The Anthropic principle - was Earth made for man?

[newtonian]

green_meklar - The Scientific American article on Prions is in the January, 1995 issue - I will post more after I study it.

 

[newtonian]

green_meklar - OK, the Sciam article confirmed the information in "Awake!" (1/22/05, p. 27) that prions multiply by binding to normal prion proteins and causing them to misfold.<br /><br />Thus, they are not reproducing. They are causing normal prion proteins to misfold, thus increasing the infectious variety of prion protein<br /><br />Clearly prions cannot cause new prions without pre-existing prions to misfold.<br /><br />Here are two excerpts from Sciam:<br /><br />From Scientific American, 1/95, p. 48<br /><br />"prions (pronounced preeons) multiply in an incredible way;<br />they convert normal protein molecules<br />into dangerous ones simply by inducing<br />the benign molecules to change<br />their shape.”<br /><br />p. 54 caption of illustration showing showing the way prions multiply:<br /><br />“PROPAGATION OF SCRAPIE PrP in neurons<br />of the brain apparently occurs by<br />a kind of domino effect on some internal<br />membrane. A favored <br />holds that the process begins (a) when<br />one molecule of scrapie PrP (red) contacts<br />a normal PrP molecule (brown)<br />and induces it to refold into the scrapie<br />conformation (b). Then the scrapie particles<br />attack other normal PrP molecules<br />(c). Those molecules, in turn, attack<br />other normal molecules, and so on<br />(broken arrow), until scrapie PrP accumulates<br />to dangerous levels (d).”<br /><br /><br /><br />On p. 51 Sciam discusses another prion disease, one inherited due to a point mutation in DNA which substituted one base pair out of 750 in one gene which caused codon 102 to have the wrong information, and therefore caused the prion protein produced by this gene to have a substituted amino acid leucine for the correct amino acid proline in the prion protein.<br /><br />I should emphasize again that prion proteins are informational proteins, and that infectious (disease) prions contain mis-information which becomes misfolding.<br /><br />The evidence for intelligent design in this study is twofold (at least):<br />

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> DNA evidences shows all extant human races come from one father, and mitochondrial DNA evidence shows all human races come from one mother. </font><br /><br />Firstly, DNA cannot show that we are all ancestors of <i> one </i> father, but rather it shows a high probability that we were descended from one original tribe. It's not that simple.<br /><br />Secondly, the fact that the human race is as diverse (different skin colour, bone structures, the differences between caucasian and aboriginal races etc etc) as it is today shows that we have <i> evolved </i> from that original tribe.<br /><br />And all humans <b> are </b> the ancestors of primates. We share 99.4% DNA with chimpanzees for example (Note: we are <b> not </b> descended from chimps). We can follow the chain of evolution through fossil evidence to ours and the chimps common ancestors and beyond. It is when you get to the simplest forms of life that the fossil evidence gets scarce. But it stands to reason that all life on this planet evolved from that simpest form of life.<br /><br />The question we are trying to answer is, as you say, how did that simple life form get here?<br /><br />So I would like to know where exactly you think intelligent design has happened? In the creation of the universe, but not in the creation of all planets? Or in the creation of all planets but not in the plants and animals that live on them? Or in just the simplest form of life but not all plants and creatures? Or in all plants and creatures but not all the random stuff floating about in the universe? Or in everything? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - On one father - no its not that simple - but please explain why you feel all races came from one tribe but not one father.<br /><br />On one mother - all mitochondrial DNA traits have been shown to come from one mother's mitochondrial DNA.<br /><br />The phenomenon of equidistance in percent divergence in various molecules of life, e.g. cytochrome C- does indeed show similarities in similar life forms (like chimps and humans) but does not show any pattern of decent. All are equidistant from bacteria (nearly equidistant, and with no evolutionary pattern in this.<br /><br />Similarity does not prove descent.<br /><br />One of the problems with macro-evolution models is that major traits, such as wings, come from different genes in different major classes of life - i.e. the phenomenon of homologous traits from non-homologous genes.<br /><br />Another problem with that model is pleiotropy - the coding for totally different traits in one gene. <br /><br />I am short on time now, so I will have to post more on this later.<br /><br />You should note, however, that there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution.<br /><br />Now you ask where do I believe intelligent design is manifest?<br /><br />There are many - I really should make a list - but it would be so long!<br /><br />The field of biomimetics would give you many examples - their are many designs in nature superior to what has been designed by mere human intelligence - and science learns from these amazing designs.<br /><br />I'll start with two - their is a whole database somewhere on the net containing many of these:<br /><br />1. The golden angle in many flowers and fruits and vegetables.<br /><br />2. The Gecko's feet utilizing attraction at the quantum level.<br /><br />I would add that a general, more inclusive answer involving life would be the existence of informational molecules.<br /><br />Back on thread theme, here is one way earth is made for man, as I see it:<br /><br />(Job 12:7-9) . . .However, ask, please, the dom

 

[newtonian]

steve - Yes, we agree prions do not reproduce, and we agree also on the details - that is fine - why did you post that to me?

