text:
5 best proofs of evolution
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA523527
And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... earth.html
So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
Hey thanks for the links here , very good info but i dont think we can draw too many conclusions here, especial about the long term variances, either way its very intersting and i will be keeping my eyes out for sure!
Well from the second link it appears that a simpler explanation than neutrino affecting decay rate, it is the air temperature that affects the detctor.
If you google the subject you will find that other things can affect the decay rate of certain atoms (notably Beta emitters), notably the atomic structure of the molecules they are part of. However the decay is identical for all atoms in the same structure. But even if the Jenkins/Fischer effect and the results presented by Dr Sturrock were wrong (and I now tend to think they are, the atomic clocks in orbit do not present any variations of decay rate, while being exposed to the same neutrino flux), at least I learned a few things from that.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
This will help unravel some present nature's complexities:
Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
Again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 ... index&bb=0
[Mod Edit: no need to paste a copy of your blog's rambling in this thread. The link is enough. If you want to add something that would be on topic and comment you are welcome, otherwise, abstain]
Evolution is a theory - there are no proofs for evolution or any other biological theory. The term "theory" as used here is not just a guess, it has special substance in the concept of science.
See: www.ohiosci.org/Whatisscience.PDF
Re: 5 best proofs of evolution
I have a problem with the whole dating schematic. There are experts who claim to know the dates of rocks based on specialized equipment designed to discern the rocks based on how they have aged.
1.) Who designed the machines?
2.) Who tests?
3.) Who verifies the tests?
4.) How are the tests verified?
5.) How is the accuracy of the testing known?
6.) Is it possible to accurately test dates in this - or any - manner?
I'm not saying that the earth is young, or that the dating is inaccurate, but it seems to be a system with a built in predilection towards anomalous findings.
Re: 5 best proofs of evolution
Religious fanaticism is the fabric of anti-religion.
There are no Christian Terrorist Groups, only groups terrorizing Christianity.
Re: 5 best proofs of evolution
Ive been watching a lot of debates recently between Dawkins and Christians or theists. Dawkins is supremely confident and even arrogant as long as he is talking about evolution of the species but as soon as a question comes up about initial origins he starts looking for the exit. The reason is that evolutionary theory assumes the existence of an enormously complicated self-replicating system vastly more complex than a computer. Science has zero to say about how such a system came into existence to begin with. Dawkins usually says something like, "we are working on that one." The problems of such a system emerging on earth are so vast that it has people who are slaves to naturalism, like Dawkins, making such bold statements as it must have been seeded on earth by some alien space creatures. Of course that just begs the question of where they came from. A monkey sitting at a computer could accidentally type out Lincolns Gettysburg Address at random one night, but if you found him holding it the next morning you'd probably look for a more intelligent theory than it was generated by his random pecking.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
- 998.777 Artworks
- 135.558 Artists
© All rights reserved
View more: Rodrigo González Velásquez
Delivery in 5-7 working daysArtwork details »
Customer Service: +34 935 045 650
from Monday to Friday 9:30AM - 06:00PM GMT+1
How does Artelista ensure safety?
How do I pay my order?
Do you think it's hard to find what you want?
Get inspired at Artelista
Fill in the following form to contact Artelista
Fill in the following form and send your offer to the artist

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Article Preview
The first paragraph is not available for this article.
How to Read the Full Article
Get Free Archive Access
Home Delivery and Times Reader subscribers are entitled to monthly Free Archive Access.
Buy This Article
|Single Article
|10-Article Pack
$1.60/article - a 60% savings
Pack expires after 30 days
|U.S/Canadian pricing shown not inclusive of applicable taxes.
Note: This article will open in PDF format. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader or Learn More »


text: Fireplaces are valued for their practical uses, providing heat, cooking food, as well as the visual appeal of logs quietly burning in the firebox. If you own a fireplace, you will probably have to get it repaired or restored at one time or another; if you don't have one, you may wish to have one installed in your home. Either way, you should have a working knowledge of what their parts are called and what they do, so below are some relevant terms.


text:
Enjoy sunshine before 'wintry mix' arrives
Relish Wednesday's sunlight and warmth because it will be gone Thursday.
Just when we thought maybe we had broken free from a winter of below-average temperatures, Mother Nature plans to send a wintry mix our way.
Forecasters are calling for a "considerable amount of wind," but not much snow, Wednesday night into Thursday, when it will turn cold again, said Rudy Schaar, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Sullivan.
