fact. Where's the evidence that supports applying your theory to what's currently in the ground? Show us how well sorted layers of strata inches even feet thick are sorted by dry processes. Show us how the wind lifts 8 inch layers of soil several layers deep in order to accomplish this. Learn us backwoods redknecks that don't know any better than to be offended by nonsensical theories when we can demonstrate through simple lab tests at home that it don't work that way. If your theory argues against practical experience, I choose to believe my "lying" eyes as you would have it.
You won't deal with real world examples - perhaps because it taxes you too much why it works one way in the real world and a different way in your theories?
Indeed I am.
Oh brother. What school do you presume to teach in? Liquefaction demonstrably does not require an earthquake. And no, tidal forces are not a quake. Need I remind you that liquefaction occurs in flood zones where rivers overflow their normal bounds and current produces tidal action to sort the soils. No earthquake there. But I'm sure you'll tell us how the klingons sneak one in.
Cohesion of particles such as soil or sand rely upon the shape of the grains. If the grains are roughened in any way, cohesion will occur because the particles cannot “slide past” each other. If the particles are spherical and smoothly rounded, cohesion will not occur.
Cohesion of particles in dry circumstance relies on shape of grains. In water, particulate matter acts very differently depending on the mass verses the volume of water and/or the tidal action produced. It is testable and observeable. Why you don't want to deal with this is only as puzzling as why you try to argue things I didn't say.
Get over the idea that water is required to create “waves”, it may facilitate wave-action, but water is not required for waves to form in solid structures.
I didn't propose or espouse that view. Nor did I imply it. But your statement is testable and the lenghth to which sorting can occurr due to seismic events is limited by the nature of the event, it's duration and it's type. One may note that it would take as drastic a seismic event or worse to accomplish the same happenstance as that accomplished through a drastic water event. The extent to which they even out is testable. Take equal volumes of 5 to 6 materials and run them through a liquefaction test, then do a dry "seismic" test and see how much effort and for how long it takes to duplicate the liquefaction event. Hope you have strong arms and don't tire easily. See why I like testable things.. you can prove or disprove theory based on observeability - you know - Science.
Incorrect as usual. Look here for evidence of sand blows as contemporary and paleoindicators of liquefaction produced by earthquakes.
Document does not exist on this server. Good proof. And you're again stuck on earthquake based events. Seems flood based events don't even cross your radar. I wonder why.. Perhaps they haven't yet come up with a good way to duck it yet other than avoiding it altogether.....
And BTW, please tell the permanent residents of Pompeii buried in lava and ash that a majority of the devastation wrought comes from harmless old water…water that somehow managed to remain in liquid form even though magma is very hot.
Pompeii has nothing to do with our discussion. Unless you are going to now argue that volcanoes sort soil levels by volcanofaction or something screwy like that. They do not. One wonders why you need be so flip when simply staying on topic and proving the applied theory would help. Still haven't gotten there.
And where did you obtain your degree? Where are you lecturing?
OOOH, we need degrees now to know that water turns to steam when it boils and expands? This is first year chemistry if not middle school home-economics. Are you really so brazen as to assume people are too stupid to understand simple principles. No wonder so many are put off by intellectuals. Some are understandably perplexed at the code it takes to implement an A* search algorithm across a three dimensional volume of expanding size. That I can understand. When I started playing with it, it took a bit to grasp. But Boiling water? You kill me.
Let’s look at some pretty damning evidence, shall we?
Utterly convincing - "The requested document does not exist on this server." Two for two. You're on a roll. Perhaps you'll pass us a picture conclusively proving the existence of aliens next?
Faulting doesn't require any "plate" movement, it merely requires a weakness in the rock strata. That the continents lie on the sea floor is without question. That they are attached irretrievably to some moving plate is quite another thing that is neither required nor hinted at.
