Evolution Pros and Cons

[questor]

It seems that this thread degenerated into an argument about creationism/deities/god/religion, etc. rather than what I mentioned in my opening
statement. ( quote)''It is obvious that environment influences variation in species, all one has to do is observe the different skin colors in Homo Sapiens.to see these results. These of course are macro variations and we do not know the biochemical reactions in genes that ocurred to cause these differences.''
My request was that anyone who understood the biochemical basis of life, which of necessity yields the mechanisms for evolution as well as any other life process, would explain these processes. This brought a deluge of links which, although interesting and informative did not answer the question. The truth is that currently this information is not known. If it was, then man could create life. We know the building blocks of life, we know the genetic molecule, we know the composition of enabling enzymes,but we can't yet make reproductive life which sustains itself. Without life, there would be no evolution or creationism or any thing else to argue about. Here is an interesting link on the subject: The biochemical basis of life
INMHO creationism has many meanings, the most common of which is tied in to
religion. It seems that most people cannot envision a universe which had some type
of intelligent design without interjecting the god argument. I myself have no way of knowing how the universe came to be, so I will wait for the truth. If it happens that man can make life, I think the god argument will go away, but the creation debate may continue.
When we fully understand the biochemical basis of life we will be able to diagnose, prevent, and treat most genetic disease and malformations.We will also be able to explain the biochemical basis of evolution and life itself.

[Zythryn]

When we fully understand the biochemical basis of life we will be able to diagnose, prevent, and treat most genetic disease and malformations.

Does this mean that since I fully understand gravity, I can prevent falling?
Understanding does not equate to the ability to create.

[HydrogenBond]

I started this thinking in the other evolutionary discussion about Darwin. Modern evolutionary theory has a connection to Darwin and the Origin of Species. His observations were based on the final affects of evolution, with selective advantage a good way to correlate the observable data. This was evolution 1.0. Later genetics was added as the cause behind the selective advantage affect. Currently these two have blended to give a good model for evolution. This is evolution 2.0.

The next logical step, is evolution 3.0. where we fill in the middle area between genetic cause and the selective advantage affect. In other words, once a new gene appears, through mutations, for example, it first has to be integrated at the cellular level, before the final affect of selective advantage can occur. Just making a new gene does not address how the cell will deal with something that it never saw before, and how it turns this into something stable so it can allow a selective advantage.

As an analogy, to get a better feel for this middle step, consider someone who thinks up the idea of a better mousetrap. This is analogous to a new gene. Selective advantage is analogous to when this new invention reaches the market place and is able to compete and gain market share.

Between the conception of the idea and the selective advantage in the market place, there is the prototype stage where you build a working device that can demonstrate the concept. Then there is the need to interface this prototype to a production facility, so it can be mass produced in a cost effective way. There is also the need to build up distribution and marketing. When all these steps are satisfied, then we get selective advantage. In version 2.0 we go from conception of a new gene, to mousetrap tycoon, in one step. In version 3.0, we look at the middle steps in more detail.

For example, birds evolve feathers. We also know this helps with flight, which is a big selective advantage. We also know the feathers can be traced to genetic changes. The question is, how did the cell go from that new never been seen before gene, which it is not set up yet for production, and put it into production and distribution, so the bird can use it to gain selective advantage?

What would happen if there was a good gene, full of potential, but the middle steps have a problem. It will never reach selective advantage. Or say, there is a good gene full of potential, but it needs some basic changes to occur first, it could lay dormant and show up much later. Version 3.0 will create a better bridge between genetic cause the selective advantage affect.

Let me give another analogy. The hydrogen auto engine is like a new gene. This is going through its own middle stage but has not yet gained selective advantage in the free market. The reason is, before it can burst onto the scene, we first need to set up a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The engine may be ready to go, but has to lie dormant until other changes occur. All of a sudden it looks like a just appears, even though it was developed decades earlier.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...For example, birds evolve feathers. We also know this helps with flight, which is a big selective advantage. We also know the feathers can be traced to genetic changes. The question is, how did the cell go from that new never been seen before gene, which it is not set up yet for production, and put it into production and distribution, so the bird can use it to gain selective advantage?....

You posted all that just to raise up the old "where did feathers come from?" diatribe?

The origin of the feather was solved some time ago. Feathers were an advantageous modification of scales. The advantage was in heat retention, insulation. Natural selection selected for the ability to tolerate periods of intense cold without adding significant weight (like fat deposits would). The ancestors of birds had feathers long before they started taking to the air.

