School district in MI votes tomorrow night whether or not to allow ID

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

Life evoled first in water, then on land. Water absorbs light in the UV portion of the spectrum. Ozone is not necessary for life, when water helps absorb light, and UV would also increase the mutation rate. UV is only bad for multicellular organisms, primarily through carcinogenesis.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
A reducing environment is necessary for abiogenesis.How do you reconcile that with the evidence that O2 preceeded photosynthetic organisms?

There's no evidence that the Earth was orginally O2 rich as it is today. Let me put it this way, photosynthesis uses CO2 and light to create "food" and O2. Therefore, the Earth started rich in CO2, the explosion of photosynthetic life caused the atmosphere to shift from CO2 rich into O2 rich.

"Since then, workers have subjected many different mixtures of simple gases to various energy sources. The results of these experiments can be summarized neatly. Under sufficiently reducing conditions, amino acids form easily. Conversely, under oxidizing conditions, they do not arise at all or do so only in small amounts." [L.E. Orgel, Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, p:56 1994]

It seems to me you have a problem. If there is free oxygen then you don't form amino acids, and if you don't have free oygen, you don't have an ozone layer and primitive life would be destroyed by UV.

It seems like a conundrum.

but what about all that CO2 in the atmosphere, it must be good for protecting the earth from UV/x/gama....

Kyoto lower CO2 emissions treaty due to global warming because CO2 doesn?t reflect solar radiation but traps it? hum....

nope I guess that doesn't work.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me you have a problem. If there is free oxygen then you don't form amino acids, and if you don't have free oygen, you don't have an ozone layer and primitive life would be destroyed by UV.

It seems like a conundrum.

No, it wouldn't, for a great number of reasons, but primarily because it's hard to cause cancer in single-celled organisms, and water is quite capable of protecting water-borne organisms from UV.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You know what? I would have a lot more respect for proponents of ID if they would just come out and say, "Look we believe in evolution too, it's just that we believe it was a process put in place by and directed by the hand of God. We understand that species have been evolving over millions of years of life on this planet, it's just that we believe this process was part of God's divine plan."

that would be fine and acceptable, me as a mostly athiest dont rule out ID, but its just Faith, like I dont rule out ghosts or elves or any other folklore. Is it unlikely sure definetly but science can not disprove it... yet.

But like with other examples of faith filling in the unkown science will probably proove ID to be false and people will accept that, like most people accept evolution now after being ridiculed. Same with ID.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me you have a problem. If there is free oxygen then you don't form amino acids, and if you don't have free oygen, you don't have an ozone layer and primitive life would be destroyed by UV.

It seems like a conundrum.

No, it wouldn't, for a great number of reasons, but primarily because it's hard to cause cancer in single-celled organisms, and water is quite capable of protecting water-borne organisms from UV.

According to Carl Sagan:

"Unacceptably high mutation rates will of course occur at much lower u.v doses, and even if we imagine primitive organisms having much less stringent requirements on the fidelity of replication than do contemporary organisms, we must require very susbtantial u.v attenuation for the early evolution of life to have occurred."

Where's the UV attenuation if the primitive atmosphere was reducing and there was no ozone layer?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It seems to me you have a problem. If there is free oxygen then you don't form amino acids, and if you don't have free oygen, you don't have an ozone layer and primitive life would be destroyed by UV.

It seems like a conundrum.

No, it wouldn't, for a great number of reasons, but primarily because it's hard to cause cancer in single-celled organisms, and water is quite capable of protecting water-borne organisms from UV.

According to Carl Sagan:

"Unacceptably high mutation rates will of course occur at much lower u.v doses, and even if we imagine primitive organisms having much less stringent requirements on the fidelity of replication than do contemporary organisms, we must require very susbtantial u.v attenuation for the early evolution of life to have occurred."

Where's the UV attenuation if the primitive atmosphere was reducing and there was no ozone layer?

3chordcharlie just said that water should be able to block UV - so why are you asking about a lack of ozone layer? i don't know if what either of you are saying is true but it's like you are ignoring the argument he made instead of addressing it.

