Re: evolve WASRe: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of dkemnitz2000

>

> This

> 1973 second edition author's, think everything came from

> nothing, ie " catalyzed chemicals in a " soup " . They consider

> chemical evolution merging into precellular biological

> evolution which would eventually yield the minimal unit of

> life that we can recognize: a genome containing,

> membrane-bounded cell within which a concentrated and

> efficient set of catalysts brings about both replication of

> the genetic material and synthesis of further catalysts.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't really have anything to do with

anything or I said. We've been talking about microevolution, not

abiogenesis, or even speciation.

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

> Ya since it took you a while to answer I looked in the micro

> book and in the first chapter find info similar to yours below. This

> 1973 second edition author's,

I revise my original suggestion that you read a source from this millenium. :-)

think everything came from nothing,

> ie " catalyzed chemicals in a " soup " . They consider chemical

> evolution merging into precellular biological evolution which would

> eventually yield the minimal unit of life that we can recognize: a

> genome containing, membrane-bounded cell within which a concentrated

> and efficient set of catalysts brings about both replication of the

> genetic material and synthesis of further catalysts. Viewed in these

> terms, " life " cannot be defined in terms of a cellular pattern of

> organization, or in terms of a given kind of molecule, but is

> defined in terms of self-replication from simpler substrates.

This is what you brought up the first time, which I said had nothing

to do with what we were talking about, and explained why.

> BUT

> get this, The POSTULATED precellular living systems have not been

> demonstrated. "

Not that I am saying they have been demonstrated, but doesn't anything

strike you as ... oh, suboptimal ... about using a book from 1973 to

determine what has and hasn't been demonstrated in 2006?

> Not all scientists believe this of course, you know

> what I mean.

In the relevant field, well over 99% of scientsts believe in

evolution. I'm not sure if I've seen figures for abiogenesis, but I

doubt it's much different. If you include, for example, economists --

in other words, scientists outside of the relevant specializations --

the number is something like 95%.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

> take a look (if you wish) at the scientific case for

> intelligent design entitled Unlocking the Mystery of Life, produced

> by Illustra Media. It was produced this century, but does include

> Darwin's stuff from the 1800's and you'll be interested to know Kent

> Hovand is not among this group of scientists.

Why would that be important?

> " W/o DNA there is no

> self replication but w/o self-replication there is no natural

> selection so we can't use natural selection to explain the origin of

> DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing you're TRYING

> to explain " , from Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

That's not actually true, but it isn't relevant to the point anyway.

As to the former, natural selection seen in a broad sense can really

act on anything and necessarily acts on everything. It is a form of

natural selection, seen in a broad sense, that phospholipids

spontaneously form enclosed spherical sacs, because all other

conformations violate the basic principles of chemistry, so they are

weeded out. But the basic laws of chemistry are very parallel to the

natural selection that governs biology and are ultimately the same

thing -- survival of the fittest, for any given environment. In

chemistry, even without life, this translates to survival of the

compounds and conformations that are in the lowest energy state and

survival of the reactions that increase entropy. It's really an

analog of biolical natural selection.

But on the more important latter point, that it is irrelevant, it

concerns abiogenesis, and as and I have both said several

times, we're not talking about that.

> Where do you get

> the idea 99% of all scientists believe in evolution? Are you

> including micro evolution?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

" According to Newsweek in 1987, " By one count there are some 700

scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of

480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to

creation-science... " That would make the support for creation science

among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life

forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very

differently. "

I didn't say 99% of all scientists. I specifically said that 95% of

scientists agree with evolution, but that almost all of these

scientsts are in irrelevant fields. The above quote purports to look

at relevant fields -- like geologists or biologists, for example,

rather than economists or psychologists, and indicates that 99.86% of

scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution.

> You're the one who several days ago

> mentioned microbes and evolve in the same sentence.

That's correct. And you are the one who asked me what the definition

of evolve was, and then after I clearly distinguished evolution for

abiogenesis before your first mention of abiogenesis, you have

continued to battle the very idea that I not only never mentioned but

explicitly declared that I was *not* talking about.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html