I did look, nothing there. It doesn't answer my posit. But I'll give you an obvious problem with the notion of plate tectonics and it's a pretty well known fact. Subduction in the ways postulated to answer a number of known observations is impossible, specifically a 90 degree subduction. Not because I say so; but, because the laws of physics say so. As the angle of attack increases toward 90 degrees, the force of resistance verses force applied becomes impossible. It is also somehow overlooked that said plates are not flat, they are semispherical, which produces a whole series of problems. To a mathmetician and physicist, it is not difficult to understand the problems of subducting a spherical mass and bending it back on itself. If it were a flat volume, then the stresses involved would decrease and the possibilities marginally increase but the nature of subduction would remain problematic if not impossible to explain. Further compounding this problem is the thickness of said plates and the fact that movement over time would result in large open gaps that are neither observed nor accounted for. I'm sure that there are those that can far better argue the geophysical; but, I do understand the physics and the math involved. But, one must ultimately answer the one question that drives it all, where does the force come from that causes movement and what is that applied force across the volume? In answering that you need also to account for the heat generated from said force and show that said force can account for the 90 or near 90 degree subduction said to occur at the mid-oceanic ridge.
This is just silly. If you or your parents paid for your education, then a refund is in order.
Explain that to the laws of physics. Rather than deal with a problem, you again duck and hide behind rhetoric. What's the matter, simple stuff too much for you? Or maybe you care to explain how land masses on moving plates stayed connected so long while they were constantly moving apart? Maybe we should get back to one of the central questions of my earlier observations so you can have a chance to duck it too. From drilling in Alaska and northern Russia for oil, it has been established that an ice sheet rests on the land mass beneath from an average depth of 1600 to 1900 feet. At every point in which they drilled, they brought up cores of frozen trees and vegitation. Whole trees continue to this day to appear from the northern expanse of this sheet in Russia that are harvested and used for lumber, firewood, etc. Many come up with frozen fruit still clinging to the trees - particularly, plums. Forests don't grow under water. So where did all the extra water come from?
How do you “know” the continents were once joined? What caused them to “break apart”?
It would be a catastrophic event; but, whatever event you envision must account for the missing volume of sediment that would have joined the continents. And you must explain where the extra volume of water on this planet came from. Forests buried under 1900 feet of frozen water are only part of the evidence of their being too much water. There are Apparent River beds that extend down to 1500 feet below sea level and branch off into tributaries. these cannot have eroded under water in such fashion. Mud flows don't create the necessary friction or cutting action to form them and speed of water currents is not sufficient to do the job either. As Mr. Brown points out, the currents are often moving in the wrong direction to begin with.
Why did they move away from each other?
Take a waterbed mattress and over fill it to 2 or three times the volume it should contain. And yes, this is not only possible, but repeatable. I've done it. Set two heavy volumes up agaist one another and drive a knife down between them. You'll have a harder time keeping the volumes in place than in keeping them from moving. The force of water will deform the area around the cut as the pressure within the volume of the mattress seeks relief. That malformation combined with the jetting water will force the two resting volumes apart and lubricated by water will keep them travelling until they fall off the mattress or the volume empties enough to flatten and sieze movement. Again, replicateable. Note, we are seeking to replicate the force in action.
Are the continents still moving apart? If so, why?
I would say that it is possible - even likely they are still moving. But I wouldn't necessarily say they are moving apart. If they were, it would be at a rate that would be, for practical purposes, immesurable. What I would expect would result either way would be a list of things that would be expected under any natural circumstance where movement is stunted in an 'unplanned' manner - chaos. This would amount to compressing the volume along the vector of movement and crushing the underlying Rock strata along the leading edge. Compression of brittle material like Granite would cause fracture and faulting growing out of the weakest points of the substrata from top to bottom (not hinting at direction of faulting which would be random and follow path of least resistance. It would cause both massive uplifts and depressions. But, upon deceleration, Compression would be followed at length by decompression as the volumes settle into place. The massive and observeable changes in direction of strata would be accounted for by this. But decompression would cause an expasive force that would cause more fracturing, and relieving of pressures that would cause other events to occur not the least of which would be an appearance of movement if not outright movement. Long term decompression would move the volume with respect to it's point of greatest friction against the underlying crusts. Much of this can be observed by watching collisions and compressions of numerous types of objects - the same thing auto makers do in designing vehicles.
Why do the Hawaiian Islands form a chain?
Simple, very simple. Why do volcanoes form in the first place? Because a mass of magma seeks a path of least resistance under pressure and finds it. When factors exist (weight, mass, cool water) combining to cause that path no longer to be that of least resistance, then the pressure will back up and relieve itself at the next weakest spot. If one fracture is not enough to relieve initial pressure and the fracture doesn't open sufficiently to stop fracture at another point, then multiple fractures will ensue. There is good video footage of Dams failing in which this is displayed on Grand scale with water pressure; but, it can be replicated otherwise as well. Just simple physics at work.