 

[Czar]

Rip,
is ID science?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

According to Carl Sagan:

"Unacceptably high mutation rates will of course occur at much lower u.v doses, and even if we imagine primitive organisms having much less stringent requirements on the fidelity of replication than do contemporary organisms, we must require very susbtantial u.v attenuation for the early evolution of life to have occurred."

Where's the UV attenuation if the primitive atmosphere was reducing and there was no ozone layer?

Let me guess, you copied this from facingthechallenge.org, and fail to give credit to it. Yawn.

Here's two pictures. Both show the same thing. Water absorbs UV light.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif
http://alms.biology.ualberta.ca/SiteGraphics/water-fig_4.jpg

One must also note that the absorption for VISIBLE light decreases, allowing light used in photosynthesis to penetrate water and reach the first photosynthetic organisms, while providing protection from UV light. The original photosynthetic organisms could survive at a level where UV light would be blocked by water, but visible light could still penetrate.

However, one must understand what UV radiation poses. UV radiation simply does not kill an organism. UV radiation damages the DNA/RNA, which would then inhibit metabolism. In fact, UV radiation has been found to promote the early stages of oligiopolmerization of RNA, and may have provided the selective pressure that caused our RNA/DNA strands to be only composed of purines and pyramidines. So, early UV would have been good for the start of life, ie The RNA World. UV would have became harmful to more complex organisms, but water provides adequate protection while allowing visible light to travel through.

For more information on UV as a selective pressure of nucleotides, see
Mulkidjanian, A. Y. Cherepanov, D. A. Galperin, M. Y. Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light.BMC Evol Biol. 2003; 3: 12

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You need O2 to make O3, correct? So without oxygen, there would have been no ozone layer in primitive earth, right?

No, you don't. All you need is a source of oxygen. The most likely source in a reductive atmosphere is...

c'mon Rip, show us your impressive knowledge of o-chem. Same with you LMK.

I'll give you several choices. Tell me which one is a likely source of oxygen in a reductive atmosphere and why:

A) Thioesters, R-SOO-R
B) Carboxylic acid, R-COOH
C) Elemental Oxygen, O2
D) Ketones and aldehydes, R-(C=O)-R and R-(C=O)-H
E) Epoxides, R-CO-R in sp3 bound rings
F) Phenols, RB-OH
G) Common non-terminal alcohols, R-(OH)-R
H) Terminal alcohols, R-OH (EtOH)
G) Acetone, HCOH

All of those contain oxygen that can be released and then ionized to O3. Some would readily do so in a reductive atmosphere.

So impress us all with your profound chemical knowledge.

Those of us with actual degrees in science (I, myself, am now in medical school) want to see if you really know your stuff or not.

So prove us wrong!

It seems to me that these compounds would decompose to form carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water (and sulfur oxides in the case of the thioester).

So what was the origin of these organic molecules?

It's a moot point anyway since there is compelling evidence that the atmosphere of early earth was oxidative, not reductive.

 

[dannybin1742]

It seems to me that these compounds would decompose to form carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water (and sulfur oxides in the case of the thioester).

what rational gives you this idea? why do you think those compounds are unstable?

FYI the first organisms to evolve were most likely chemotrophs requiring no light to live, just simple chemical gradients

photosynthetic pigments evolved later


also rip you should lookinto SELEX if you'd like to know how quickly randomly generated RNA sequences can evolve. in a primative system, random mutations could easily be introduced through by no checking of replicated sequences, or simply through non-repair of thiamine dimers (most prokaryotes have a light induced repair mechanism).


RNA world hypothesis is backed up by the fact that the ribosomes in everyone of your cells is made up primarily of RNA (ribosomes in ANY living organism are made up primarily of RNA), not to mension the recent research into creation of catalyic RNAs that act like proteins, i read a paper last year where a group managed to create an RNA sequence that catalyzed phosphorylation of a target with GTP through SELEX

It's a moot point anyway since there is compelling evidence that the atmosphere of early earth was oxidative, not reductive

yes so compelling you have yet to tell us where you learned this from, so compelling that the three biology books i read in undergrad all state that early earth had a reducing atmosphere, one of them was an evolutionary biology book used in biol 303 (evolutionary biology)

you even understand what and oxidizing or reducing agent does?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

OIL RIG!!!