The Janesville area will dip to highs in the 20s and lows in the single digits by the end of the week.
Only one other winter—1976—had more days with highs below freezing between Nov. 1 and Feb. 17, according to Gazette weather records. So far this winter, the mercury has stopped short of freezing 68 days, only one day fewer than the winter of 1976.
Looking at his long-range model, which should be taken with a grain of salt, Schaar said, he predicted fairly cold air over us for awhile.
"I don't really see any breaks other than the next couple days," he said Tuesday.
"Keep in mind, too, that we're still in February," he said.
Weather patterns shifted this winter so we basically "have an open door to the Arctic," he said. "A lot of air from the Arctic has flowed in. Normally that air never reaches this far south."
A lack of melting temps also means snow that fell in December still is on the ground, he said.
Normally, the coldest air ends up in Siberia, but this year, that air settled here and Siberia is relatively warmer, he said.


text:
Highlights: Richmond v Carlton
11:17pm Mar 27, 2014
Malthouse rues costly mistakes
11:44pm Mar 27, 2014
Ess v Haw: Watch the last two minutes
10:38pm Mar 28, 2014
11:17pm Mar 27, 2014
11:44pm Mar 27, 2014
10:38pm Mar 28, 2014
Recap Port's Showdown upset, plus big wins for the Hawks and Tigers
11:45am Apr 14, 2013
Recap Friday night's MCG clash as the Tigers make their best start to a season in 16 years
04:00pm Apr 5, 2013
Recap Friday night's blockbuster as the Blues capitulate in front of 78,000 at the MCG
10:36pm Jul 5, 2013
Recap a day bookended by two major boilovers
01:00pm Mar 30, 2013
It was a tough round for AFL Fantasy coaches, Warnie writes
10:42pm Apr 6, 2014
Tom Hafey remembered as a great coach and a wonderful man
06:15pm May 19, 2014
April 26, 2013 10:45 PM
Maybe we should have called a review. Seriously, in a tight game? Joke


text:
The savage and senseless massacre of 26 people, 20 children and 6 adults, at an elementary school in Connecticut has once again forced the country to face a random rage and murderous rampage which allows no exemption for innocence of age, non-involvement or accidental presence. Indeed, it extends no respect to person or place, striking with cold-blooded calculation at movies, malls, religious sanctuaries and schools, and in big cities, small towns, so-called nice neighborhoods and mean streets, offering security and peace of mind to no one. But no matter how often it happens, it is a shocking and shattering experience, and a reminder of the continuing and problematic presence of violence as both an inadequately discussed legacy and continuing life-experience in this country and in its conception of overwhelming armed power as a personal and national existential need.
Perhaps, the tragedy is still too recent and the grief still too great for us, in our search for answers, to focus on anything except controlling access to the instruments of death and evil used in this and prior massacres of similar savagery and senselessness. But eventually, it would be good to go beyond the exclusive focus on gun control and reflect on the complex context in which there is a worshipful attitude toward guns and weapons of various kinds by a majority of Americans and an associated psychology of dominance. We can blame this deep attachment on the NRA, its lobbyists and weak-willed and wobbly-kneed legislators, but polls consistently show Americans unwilling to give up key ground on the possession and use of guns. Thus, in the end, after appropriate mourning and memorials-wild west, gun fighter, stand your ground and vigilante conversations and conduct reemerge.
Moreover, the tendency is to isolate the issue and see it as another case of a deranged killer, and search for signs of personal psychosis rather than social disorder. For we cannot easily come to terms with socially-rooted conditions in which the gun is not simply the instrument of choice for mass murderers in solving problems and expressing lethal rage, but is also seen as vital to the American way of life, and prized as the ultimate protection against the ever-present adversary and enemy.
But if we are honest with ourselves and each other, we know that the problem is not just the gun or a lone killer gone wild, but also the social context in which these boys and men, overwhelmingly White, emerge to kill their mothers, fathers and other family members, as well as children, neighbors and unknown persons. These are sons and brothers who come into being in a culture of dominance in which things and lives are taken as a matter of course for the White powerful at home and abroad. Those vulnerable by race, class, sex and other disadvantages and disabilities, are subject to violence of various kinds on a regular basis, but it is not considered similarly noteworthy, even though they are often children, also innocent and accidentally present.