Why does the San Andreas Fault exist?
Califoria is on the leading edge of continental movement. Take a piece of fiber board, accelerated it at a steap angle into a hard surface and what happens? Compress it along it's axis of travel and what happens? Better, run a vehicle into a wall at 55. What happens to the front end? The surprise here would not be that the San Andreas Fault exists. The surprise would be if it didn't. You can't decelerate a large mass into another large mass without causing buckling of one or both. Path of least resistance applies again. The weaker of the two will give. Look at accident reports involving older, more solid cars and newer ones - or Semis, even some Suvs and smaller cars. The more solid the vehicle, the less damage it incurs. I've seen a 56 chevy that plowed into a K-car. Nothing left of the K-car. The 56 chevy had a few scratchs on the bumper and a small dent in the left front fender.
What causes the earthquakes in California?
After a car wreck, what causes the metal to pop and groan for hours after the wreck? Gravitational forces acting upon the wreck along with decompression of components that cannot sustain the compressed state. Physics. Why did the world trade center buildings collapse - because forces at work long after the impact and unobserved caused the structure to fail. It took some time after the event to determine the cause and it only came to be understood because they knew all the variables and could observe the actual damage. But lets ask another question regarding earthquakes. why does the ground become supersaturated? Something has to occurr to cause this. What happens with Vocanos? The same tremors are present there. The ground water is superheated causing it to expand, rising through an unstable mass till the weight of water and instability of the mass combined with overwhelming pressure of magma flow cause an eruption. The building pressure from the magma flow for days, weeks and months causes what? Earthquakes. Quakes that rise in magnitude up to the point of eruption. All an earthquake needs is a low level pocket of magma under pressure that seeks to relieve that pressure. However it vents, it does so in a manner that does not require expulsion through the surface level, which is not at all required. If the path of least resistance leads to an underground chamber in any given direction, then so be it.
Please explain these things to me without the use of plate tectonics…and without the use of a geology text from the 50s.
Done with basic everyday physics and observeables.
I am positively speechless at the use of acne as an analogy for volcanic eruptions. Does the term “subduction zone” mean anything to you? Of course not, for that would entail plate tectonics. However, for the uninformed, I offer the following:
Yep. Subduction does mean something - it's part of a big unproven theory that is not needed to explain the natural happenstance of the planet relieving gaseous pressures. Our bodies create gas without techtonics and it escapes without tectonics through the path of least resistant. Crude; but, effective nonetheless. If it weren't for the need to theorize about how Pangaea might have split into Laurasia and Gondwanaland, tectonics wouldn't likely have come about. Given that it requires numerous starting conditions, doesn't explain how it just suddenly started and hasn't over time caused collision of Yakutsk with alaska in any demonstrable form and can't explain our polar regions. It is more problematic than it is demonstrable of a workable system - much less an intelligent one. The energy or force needed seems to just be assumed to come from Somewhere - perhaps from never never land. Anomolous magnetic behavior that should be explainable in light of the theory happens to actually opposite of what tectonics would predict. And the mid oceanic ridge is unexplaneable and rather refutes tectonics to some degree all by itself.
In this diagram you see that a heavier ocean plate is being subducted under a lighter continental plate.
Ah, a diagram. The link points to "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825887/” - ie this thread. But you're offering a diagram. How sweet. In absence of proof, we get what, class - theory .. in illustrated form. So, I put it to you again. How does, as the theory goes, plate tectonics explain near 90 degree subduction at the mid oceanic ridge How does it explain subduction in light of physics. Yeah, will be expecting the simplistic dodge answers or none at all.
The word is, EMASCULATE, something I fear you feel, otherwise you wouldn’t make yourself appear so foolish. Please look up the definition of this term so you can apply it correctly to your discourse.
Testy testy. Name calling and the like is the first refuge of people unable to prove their arguments or make them soundly. Ope, wait, I'm supposed to be playing the part of the wounded victim right now so you can revel in your presumed intellectual superiority displayed in lack of proof and resort to ad-hominem attack. Should I say "woe is me" or dig up some unsavory insult to throw at you and perhaps let you shout something else to further bolster your self superiority trip. Nah, I'm an adult.
