Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Tripe]

*Sigh*

The theory of evolution doesn't describe the origin of life it describes the diversity of life. Inability to understand this basic fact is what causes all the trouble. It's also a straw man put up by Creationists against teaching the theory.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

*Sigh*

The theory of evolution doesn't describe the origin of life it describes the diversity of life. Inability to understand this basic fact is what causes all the trouble. It's also a straw man put up by Creationists against teaching the theory.

there's my common ground, I knew it was around here somewhere

[Zandrax]

*Sigh*

The theory of evolution doesn't describe the origin of life it describes the diversity of life. Inability to understand this basic fact is what causes all the trouble. It's also a straw man put up by Creationists against teaching the theory.

But like I said, if you open up a science textbook, that's what you get for the theory of the origin of life. I get that Evolution and the Big Bang are two different things.

[bettertomorrowamy]

The origin of life wouldn't go all the way back to the Big Bang anyway if you are talking about actual living organisms that could evolve into us.
The building block amino acids were formed from combinations of elements that took millions of years to coalesce into something we could consider alive.  The Big Bang was just the explosion of a singularity in space-time that supposedly created the universe.  Whether God started that explosion or it was a natural occurrence is the real question.  All scientists can try to understand is what we have testable evidence for.  Evolution describes the natural selection of changing and adapting organisms over time that are governed by the laws of the universe we live in.

[Zandrax]

The origin of life wouldn't go all the way back to the Big Bang anyway if you are talking about actual living organisms that could evolve into us.
The building block amino acids were formed from combinations of elements that took millions of years to coalesce into something we could consider alive.  The Big Bang was just the explosion of a singularity in space-time that supposedly created the universe.  Whether God started that explosion or it was a natural occurrence is the real question.  All scientists can try to understand is what we have testable evidence for.  Evolution describes the natural selection of changing and adapting organisms over time that are governed by the laws of the universe we live in.

But we haven't been able to see any evidence of amino acids producing life. It's just been the idea that we haven't seen it because it takes millions of years. It is no more or less provable than a creation by God, a Spaghetti Monster, or a time-space continuum disruption.

Again, I have not seen the film, but from what I've gathered it doesn't challenge the evolutionary process. Heck, it doesn't even claim ID is right. But I could be wrong about that.

For the record, as far as the origin of life, either both should be taught (not likely to happen) or neither (more neutral).

[Variety of Cells]

For the record, as far as the origin of life, either both should be taught (not likely to happen) or neither (more neutral).

Just not in a science class.

[torgosPizza]

But what people like Stein are pointing out is that there is no more evidence to prove that we're all crap that crawled out of the sea left over from some giant explosion.

There isn't???

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/backg.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

Sorry, I'm just saying - the people who claim "there is no evidence," as ID proponents often do, really have some research to be doing. I know these are just Internet links, but for every 1 link I post there are 50 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, available at most libraries. It's free to join a library, so I don't know why more people don't go there and do some reading on this important subject (especially when they try to refute it!).

[Zandrax]

But what people like Stein are pointing out is that there is no more evidence to prove that we're all crap that crawled out of the sea left over from some giant explosion.

There isn't???

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/backg.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

Sorry, I'm just saying - the people who claim "there is no evidence," as ID proponents often do, really have some research to be doing. I know these are just Internet links, but for every 1 link I post there are 50 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, available at most libraries. It's free to join a library, so I don't know why more people don't go there and do some reading on this important subject (especially when they try to refute it!).

I know about Big Bang stuff, it's the life starting out of essentially lifeless material that I wonder about. Hence why I said "crap left over from an explosion".

[acoletterose]

But we haven't been able to see any evidence of amino acids producing life. It's just been the idea that we haven't seen it because it takes millions of years. It is no more or less provable than a creation by God, a Spaghetti Monster, or a time-space continuum disruption.

There actually have been experiments that have attempted to form amino acids from inorganic compounds whereby you zap the inorganic compounds with electricity so that they form amino acids. Once you have amino acids, RNA can be formed. Ribozymes, a type of RNA molecule, have been synthesized in labs and they can catalyze short oligonucleotides (short polymers of nucleotides). Ribozymes themselves act like catalysts and store information (a rather necessary part of life). These ribozymes can then process oligonucleotides and replicate itself.

RNA needs a place to form and there is a theory that early polymers were assembled on solid, mineral surfaces (this would protect them from degradation/degeneration). And again, in the labs, polypeptides and polynucleotides (RNA molecules) containing about 50 units have been synthesized on mineral (e.g., clay) surfaces.

And, in case you needed a reminder, DNA is transformed by proteins in the body into RNA before it's information is processed by ribosomes (ribozymes - - -ribosomes, get it?) to create lovely things like your face.

But like I said, if you open up a science textbook, that's what you get for the theory of the origin of life. I get that Evolution and the Big Bang are two different things.

THIS is what you get for the origin of life, if you ever open a textbook. The only textbooks out there that describe evolution or the big bang theory as the theories that cover the origin of life are the ones produced by ID idiots that have no idea what they are arguing against.

[Zandrax]

You speak of the 1953 Stanley Miller experiment, which even Stanley Miller thought was not good evidence.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9314251_ITM

Well, perhaps it was Miller who missed the bet. Today his scenario is regarded with misgivings. One reason is that geologists now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation." How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."

[acoletterose]

Even if it didn't work, and there are other theories, the assembly of proteins is what I Just explained.

Mineral surfaces allow for larger nucleotide groups to form. RNA is a polypeptide which can form on mineral surfaces and have been formed in laboratories.

This argument centers on the fact that all metabolism depends on enzymes and, until recently, every enzyme has turned out to be a protein. That until recently happens to be the point where ribozymes were discovered. Ribozymes have both features of life: enzymatic activity and storage of information. And they AREN'T proteins.

[acoletterose]

and they have the ability to form polymers by covalently linking oligonucleotides

[torgosPizza]

That article is a tad old. There's more updated info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey (pasted from there)

What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production.

Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration?

Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review)

(emphasis mine)

[torgosPizza]

FYI, all of those cited sources are linked in the original FAQ (I don't have time to link them all) in case you're looking for peer support of these theories.

[BathTub]

The push of the film is that Scientists who dare to mention ID are 'Expelled'. Except of course the writer of the film couldn't actually name anyone who was fired for that.

Hmm that latest video from Thunderf00t seems a bit of topic, I guess it's more Why do people laugh at Ben Stein".