So, no matter what madness we attribute to these troubled killers, there is also something to say about the lessons they learn from society itself about dominance and killing without conscience or concern for others and how these lessons and values are embraced, even by some members of the oppressed. Surely, there are lessons learned from the news, movies, TV, casual conversations and even video games about dominance-killing, war, official assassinations, justified torture, drone kills and collateral human damage, indiscriminate bombing, a law unto ourselves, might as right, kill counts, and blood rituals of celebration after kills of various kinds and by various self-justifying names like justice done, pre-emptive defense, anti-terrorism, and victory over a long-list of racial, religious and political enemies.
If we compare the prevalence of this war, killing and dominance talk and practice to conversations and practice concerning peace, conflict resolution, mutual respect and human solidarity, it is clear where the center of gravity and commitment is. And that is why even after tragedies, great and small; we cannot really give up the worshipful relationship with weapons, not just guns, but all the other technological weapons of war that give the country a false and inflated sense of its invincibility, and an imagined right to dominate and impose its will on the world. Yes, we need gun control, but there are still the issues of how we relate to the gun and to each other, how we define friends and enemies, and view and treat the vulnerable here and abroad. And ultimately, it's about creating a culture that respects the sacredness of human life, the rights and dignity of the human person, and demonstrates an ethic of care and responsibility for each and all of our children and us.
Indeed, as President Obama stated, our concern for our children and by extension for ourselves, must be inclusive. For "Whether it's an elementary school in Newton, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin or a movie theatre in Aurora or a street corner in Chicago-these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children." And if we are not to practice a selective morality, we must also mourn the deaths and work to protect the lives of children and people everywhere. And I think especially of the children and people of Congo and elsewhere in Africa, Haiti, Palestine, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, plagued by brutal and gruesome wars fostered from within and without and the victims of human trafficking and oppression everywhere.
In this end-of-the-year season when we talk, pray and sing of peace, let us wish for them as we do for each other, peace, security and lives of dignity, decency and well-being. Let us also try to move beyond narrow notions of what is needed to heal, repair and remake the good society and world we all want and deserve to live in. And let us put at its center, the work and practice of peace, a peace, as Dr. Martin Luther King says, that "it's not simply the absence of tension, but also the presence of justice." It is a giving of persons and peoples their due, their respect as possessors of dignity and divinity, with a right to the shared good and goods of the world. And it is this justice-grounded, dignity-affirming and world-encompassing peace that our ancestors defined and embraced in the Husia, saying "exceedingly good is the practice of peace and there is no blame in peace for those who practice it."


text:
Weekend Box Office Report: 'The Croods' and 'Olympus Has Fallen' Rise to the Top
You can't imagine two films more different than 'The Croods' and 'Olympus Has Fallen,' but right now the two of them sit on top of the box office chart, both temporarily linked by the fact that a bunch of people apparently wanted to see them this weekend. It's the first time in forever that two films have opened to over $30 million at the same time…but it wasn't golden for all of the new releases.
|Per Screen
|The Croods
|Olympus Has Fallen
|Oz the Great and Powerful
|$22,031,000 (-46.6%)
|The Call
|$8,700,000 (-49.2)
|Spring Breakers
|$5,000,000 (+1,801.1)
|The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
|$4,275,000 (-58.0)
|Jack the Giant Slayer
|$2,965,000 (-53.1)
|Identity Thief
|$2,545,000 (-42.4)
|$1,930,000 (-44.9)
Let's start with the film at the top of the pile. 'The Croods' has a bizarre concept that put off one adult for every child it intrigued, but never underestimate an animated movie after a lengthy dry spell of family entertainment. Sure, 'Oz the Great and Powerful' helped satiate kids and their ever-annoyed parents, but animation is what really brings the young ones in. With a $44.7 million opening, 'The Croods' has a long way to go if it wants to reach the heights of your typical Pixar or DreamWorks film, but it's a nice start. $150 million is the minimum number it'll need to look like a success and if it plays through April, it should be able to get there.
While all of the kids went to see 'The Croods,' their older brothers flocked to 'Olympus Has Fallen' to watch Gerard Butler play "Die Hard in the White House." Since it's modestly budgeted by Big Action Movie standards (around $70 million), it's most likely going to break even, but audiences need to actually like the movie if it stands a chance of being a hit. The more interesting story here is what this means for the upcoming 'White House Down,' which is literally an identical concept with a bigger budget. Will audiences have White House Siege Movie fatigue once summer rolls around? That's such a bizarrely specific question that it can only exist in the film industry.