I have given you legitimate scientific information from a variety of sources. You on the other hand have only responded with Creationist nonsense.
Uh, you are dodging again. And you phrase your nonresponse in a manner that begs the question. You've answered a question I didn't ask. Whether the answer is scientific or not hardly bares on the issue. Science deals with the observeable and resorts to hypothesis when there is no test available. That said, the hypothesis is not fact; but, rather a logical construct. The more assumptions involved in the construct, the less confidence we can have in it. This is a matter not of science; but, of logic and common sense. "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" IE, that notion which answers the questions with greatest simplicity is the most likely answer. A theory that creates as many or more questions than it answers in competition with one that explains the givens with fewer assumptions and begged questions by Occam's principle (Occam's razor) would be the less likely answer. This is the Problem existing between the competing theory of evolution and that of Walt Brown. Mr. Brown comes to the table with a theory that explains more things than it leaves unanswered, generates fewer questions and on balance is a single unified theory proceeding from two assumptions whereas evolution is largely a monstrous group of subtheories that are constantly in motion - as one is disproven another crops up to take it's place and so on. Brown's theory uses physics rather than fighting with physics. Per Occam's razor, it is the more plausable theory. Deal with it.
Heh! Some real meat for our physicists, LOL!
Sorry, it can be tested to some extent and is otherwise observeable. Which is more than can be said for most of the compound theories that pile up to form the evolution argument.
I’m not sure (your grammar and punctuation need some serious help), but you seem to be asking why a geologic sequence might be all jumbled up. Recall that I referred to turbidites and turbidity currents in my last post. Recall also that these formations are emplaced in a chaotic fashion because of the high-energy event that precipitated the turbidity current.
Seem to be. I am stating that the layers are well sorted and in some cases quite deep. You need one hell of an event to account for that on a global scale. When you get around to pointing that out along with the proof of theory and explanation of it's repercussions, then you'll get my attention. You would still need to be able to show to some extent the observability of dry sorting through multiple thick layers that can also displace objects lodged in the layers. This is observed, it therefore would have to be explainable and replicateable on a scale consumate with that which is required to effectively demonstrate that happenstance beyond doubt. If it can't be replicated in direct experiment to the extent of what is observed in strata, then you have a problem of confidence in your postulation. A happenstance you should expect rather than ridicule. But it again, needs to be explainable on a global scale.
I will simply state that you have proven without question that you are not the recipient of any sort of degree or diploma beyond high school.
Ah, so intelligence is a measure of paper? This planet is full of degreed idiots. If you really want to fight that battle, you'd better pack a lunch.
You mean the following all purpose excuse for Darwin's charlatanism?
Pointing out the as yet untested implications of the theory and laying it out for consideration and testing is not "sophistry", it's how science is done.
Seems that the above rhetoric is clearly refuted by Phaedrus's:
"As possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and the probabilities into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin could devise no hypothesis to explain away a difficulty, he resorted to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of nature to know why one event occurred rathar than another, and hence ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his theory..."
As anyone with half a brain knows, the method shown in the above paragraph is not science, it is sophistry and your 'pre-response' in no way addressed it. In fact, it is just the kind of charlatanism that is being talked about in the discussion Phaedrus gave of the Origins not being science. It is also the kind of rhetorical fluff used by evolutionists throughout these threads to cover up the truth which is - evolution is bunk.
Funny, "science" seems unaware of this amazing state of affairs.
Science is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense, that is why it keeps refuting it. In fact it is totally unbelievable that anyone would call evolution science in this day and age. It has been more utterly wrong than wrong-way Goldfarb:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior. While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult if not impossible. Indeed because a new trait or mutation is not in the gene pool of other individuals, it has an almost impossible chance of survival.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body. It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution). For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work. This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
5. discovery of gene control - showed forever that the arrogant (and moronic) evolutionist theory that 95% of DNA was just there doing nothing except to give proof of evolution was utter bunk. Science showed that it is that very DNA which evolutionists called 'junk" which is what controls the actions of genes and many other processes in the organism.
So as you can see, we are very lucky that scientists ignore evolution. Otherwise, biology would still be stuck in the dark Darwinian ages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.