(February 18, 2016 at 3:01 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:When you start talking about how it may have happened this way or silicone molecules binding together, you have just left what the data shows, and entered into some wishful speculation. I don't know why you have this idea that molecules are constantly arranging themselves spontaneously to form more complex structures. Even the formation of a phosphodiester bond or an amide bond are not spontaneous reactions and are not thermodynamically favorable. Also once they form, there are enzymes that must constantly monitor and repair the DNA to make sure it doesn't spontaneously degrade. So you can't have this random molecules becoming more complex slowly, it just isn't what happens in chemistry. The more stable molecule is the most energetically favorable form, and DNA, proteins, or your mystery molecules are not the most stable form. You are getting WAY too speculative with your origin of life scenario, and deviating largely from the actual evidence.(February 18, 2016 at 11:15 am)AAA Wrote: No, we were talking about abiogenesis in the calculation portion. That is BEFORE it can reproduce and therefore evolve. So no it isn't a fallacy. Scientists think that there are about 250 -400 proteins needed by the simplest possible viable organism in order to enter the evolutionary pathway. We just calculated the unbelievable odds of one. So you do need a ton of sequential characters to line up in the correct sequence in order to start evolution. If it wasn't random, then what was it?
Scientists? What scientists, and why do you suddenly give a fuck what they think if they happen to be legit?
The bullshit here should be obvious: numerous and complex proteins are not required in order to "enter the evolutionary pathways", because evolution could not have begun molecules so complex as proteins. The bare rocks are not, and probably never were composed of any proteins, but self replicating molecules may have arisen in water, when silicaceous deposits bonded with some of the simple compounds which were in existence, and also happened to be bases which continued to evolve and form proteins. Such scenarios would not have been just one, but many (global), and without the competituon and predation of existing life forms, there was nothing to stop a few of these chains from moving forward. Like all the evolution which can in fact be observed, it begins simple, and changes very slowly. A few generations from out of the rocks would be barely comparable to anything which you would call modern biology, but then the viruses which survive today aren't much different. As it is with all life forms, you either become good at surviving in your current form, stop reproducing altogether and face outright extinctiont, or fade into extinction while a few of your offspring take advantage of your reproduction errors, keeping that change in the gene pool. When there have been many such surviving changes which began with you, and you were a now-extinct type of rodent, you may have a descendant who is a chimpanzee.
And yes natural selection does help the ones with the best genes survive. The question is are the best genes the ones that have been mutated or the ones that have avoided mutation? It can easily be viewed as a mechanism to remove the individuals with broken genes so that the broken genes don't pollute the population.