Meanwhile, last week's champions took relatively graceful falls to third and fourth place. 'Oz the Great and Powerful' took a large but expected drop, taking in $22 million for a $177 million total. $200 million is a certainty but $250 million remains a possibility if April doesn't bring too many surprises. Right below it, 'The Call' took a sizable drop, but it's made $30 million and it was made for pennies, so it's going to be okay. It's not a smash, but it's a nice jolt into the arm for Halle Berry's career. Does she have a future as a classy horror/thriller heroine? It's possible.
The weekend's third major release, 'Admission,' flopped into the fray in spot five with a $6.4 million opening. The film didn't cost too much, but it's evidence that while Paul Rudd and Tina Fey are truly some of the best and most talented comic personas working today, they simply can't open a movie on their names alone. And that's sad.
In sixth place, 'Spring Breakers' rode last week's wildly successful limited release to a $5 million weekend, paying for its minuscule budget, baffling thousands of teenagers and making director Harmony Korine laugh uproariously as he plotted his next practical joke of a film. 'Spring Breakers' has officially divided both critics and audiences, making it easily the weirdest and most fun movie to talk about of the year so far. It's hard to imagine it making much more money, but bless it for actually opening wide.
As for the rest of the top ten? Meh.
'The Incredible Burt Wonderstone' continued to be dead on arrival, taking a disastrous drop for a $4.2 million weekend. 'Jack the Giant Slayer' has made more, but a $60 million gross simply isn't enough when your movie cost upwards of $200 million. On the very bottom, 'Identity Thief' is ready to leave the top ten as a box office smash and 'Snitch' will exit as a minor success.
Next week, 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' opens after a lengthy delay. It's probably going to make a lot of money.


text:
A Springtime Treat: Domaine du Bagnol Cassis Rosé
I admit the name of this wine can be confusing. The bright pink liquid in this bottle has nothing to do with the fruit (black currant) or with the liqueur Crème de Cassis. Instead, this Cassis is the name of a pretty little town on the Cote d'Azur of Provence just between Marseille and Bandol. Cassis is also the name of the tiny wine appellation surrounding the town. This tiny A.O.C. encompasses only 490 acres (the Bordeaux A.O.C. is 150,000 acres!). Cool nighttime temperatures (thank you Mediterranean Sea!) and limestone soils give these wines a freshness and minerality that might be otherwise difficult to attain in such a warm place.
Domaine du Bagnol, specifically, is a small 15 acre estate created in 1867 by the Marquis de Fesque, and now recently revived by Jean-Louis Genovesi. As is the case in all wines imported by Neal Rosenthal, the production here is careful, conscientious and respectful of the balance of nature. For this rosé, a blend of red Cinsault, Mourvedre and Grenache grapes are pressed and left on their skins just long enough to extract a bit of color and lots of flavor. Because of the small production, this is a sharply allocated wine! Formaggio Kitchen South End received 4 cases this year, and Formaggio Kitchen Cambridge just 2 cases.
This little gem definitely gives the more famous and pricier rosés from nearby Bandol (only 20 miles away) a run for their money. Think rosy-strawberry aromas offset by bright mineral notes and an elegant and satisfying bone-dry finish. I like to drink it all by itself, preferably outdoors, the better to savor the ephemeral loveliness of one of my very favorite springtime treats.
Julie Cappellano is the General Manager and wine buyer at Formaggio Kitchen South End.


text:
Theories - Origin of Life
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Again, I see no contradiction. I would add that some environmental factors can change the mutation rate (for example, exposure to UV light), but these are exceptions.
What I am describing (which you could call my "understanding," I suppose) is detailed above. Let me restate it as a specific example:
- Suppose a polar bear has a fur coat of a certain length, which is optimized to its conditions (too long and the bear will overheat, too short and it will freeze).
- Mutations are always happening, some of which will result in longer fur and some of which will result in shorter fur. However, these are suboptimal, so polar bears with these mutations don't survive very well, and the mutations don't get passed on.
- Now suppose the environment changes to become colder. The new optimum fur length is longer than the current length of the population.
- The next time a longer-fur mutation happens, that polar bear will survive. In fact, it will survive better than the polar bears without the mutation. Shorter-fur mutations continue to happen, but continue to be maladaptive – in fact, they now confer more of a disadvantage.