Now can we talk about something else?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by questor

...My request was that anyone who understood the biochemical basis of life, which of necessity yields the mechanisms for evolution as well as any other life process, would explain these processes. ...

I would like to point out that YOU do not understand biochemistry, have made NO attempts to explain biochemistry, and have shown no clues that you have a background in biochemistry.

Why should we waste our time, DQ, if you are not "up" for supporting your side of this "conversation"? You demand that WE do all the research and brain work and you just ignore it, or dismiss it.

This is not just a response to you, but to ALL the posters in this thread. You are apparently not here to learn about biochemistry or the chemical beginnings of life. People who contribute to your threads invariably become frustrated with your uncooperative, contemptuous and dismissive attitude. So, why should we go to any trouble for you?

Perhaps we should ignore YOU and start our own thread.
Your serious and well-considered responses are welcome.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I would like to point out that YOU do not understand biochemistry, have made NO attempts to explain biochemistry, and have shown no clues that you have a background in biochemistry....People who contribute to your threads invariably become frustrated with your uncooperative, contemptuous and dismissive attitude....

Perhaps we should ignore YOU and start our own thread.
Your serious and well-considered responses are welcome.

Interesting post, Pyro. I have mixed feeling about posting a response to this, but I decided to go ahead.

My experience here on Hypography does not really support that position that a well-framed argument gets well-framed scientific responses. Most participants here are (as we would expect) novices in most subject areas. In any new thread, any poster with an informed position necessarily has to post some sort of "science 101" discussion to undergird an argument. My own experience in discussions that involve biochemistry (specifically) is that the process of undergirding an argument (with entry-level detail) makes most folks drop out (or change topics). Very narrow threads get a very narrow audience. Broader threads attract a mix of folks, most of whom are (necessarily) novices. Novices tend not to think in the scientific method. They take a positoin a defend it. Science sorts do that too, but hopefully with a little more data driven perspective. That is probably generally true, but there are certainly a lot of counterexamples on these forums.

All that being said, all big areas of science have factions. That is not going to go away soon. I thought it was sort of our job to (at least occasionally) attempt to go through the "science 101" discussions here to bring the novices up to speed.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the only folks who should start threads are holders of scientifically sound positions. Are you?

Bio

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Interesting post, Pyro. I have mixed feeling ...It sounds like you are suggesting that the only folks who should start threads are holders of scientifically sound positions. Are you?...

Good question, and you raise a valid point.

No, I am NOT suggesting that only "qualified" folks can start threads. My comment was directed specifically and entirely to Questor, who has been starting, hijacking and posting in threads here at Hypography for some time. He has been suspended for his behavior multiple times.

It was fine for Q to start a thread on a subject he knew nothing about. I've done that. But I wanted to learn something. Or I wanted to know if what I "knew" was shared by others. When necessary, I was willing to research Wikipedia or wherever in search of facts and opinions. Q does not do these things. This is a conclusion reached by monitoring his posts for a long time. It appears that he often copies long and very technically detailed texts from creationist websites and posts them here, and demands that we refute it. Even when we do, it makes no difference with him. After a time, he posts the same or similar texts and begins all over again. He, himself, makes little if any contribution to the thread at all.

Comments?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

No, I am NOT suggesting that only "qualified" folks can start threads....
Comments?

Understood. I am not aware of any position taken by the keepers of the keys here about the nature of "contribution" when a thread is launched. I think it would be a useful exercise for Tormod and company to list some obligations for a thread starter. I sort of like the idea.

Bio

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Understood. I am not aware of any position taken by the keepers of the keys here about the nature of "contribution" when a thread is launched. I think it would be a useful exercise for Tormod and company to list some obligations for a thread starter. I sort of like the idea.

Bio

The only obligations for a thread starter are to follow the site rules.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by freeztar

The only obligations for a thread starter are to follow the site rules.

Absolutely.

But after a while, it may become obvious that the thread starter is just leading a wild goose chase. When I see this is the case, I generally:
1) craft several responses that show the "perp" he/she is being monitored
2) confront the "perp" via PM that his/her tactics are trollish and request a change
3) issue a few negative-reps for the more egregious posts
4) issue infractions with accompanying explanatory notes
5) describe the trollish tactics to the entire thread and demand the "perp" change
6) engage other moderators in a concensus conversation
7) permanently or temporarily ban the "perp"