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - Now, your last post states I am wrong, but it is not addressed to me - again, why?<br /><br />I am not wrong. <br /><br />The model you describe is simply an imagined way out of the evidence for one mother.<br /><br />Obviously, since no other woman's mitochondrial DNA survived their is no evidence any other woman's mitochondrial DNA ever existed.<br /><br />And mitochondrial DNA is indeed from the mother only - not simply likely, btw.<br /><br />Now, in the VCR tape I have on an educational program a number of years ago entitled "children of Eve," it was not only shown that all human races derived from one mother - but also the chart showed all races crossing at 3 mothers somewhere in the ancient past.<br /><br />This fits the last catastophe, which greatly narrowed the human gene pool, and through which only 3 mitochondrial DNA's survived. Four women survived, but one mother had 3 sons and no daughters.<br /><br />A mother with only sons and no daughters would not transmit her Mitrochondrial DNA.

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - You have displayed a lack of knowledge of population genetics and have made false accusations.<br /><br />For example, you posted:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In fact, the Bible doesn't even mention genetics and modern genetics and evolutionary models are totally opposed to the idea of Adam & Eve. There were large numbers of pre-humans, a full breeding population. There was and always were. To believe that our race started out with two people is a violation of population genetics. There is such a thing a minimal breeding population. IN other words the number of recessives in a small related population is so large, that if it breeds within itself it will steadily go to extinction. This is happening right now with the Amish.</font><br /><br />The latter part of that has some correct points - narrowing the gene pool does force recessive traits out.<br /><br />What you fail to mention is why.<br /><br />Mutations are mostly recessive and are mostly harmful. Human races have accumulated many harmful recessive gene sequences.<br /><br />However, these all came to existence after the human race was created.<br /><br />Part of the problem with humans is the narrowing of the gene pool. <br /><br />However, you also miss the fact that when the human race was created the gene pool was very wide, not at all narrow.<br /><br />At that origin harmful recessive traits were rare and the many genes that have been lost due to extinctions, etc., were still present.<br /><br />The Biblical model that all human races come from two parents is not only in harmony with population genetics but is also indicated by the genetic evidence.

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - On the accumulation of harmful recessive traits due to harmful mutations (you brought up evolution, and mutations are appealed to along with natural selection as a mechanism for evolution):<br /><br />"Helpful—or Harmful?<br /><br />“Mutations cause changes in the genetic material governing heredity,” he told me, adding: “Natural selection preserves the advantageous ones, and as they accumulate over many generations new species evolve.”<br /><br />“But,” I said, “mutations are blind, random, accidental changes in the genetic material. Can such undirected changes improve highly complex structures of amazingly intricate design?”<br /><br />He answered: “It’s true that most mutations are harmful, but rarely one is beneficial.” Then he used an illustration found in some evolutionary writings, saying: “It’s like pelting your car with rocks. Most of the time you’ll do damage, but the millionth rock might hit the carburetor just right and improve the adjustment. That’s how mutations work.”<br /><br />I wondered if I would like to be hit by a million rocks just to get one questionable improvement in my body. So I told him: “Of course, by the time the millionth stone ‘improved’ the carburetor, the 999,999 preceding ones would have smashed the radiator, cracked the battery, knocked loose the wiring, broken the spark plugs, shattered the windshield, broken the instruments on the dashboard and crumpled the body and gas tank.” The next million stones would likely smash the carburetor too!<br /><br />“No,” he countered, “that’s where natural selection comes in. It would eliminate the damaging mutations.”<br /><br />“Evolutionists would like to think so,” I said, “but they know better. Most mutations are recessive and accumulate in a genetic pool. They repeatedly crop up in future generations to maim or kill the organisms. It is this accumulating genetic load that many geneticists think causes degeneration, old age and death. Indeed, they fear it is pushing man toward a biological ‘

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33- On genetic evidence all races have come from one mother and one father:<br /><br />"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it." - "Is there a Creator who cares for us?", 1998, p. 98.