- As a result of the longer-fur advantage, the longer-fur mutants will leave more offspring.
- Since this applies to the polar bear's descendents as well, the longer-fur mutants will eventually take over the population.
Also, if there was another population where it didn't get colder, then those polar bears would not change their fur length. The two populations would then have a difference between them, and sufficient differences would result in speciation. In fact, if polar bears were like certain birds and females were most interested in males that had the same fur length as themselves (this is called assortative mating), then this one change could be sufficient for speciation.
I agree, although I will point out that not all mutations rearrange the DNA - some of them just change it.
Some mutations occur as byproducts of regulated cell processes, yes. For example, DNA synthesis is not perfect and introduces errors. That does not make the errors non-random – there is no way to predict where specifically the DNA polymerase enzyme will make a mistake.
A cell undergoing DNA synthesis is more likely to undergo a mutation than a cell that is not, but that is just a shift in the probabilities.
Yes, a cell under stress conditions might increase its mutation rate, including the rate of "restructuring" events such as inversions and translocations. This allows a greater diversity in the progeny, increasing the chance that some may survive. This does not imply that the mutations have become non-random.
I don't know whether this has been shown definitively – this is not a peer-reviewed publication, after all (it is speculation, of which lectures often contain a lot – and is about 30 years old, far out of date). However, it makes logical sense – it might even be possible that some types of mutation are more likely to produce adaptations to certain kinds of stress, and these specific types of mutation are induced.
I will also point out that if you search for "restructuring" within the document, you will find her talking about it as something that occurs during species transitions.
Firstly, given that the paper is talking almost exclusively about genomic rearrangements that occur in cancer, I don't think this helps you claim that these rearrangements are beneficial.
That being said – yes, mutations often do not form completely randomly, and can be highly influenced by the situational context. Sometimes, the influence is enough that you might call them "nonrandom," at least with respect to certain parameters. This does not make them predetermined (that is, nonrandom with respect to every parameter), as you seem to be arguing. For example, meiotic crossing over is essentially a series of translocations, and they are nonrandom in that they only occur in a very specific circumstance, but the locations where it occurs cannot generally be predicted.
The changes are not random if you say that "random" means that every outcome is equally likely. If you think that is a potential confusion, it is probably better to call mutations probabilistic. There is another explanation of this at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/post ... 11_01.html.
If you want to say this, you will also require evidence supporting the use of the word most in your first sentence.
You should also be aware that only germline genetic changes are relevant to natural selection. Changes that occur in somatic cells, which involve most types of environmental influences (including those that lead to almost all cancers) do not affect the next generation.
For the context of natural selection, transposons are just another way that genetic changes occur – and yes, in some cases they are not entirely random. For example, I think there is research showing that transposon activation in humans is more common in the germline. I'm not sure why you think they would be any different from other mutations with respect to the discussion though.
Are you suggesting that cells intrinsically have a general capability to adapt genetically to environments without (random) mutation? It is quite easy to design experiments that falsify this.
For example - take a cell, form several clonal populations from it - so the populations are identical except for random changes. Expose them to stress, enough to slow their growth but not enough to kill them off. If they have a programmed response, they will all respond in the same way and at the same time. Your readouts will be the rate of growth (all of them should increase in growth rate at the same time, as they all adapt in the same way) and the DNA sequence (all of their genomes should have changed in the same way). This can be repeated with many different kinds of stress.
Or you could take some of those clonal populations and cause them to have a higher error rate in DNA synthesis. (Probably by addition of certain mutagens, or knockout/inhibition of a repair enzyme.) If the result is programmed and has nothing to do with the error rate, then the cell will again adapt to the stress in exactly the same way as the other cells (or possibly even worse). If the increased mutation rate is beneficial, as would be expected by natural selection, the higher-error cells will adapt faster.
Do you agree that these are reasonable and fair tests? If you're interested in science, you could probably think of even more ways to investigate. Of course, these or similar experiments were already done many decades ago, and were shown to be in favour of natural selection. You may, of course, repeat them for verification if you choose - the ability to do that is part of what makes science unique.
Answers have already been provided. For example, one such phenotype is the behaviour of hemoglobin containing the sickle-cell mutation.
I think you need to provide a quote – taken in context, of course. For example, the Galapagos finches are different species.