Rip is still going, eh?

 

[dannybin1742]

yes, we seem to be running in circles with this clown

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
yes, we seem to be running in circles with this clown

actually your trying to cover your own ignorance with techno babble and the faulty assumption that an understanding of how something might work is the equivalent of knowing that it doesn't work by divine intervention.

but that's cool, we've all got our pretensions.

and for the record: moonie is the clow, rip is the default image.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
yes, we seem to be running in circles with this clown

actually your trying to cover your own ignorance with techno babble and the faulty assumption that an understanding of how something might work is the equivalent of knowing that it doesn't work by divine intervention.

but that's cool, we've all got our pretensions.

and for the record: moonie is the clow, rip is the default image.

Again you miss the point. One is a scientific theory, one is not. End of story... OR IS IT!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Not with people who dismiss knowledge of reality as "techno babble".

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
yes, we seem to be running in circles with this clown

actually your trying to cover your own ignorance with techno babble and the faulty assumption that an understanding of how something might work is the equivalent of knowing that it doesn't work by divine intervention.

but that's cool, we've all got our pretensions.

and for the record: moonie is the clow, rip is the default image.

Again you miss the point. One is a scientific theory, one is not. End of story... OR IS IT!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

do me a favor, look at what i said and stop arguing agains straw-men.

no science proves or disproves chaos over God, the problem is that "chaos" is an idea from which no thought escapes while God's hand is something we have a history of understanding the deeper workings of and will be much more likely to look into.

Atheism kills thought, attributing things, quite factually, to God inspires investigation.

Not with people who dismiss knowledge of reality as "techno babble".

you know what? i responded quite fully to a total techo-babble red-haring and got nothing in response, then more completely irrelevant issues disguised as intelligent, because they use words that no one but me and the guy i'm talking to will understand. I even got flack for trying to establish the most basic of translations of commonly mis-understood terms.

image someone doesn?t know what a north bridge is and you call it a "motherboard processor" sure it is, but it's not the cpu, and the conversation is about CPUS.
sure there's a place for Northbridge talk, but if in a layman forum you should establish that a north bridge isn't the topic at hand. nor is an organic molecule in any way life.

I?m not dismissing ongoing research into theories of prehistoric earth, I?m simply saying that telling me about how each leaf grows on a tree in no way settles our argument about weather the group of them is a rainforest or a jungle. or weather the processor has grown so complex that it crosses the RISC CISC line.

you could computer babble someone into one side or the other of an issue with no real answer, just as is being attempted here with evolutionary biology.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Why do arguments about the scientific validity of creationism always end up being criticisms of evolutionary biology made by those who do not know what they are talking about - why are we even discussing abiogenesis?

In ten pages of this thread, I have yet to read any positive evidence for creationism, or any predictive, testable capabilities of creationism. Why? Well, the answer is pretty simple.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Why do arguments about the scientific validity of creationism always end up being criticisms of evolutionary biology made by those who do not know what they are talking about - why are we even discussing abiogenesis?

because of my point:

We shouldn't teach the philosophy of "chaos in the gaps" of our lack of knowledge any more or less than God's hand being that driving force.

Isn't something that those who disagree with ID want to talk about. They seem to prefer getting distracted from the forest/jungle argument by counting the trees. Just say "lots of trees out there" and BAM technojargen and the postulation that it's a forest instead of a jungle*a totally un-tree number related argument* comes pasted from 1/2arsed articles and sophomore biology books across the internet.

which makes sense, you've got to confuse yourself into thinking that chaos could possibly create the wonderful intricacies and splendor that is creation on it's own somehow right?

I have yet to read any positive evidence for chaos in the gaps, or any predictive, testable capabilities of chaos in the gaps.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Atheism kills thought, attributing things, quite factually, to God inspires investigation.

