Atheist Nexus Logo

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4172
Latest Activity: 12 hours ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Bud Light Withdraws Offensive Slogan

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne on Friday. 16 Replies

Dinosaur Highway

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Gerald Payne on Wednesday. 8 Replies

Evolution is a FACT, not a theory.

Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Joseph P Apr 25. 15 Replies

L'homme "blanc" n'existe en Europe que depuis 6500 BC

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Gerald Payne Apr 16. 1 Reply

ORIGIN OF ATHEIST PRIDE

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Gerald Payne Apr 15. 196 Replies

Chimps Seen Making and Using Spears

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Apr 14. 3 Replies

Why sex? The evolution of sex

Started by Rick Springfield Apr 12. 0 Replies

Scientists Say not all Traits are Directly from DNA

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Apr 5. 6 Replies

Coffee Lowers Risk of Liver Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 4. 20 Replies

Ice Age Floods - Columbia River Basalt Group

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 27. 5 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Ezra David Rose on September 1, 2011 at 11:20pm

@Rod

So where is the FB Evo group? I want in...

 

Comment by Julie Carter on September 1, 2011 at 9:18pm
OMG, those two videos on the front page! I can't stop laughing!! How can we possibly respond to that? LMAO.
Comment by Julie Carter on September 1, 2011 at 8:59pm
What a great idea, Rod! Thanks for the link. (And what's the FB Evolution group? I'd love to take a look.)
Comment by gerry gallacher on September 1, 2011 at 7:48pm
Thanks Bob I found 'Darwins's Dog' to be just what I was looking for.
Comment by Rod MacLeod on September 1, 2011 at 11:48am
Yup, it has only been up a month. I set it up but there is  bunch of us  from a Facebook Evolution Group  that are contributing to it. Much of the inspiration comes from creationist Facebook Groups that we keep getting banned from! :)
Comment by Joseph P on September 1, 2011 at 11:01am
Heh, nice. What is that site, something like The Onion, only mostly leftist-leaning?
Comment by Rod MacLeod on September 1, 2011 at 9:47am
Comment by gerry gallacher on September 1, 2011 at 9:43am
Many thanks to all who supplied answers to my question...well appreciated.
Comment by Ezra David Rose on August 31, 2011 at 2:06pm

@Justin

 

On the subject of whether or not polypeptides have a function on their own, keep in mind that polypeptides are largely what enzymes and coenzymes tend to be. And you basically pointed this out where you said: "There is some very interesting chemistry on using simple polypeptides as catalysts for different chemical reactions." By saying that, you basically illustrated the exact function of enzymes and coenzymes.

Comment by Justin on August 31, 2011 at 9:22am

I believe that the main indictment of protein evolution is that short polypeptides (e.g., protein fragments made up of a few amino acids) don't have function on their own, and therefore it is difficult to imagine how they would exert any selection pressure for future generations that would cause them to develop further.  This is a little bit of a strawman since the claim isn't that proteins have to suddenly have a fully developed function from day one is not made by scientists.  All you really need to get is a self-replicating molecule or one that promotes some change in the surrounding environment that is advantageous (say, by sequestering a harmful pollutant).  There is some very interesting chemistry on using simple polypeptides as catalysts for different chemical reactions, which I believe provides a sound basis for the idea that even simple polypeptides can have useful properties, but some gaps still need to be filled in.  Another factor is that complexity of polypeptides grows very rapidly once you start assembling fragments of three or four amino acids to one another.  They don't have to be built up one amino acid at a time, and therefore you have access to a big diversity of polypeptides in fewer steps.

 

There is also the question of how formed proteins can evolve in ways that require two or more "random" site mutations (i.e., where two parts of a protein must change "simultaneously" to give the positive effect).  This one has been debunked by the science now.  The basic idea is that one site mutation might not have a positive effect, but it also might not have a significant negative effect to select against it, so it could be carried forward into future generations (no selection pressure).  Then, when the second mutation comes along, the positive effect manifests and you have your advantage.

 

Members (4172)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service