Also, if I recall correctly, most of the arguments and evidence involved showing that speciation through natural selection was plausible and not the only possible explanation. I am willing to be corrected though.
You should also remember that the evidence available to Darwin was far less than the evidence available today, and it is unsurprising that there were some things he could not explain. Even if Darwin did not have evidence for something (for example, the fossil record was extremely poor in his time), that does not mean the evidence does not exist today.
This is basically an assertion that speciation cannot occur, followed by a claim that evolutionary theory is out of date (relative to what?). I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion.
Of course, evolutionary theory has indeed advanced continuously, and the topics we are discussing have been known to biologists for some time. However, it is knowledge which has not been overturned to date. Some nuances have been determined (some of which you are clearly aware of), but the broader picture remains.
I told you why I didn't want to suggest which one I thought was most likely – because you would immediately talk about only that one, and ignore the other two.
Again, all three possibilities are plausible, and there are probably more that I haven't thought of. If you say that there is no plausible example, and three counterexamples are presented, addressing one counterexample is not sufficient.
Furthermore, I don't know exactly what you're referring to by saying "issues of cell processes," so I don't know how to address your response. (Presumably it is something I replied to above.)
Well, you are arguing that certain things are not possible, right? Don't you think that the evidence presented by someone replying to such a claim (X is not possible) would involve showing that X is possible?
Speaking of which, I don't think you've clearly identified exactly what it is that you think is not possible – or at least, there are a number of things you think are not possible, but I can't tell which is/are central to your argument, and a couple of them are also contradicted by some other things that you've said.
When I say central, that means the following – the things which, if you agreed were possible, would mean that you would also agree with the commonly accepted scientific view of evolution.
You are the one who said that the inversions "developed." Your quote: page 39, post 1.
I can't see any way to interpret this statement other than that they were not present, and then they were.
Also, the inferences are normally presented in the Discussion section. The conclusion restates the major inferences and speculates on what the importance might be if the inferences are true.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with something being an "inference." If I let go of a paperclip a thousand times and it drops to the ground every time, I will make the inference that if I do it again, it will drop again. That doesn't mean it will drop, but there is no reasonable basis for claiming that it won't - unless you have access to further information (say, someone installed a powerful magnet in the ceiling since the last time you tried).
All predictions about how the world works are inferences. It is an inference that the next time you get in a car, you will arrive safely at your destination. This does not always hold, but it usually does, and so you make the inference that it will.
With regards to your question – there is not enough space here to give you a complete description of the evidence for macroevolutionary change (such as fins to legs). If you would like to understand that evidence, a complete treatment may be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, or a shorter one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution.
It depends on exactly how confident you want to be that you will get the desired result. For example, I might specify it to be the number of chances for which you will get that result on average about ten times. In this case, if the result had a one in a million chance, I would want ten million chances. Of course, I would probably get that result far sooner than the ten millionth chance.
Of course, for any particular mutation, it is possible to calculate the exact probability. (I realize that you have now started talking about multiple mutations as well ‒ I will address that below.)
Sample calculation:
There are several single point mutations in DNA gyrase which is sufficient to confer resistance to quinolone antibiotics. (Which, I will point out for your discussion with Luxorien, is clearly a beneficial mutation when you are being treated with these antibiotics.)
Let's consider just one of these mutations, S83L in the gyrase A subunit, which is a C→T transition. (The first observation of this mutation was here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC245014/.)
E. coli has a mutation (without repair) about 1 in 300 replications.
Its genome size is about 4.6 Mb (4.6 million bases), so you have a 1 / 4,600,000 chance of the mutation hitting the base in question.
Since there are three possible bases it could change to, there is then a 1/3 chance of the mutation changing it to a T, rather than an A or a G.
A quick multiplication shows that the probability of this mutation happening is about 1 / 4,140,000,000. Each time an E. coli bacterium divides, there is a 1 / 4,140,000,000 chance of this mutation happening.
In other words, if I take 4.14 billion E. coli, about one of them will probably have the mutation. (In fact, approximately every possible E. coli mutation would be present around once.)
4.14 billion is fewer E. coli than you would find in a half-full test tube.
If I took that many E. coli and let them divide three times (multiplying the population by , you would produce the mutation de novo about 7 times. This would take about an hour.
The point is that generating any particular mutation is easy.
So you understand that I wasn't talking about mutations over time, but rather the likelihood of a single mutation, right? (Further answer in the next point.)