Sorry guys, I wish I had helped you guys out in this thread a bit more. I think I'll get started.

Atheism kills thought? Atheism doesn't deny anything! Through scientific analysis and research athiests logically decided that the chance of god exsisting is so low thats basically equal to zero. Atheism is the lack of a beilef in any high power, thats it. Athiests believe god doesn't exsist!

Considering Christianity "requires" faith, I'd say those two don't do well with "thought".

Athiesm can be proven wrong, God would just have to show up in a way that would be unambiguous way. How come the miracles aren't happening that happen in the bible Kain? Explain that to me. Are we just smarter or did good just re-attach heads to people?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Why do arguments about the scientific validity of creationism always end up being criticisms of evolutionary biology made by those who do not know what they are talking about - why are we even discussing abiogenesis?

In ten pages of this thread, I have yet to read any positive evidence for creationism, or any predictive, testable capabilities of creationism. Why? Well, the answer is pretty simple.

I know the answer

 

[LordMagnusKain]

How come the miracles aren't happening that happen in the bible Kain? Explain that to me.

they are.
From the miracles the missionaries perform in Africa and South America to the miracles of science that God grants us through our dedication to understanding his hand.

Atheism kills thought?

humans have a desire to have an answer, as such atheism builds black boxes around things that are not understood in the same way those of faith do.

The problem is that when we call magnetism a ?force? we aren?t driven to look into that black box nearly as much as if that black box is ?God?s hand?

Now neither is any more right than the other, as magnetism is as much a force as it is the hand of God. This same situation is the essential argument that?s going on in this forum.

So let?s stop pretending we know answers to things we really don?t and just admit that we don?t know, should look into it and that any attempt to say we do know and the answer is ?chaos? ?a force? or ?God? is just a black-box that should be labeled ?needs further investigation?

 

[boran]

well no, god is the box that labels it as "no further investigation is necesseary because it is god" hence I prefer force or chaos. and complaining about technobabble. when you considder a science it is bound to get technical, it's not going to get easier. Except offcourse with ID, then it gets easier. it was just god that did it. and that's why ID is not a science, god did it is the end of the road. no further investigation necesseary no more need to research because god did it.
imho ID as a science is an insult for science, and that's why so few scientists actually go on ballistic mode and blow ID out of the water, because it is no science it is faith. talking to an ID propponent is talking to a believer.
Scientists are not believers in their theories, they would throw em right out of the window without the blink of an eye if there is enough proof to disproove their theory. in fact as stated before, if tomorrow someone finds a new advanced microscope and sees a blueprint imprinted on cells (unrealistic example but I'm trying to make a point here) we would have to conclude there was a design for the way cells behave. and I would accept that without any opposition or fuss or anything, because that's how science work. you improve upon theories by providing proof that it is invalid, but then also suggest a new theory. scientist still use a lot of theories that they know are not entirely correct or even know to be flawed. but as long as they do knot have enough knowledge to set up a new theory, the older one is used with the mysterious items annotated.

I have the notion many ID proponents havent got much of an idea how science works. if they find one scientific lab experiment that might point out their theory is valid they all jump on it like a pack of rabid dogs. and all the others get ignored. you can just hand pick evidence, you have to look at the entire picture. hell, the tobacco industry funds scientific research that sais cigarettes dont kill, does that throw out all the other studies ? no.. but the nasty point is, as soon as such a study is made, people start claiming "scientific research is not clear yet, because on says so and the other sais different" disgusts me. and it happens on more than just tabacco but that's going too far offtopic.

 

[JASANITY]

what is ID!!!

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: JASANITY
what is ID!!!

intelligent design - my understanding is that it implies that evolution alone couldn't have created the life we see today and that some "intelligent designer" is needed to have set things up to come out just right. while an interesting idea it is philosophical and not scientific in it's nature and therefore shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. this should really be the end of the discusssion on the topic but somehow it continues.

 

[Czar]

LordMagnusKain,
is ID science?