 

[newtonian]

green_meklar - you posted:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In reply to:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Is there some selection mechanism that would favor an informational molecule before the origin of life?<br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Well, depending on how you want to define life, any nonrandom selection in favor of complex molecules might already make the molecules alive. So I'd say that prelife conditions probably did not specially select complex molecules, just that the presence of water along with carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, etc made it likely for complex chemical reactions to occur.</font><br /><br />Well, complex chemical reactions perhaps.<br /><br />Informational molecules - no!<br /><br />For example, water (H2O) reacting with HCN (hydrogen cyanice, containing one atom each of hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen) will normally produce formic acid primarily, not more complex polymers.<br /><br />Some polymers are produced but these also react with water, as do even more complex polymers.<br /><br />The actual evidence in chemistry is against chemical reactions producing even complex polypeptides, certainly not informational proteins!<br /><br />The amino acid sequences, in order to be useful to life, have to be selected to include only the 20 needed for life, and these must be chiral (all left-handed polarized) and alpha-peptide bonded.<br /><br />The correct isomers must also be selected, as most isomers are not useful to life.<br /><br />The reason for this involves the complex 3-d folding of proteins, the very thing disease prions ruin by introducing incorrect folding.<br /><br />The creation of an informational protein with information that can be translated and used in mechanisms where such function is useful is simply not possible without an intelligent creator.<br /><br />Intelligent chemists thus far have not been able to

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - you asked:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The question we are trying to answer is, as you say, how did that simple life form get here? <br /><br />So I would like to know where exactly you think intelligent design has happened?</font><br /><br />And you went on to list various areas.<br /><br />Since thread theme is Earth, I would like to get back to thread theme - I have already responded concerning biomimetics showing intelligent design greater than humans and from which scientists are learning much.<br /><br />See learning from the designs in nature<br /><br />biomimetics<br /><br />But earth is also designed to make life enjoyable for us.<br /><br />Here is a partial quote discussing some of the ways earth was made for man:<br /><br />"The Earth—Was It “Founded” by Chance?<br /><br />TO AVOID extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the ‘habitable zone’—that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size.<br /><br />If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth’s precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?<br /><br />Then the earth’s gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. “More importantly,” explains the sci

 

[qso1]

You make a lot of good points about earth and it being made for man, ideal conditions such as orbit, temperatures, etc. The problem is, earth is nowhere near as perfect as one might theorize or one should expect a supreme being to make it.<br /><br />Much of earth is actually not habitable by humans. 71% covered in water, oceans, humans can only survive in oceans in a boat. And the water is salty. Man would have to bring his own water supply. Look at the way man has come about. A polar bear can survive long cold winters by hibernating. Drop a human in the arctic circle and they will die from exposure to the elements. Africans in impoverished places where natural resources are far scarcer than they are here.<br /><br />Even religious folks speak of how blessed the U.S. is. This seems to acknowledge a lot of other countries or lands are less blessed. And the facts bear that out. Desert locations such as those found in Iraq. What a miserable place that country looks like to live in. Even in the U.S. we cluster around mostly coastal or agriculturally well off areas. Las Vegas is out in the middle of the desert and exists mainly because of the Hoover dam which allows for enough water to be available for irrigation, some farming, but mainly as a resource that otherwise is not available in large quantities naturally.<br /><br />Newtonian:<br />In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the ‘habitable zone’—that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water.<br /><br />Me:<br />Most of the exoworlds I'm aware of were discovered in torch orbits and are multiple jupiter mass worlds. Do you have a link to specifically mention exoworlds that are in habitable zones as we currently define them?<br /><br />If so, they would probably be not much smaller than Neptune because we haven't detected any planet smaller than Neptune last I checked. But it does raise the question. What would happen if we found other earthlike worlds support <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Newtonian, you keep harping back to the same old arguements, about how everything is so "finely-tuned" that it must have been intelligently designed for life.<br /><br />I will keep harping back to the premise that it simply happened by a chance combination of factors, and we are the lucky life forms who inhabit this place.<br /><br />If all this DID happen by chance, any vaguely intelligent life forms would assume (before working out it happened by chance) that it must have been made for them. You seem to be one of those life forms.<br /><br />Throughout history mankind has attributed the phenomena he sees around him to spiritual or godlike causes. Natural disasters, eclipses, mental illness, the seasons, birth defects - the list of things we have misunderstood in the past is huge! Your views are just a modern projection of this, however much you try to validate them with science. Someone sees a face of a deity in a pomegranite and thinks it is a divine message. The pattern is there so it must have been PUT there?<br /><br />Me? I will continue to consider our place in the universe as an intrinsically lucky one! And I will try to actually find out how this place works so we can make the best use of it all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>