Also, I don't know what you mean by a "fitness function."
Your statement implies that you are trying to use combinatorial probabilities where they are not applicable. You would only multiply if you were talking about multiple mutations that happened simultaneously.
The idea of progressive change is that the mutations do not have to happen simultaneously. Let us take the same example – mutations with a one in a million chance, which will still happen very frequently over a thousand generations of fruit flies. That is, they will happen individually around a thousand times each.
Even if one mutation is only adaptive if the first one has already been made (that is, the second one builds on the first, the probability is not low. The genetic context has changed by the time the second mutation happens. As soon as the first mutation happens and takes over the population, the second mutation cannot do anything but build on the first one.
The applicable probability calculation would be the chance that the first mutation happens at least once, followed by the second mutation happening at least once. (To be more realistic, you can also stipulate a several-generation time lag as the first mutation takes over.)
In fact, in this example (a thousand generations with each mutation happening about once per generation ‒ 40 years for a fruit fly), it would happen almost immediately. The first mutation would almost certainly occur at least once in the first couple of generations, you can give in a few more generations to become fixed, and then the second mutation will happen approximately once in every generation after that. In fact, you could get hundreds of sequentially adaptive mutations (if such a series actually existed) by the end of the thousand generations.
I will also point out that multiple mutations that happen simultaneously, even with the orders-of-magnitude-lower probabilities, are still very much within reach. This is especially the case in bacteria. However, the point is that it is not necessary to do this in order to build function on top of function.
You know that "invariably" means "always," right? If that is the case, the third sentence of this quote (where you use the word "most") is in contradiction with the first.
This is where you do use conjunctive probabilities – the harmful mutation has to happen in the same organism as the beneficial mutation. As a result, this occurrence is much rarer. If strongly harmful mutations were so common as to appear with high probability in every organism, then everything would be dying quickly whether they had beneficial mutations or not.
If they do happen to appear in the same organism, then yes, you have a conflict. Then, if the effect of the harmful mutation is greater, the double mutant will be selected out and the beneficial one will have to arise in the population again. If the effect of the beneficial mutant is greater, the double mutant would survive and take over the population, and eventually the harmful one would be reverted by another mutation. (Or, if the beneficial mutation is frequent enough, the double mutant would survive but would be outcompeted by an animal that had gotten only the beneficial mutant in the first place.)
Two other points:
- Actually, the majority of mutations are neutral – the majority of the rest are deleterious.
- To answer your comment in the first sentence: "fitness" always refers to the number of viable offspring left behind. However, it is often used to describe anything that correlates with the number of viable offspring left behind (for example, skill at avoiding predators) as well.
(See the links I gave you above.)
You just said,
If you are asking this question, it implies that you're denying this anyways.
And again, examples have been given ‒ such as the DNA gyrase example I gave above, as well as in your discussion with Luxorien.
Definitely not. For example: changes in chromosome number, changes in behaviour (for example, mating rituals), enzymatic changes in the reproductive system, etc.
Segmentation is perhaps the most successful body plan in existence. The three-segment body plan of the insects has not significantly changed since their common ancestor. It is entirely unsurprising under natural selection that some things do remain unchanged.
(And of course, the word successful refers to fitness)
If you have covered this before, perhaps you have been informed that the term "species" does not apply in the same way to bacteria as to sexually reproducing organisms.
The appearance of the Cit+ strain (a change in one of the fundamental identifying criteria) is essentially as close as you can get to speciation for a bacterium. Lenski has made this point as well.
Then look it up – this is how you learn.
I have addressed this above – you want to use probabilities of successive occurrence rather than conjunctive occurrence.
Correct, because it is negative – it does not spread within the population. If it did, then everyone would have it, and every new mutation would have the potential to build on it.
Since people generally only get the CFTR gene tested if they are already suspected of having CF, it is unsurprising that only negative mutations are found.
I am not saying that there are positive mutations that occur in the CFTR, but only that doing tests specifically on sick people is unlikely to find any.
But by the way, did you know that CF mutations have been suggested to be protective against cholera? This is a similar idea as the sickle-cell mutation.
This is just a restatement of the claim that all mutations are negative.
That is correct. The only point made by the analogy is that given enough chances, even the most improbable things happen – where "enough" depends on exactly how improbable the event is. If you want to look at changes over time that build on each other, you have to use a more complex analysis, as I detailed above.
