Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/11 21:44:

> Actually, if he is talking about the drawings I *think* he is, then he 
> is wrong. Heckle's drawings where known, even in his own time, to be 
> inaccurate, but sort of provided an example of something that *does* 
> happen. Its the equivalent of showing a lot of pictures of seedlings, 
> all of which are "sort of" similar, at a specific stage, but may be 
> different prior to, and after, that stage. And even while similar, they 
> are not *quite* a similar as Heckle implied. The got used in text books, 
> for a while, by people that thought evolution was a real important thing 
> to know, but who themselves didn't know a damn thing about it. That is 
> kind of the point, which gets glossed over by deniers, its not 
> biologists, scientists or evo-devo people that **write** those text 
> books. They might advise about what goes into them, but that won't stop 
> a lot of morons, who do write them, from writing them in ways that are 
> inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete or just plain ignorant. That said, if 
> one reads 90% of the text books that contain the drawings in them, its 
> pretty obvious that the pictures have, for the most part, been displayed 
> as, "Here is an example of what **some** people thought about how it 
> worked, at one time. We now know they where wrong." This, in the mind of 
> those apposed to evolution constitutes, "They are still using them and 
> misleading people!" Sure, and, to use their own silly BS against them, 
> allowing the Bible to still include passages about golden cows means 
> their must still huge numbers of Christians with cow idols sitting in 
> their closets... lol
> 
> The only reason these drawings are even and issue any more is that the 
> reading comprehension of the average person using the argument is about 
> on the same level as their understanding of what they are trying to 
> dispute, which is to say, if they where my car mechanic, I would hire a 
> 6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't 
> be confused by discovering the car had tires, and didn't work by 
> sticking your feet through the floor, and running really fast.
> 
>>> Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".
>> And this has what to do with evolution?
>>
> Umm. Might as well ask what spontaneous formation of transistors would 
> have to do with silicon lifeforms, should such a thing ever be found. 
> Put simply, amino acids where *not supposed to be* possible without life 
> producing them. If you have to have a living cell to produce and amino 
> acid, you have a serious problem. If you get them *without* cells, then 
> the question is, "Could those combine in some way to produce something 
> like a cell?" It was a major "oops!" moment for early evolution 
> denialists. And, we know, from things like runaway prions. There is even 
> on article I read a while back saying that there are *detectable* sub-
> virus type cells, which have little more than a weak shell, and a tiny 
> fragment of code in them, which a) can't infect a host to case 
> replication, and b) can't replicate themselves, yet **somehow** manage 
> to exist, despite the fact that they lack the most basic two mechanisms 
> to reproduce themselves, and their internal code can often be so simple 
> that it barely creates the "shell" they use to shield themselves from 
> the environment around them. The going theory is that some sets of these 
> things do contain "partial" replication code, and that when they come in 
> contact with code from another partial replicator, which has the missing 
> fragments, they can combine and generate replicants of "both" pseudo 
> organisms. It isn't hard to imagine one of those suffering a coding 
> error during replication, which produced a "combined" code, in one 
> stronger cell, which had "all" of the code needed to self replicate.
> 
> Problem is, I wouldn't even have a clue where to look for the article on 
> them. I think it was in Discovery Magazine, but not sure, or even what 
> year that the article was in. Its also one of those fields that a) 
> doesn't interest most biologists (who cares about something that 
> **can't** infect you?), and b) is kind of laughed off, more or less the 
> way they did black holes, until someone discovered one. Oh, and it may 
> have just been absorbed into the current pursuits of the main theory, 
> without anyone taking much notice, kind of a, "Well, this is 
> interesting, but what can it tell me about how viruses *became* viruses 
> and how their DNA works?"
> 
There are DNA less "cells" that do reproduce. Start with an aminoacids wich 
solution. Add a little heat. Have some clay added in the mix. Wait a few hours 
and you get cell sized spherules that have enclosed cellular shells. Wait a few 
more days and you start finding some things looking like internal cellular 
elements, but no nucleus and no DNA nor RNA. After some time, you'll notice that 
the protocells are more numerous. Look closely and, with a little luck, you can 
spot one or some of those actualy dividing.
Similar organisms have actualy been found in nature. They don't have any genetic 
code at all, but they do reproduce, never grow older and any individual can 
literaly "live" for millenias. Those who discovered them even wondered why those 
never completely chocked the caverns where they where discovered.

A theory say that DNA actualy apeared outside any cell, then got inside some 
archaic cells, causing the apearence of the cells as we know them today. In a 
way, DNA would be a kind of cellular parasit, at least originaly.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when 
you are not.

Post a reply to this message