Science is a method for learning about the world. Definitions cannot be "scientific" or "nonscientific" except insofar as they were based on scientific information, so I'm not completely sure what you mean. (See the next point)
This is about the process by which mutations are generated, and as such is not an answer to the question (which doesn't really make sense, as I pointed out). It is also a restatement of something which I have already discussed.
If you want me to restate my earlier responses, it would be something like this: changes in DNA occur in a probabilistic way, and evidence suggests that some changes are more likely under different conditions. It is not generally possible to predict the exact mutation that will occur, nor the exact time of its occurrence. These changes in DNA are the genetic variation which can be acted on by natural selection to allow change to occur.
The page is not about "positing", but observation.
I think you could select more than one example – one which does not have some measure of debate surrounding it, as this one seems to. You could find even more examples at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html, for example (which I probably should have linked last time). Or perhaps you might consider ring species.
And what do you infer from the knowledge that this is "somewhat interesting"?
It seems that they are different species, but nobody has yet gone through all of them (a difficult undertaking) to systematically record their similarities and differences and propose a new classification system. Or perhaps whether they are different species is not yet determined beyond doubt, and nobody will propose a new classification system until it is clear that one is necessary.
After reading more on this particular example, it seems that there are many different populations, some of which can interbreed with each other and some of which cannot (similar to ring species), and that it is therefore difficult to assign species identifiers to any group until it is decided on how to handle situations like this.
Yes, in sticklebacks, and they make this suggestion based on two previous examples. They say nothing about other organisms. You can also search for "rearrangements" within the document and note that the claim for requiring genetic incompatibilities tends to be placed with qualifying words like "may" and "seem."
Isn't "only one example" sufficient to refute your claim that no speciation can occur? And as I have already shown you, there are sources which supply many more such examples.
It may be relevant to point out that they do not say no selection is strong enough to generate irreversible barriers.
Again, even if these "additional factors" are necessary, that does not mean that these factors can never be supplied.
So your entire argument is that large-scale genetic changes are required for speciation, and that such changes are not possible?
First, the authors only suggest that there is such a necessity in sticklebacks, and you have taken it as fact for all species.
Secondly, you haven't made any argument for why such changes actually aren't possible.
Do you mean, "we know that the nucleus of each differentiated cell appears to be regulated epigenetically"? If so, then I agree (and the evidence for this is far stronger than "appears to be" – I would just use "is").
There are lots of epigenetic mechanisms, not just "an" epigenetic mechanism ‒ histone acetylation, histone methylation, cytosine methylation, etc. Undifferentiated cells also have epigenetic mechanisms.
The proteins involved in epigenetic control (such as histones) are themselves encoded by the genome. They don't appear out of nowhere.
Yes, there are some proteins which affect the expression of other proteins. This means that a mutation in a regulatory protein will also affect the expression of the proteins it controls.
See the previous point.
Chromosome rearrangement is a mutation. Check the definitions that you gave earlier ‒ this is one of the ones you said you agreed with.
And as already discussed ‒ rearrangements are random as well. Or to avoid giving the wrong impression, they are probabilistic.
I think you need specific examples if you want to make such a general claim.
The discussion above only refers to the fact that speciation has been observed, not the mechanism ‒ observation and mechanism are, of course, two different things, which involve separate bodies of evidence.
Of course, since there are only two forces which are known to cause changes in species ‒ natural selection and genetic drift ‒ it is reasonable to conclude that one of these is the cause of speciation. The roles of each of these took some time to determine, but the evidence eventually showed that natural selection was probably the dominant factor.
I will also point out again that you are attempting to use one example only (and a complicated one as well), and trying to generalize to every species in existence. This is not a very strong line of reasoning.
No, I am not implying that there is some specification of "correctness" in evolution. I used the term "correct" as a shorthand to mean, "the mutation we are talking about, which will confer some selective advantage" – as opposed to any of the neutral or deleterious mutations that might occur instead.
The checkpoint systems are the template. When certain criteria are fulfilled, the checkpoint proteins allow the system to move on to the next stage. If the criteria are not fulfilled, the checkpoint proteins prevent this.
And of course, mutations to the checkpoint systems will change the template, and the new template is then subject to natural selection. However, since this system is critical to cellular survival and many other systems depend upon it, it is already highly optimized and will not change very fast.
I don't know what the reference to the "body plan" means. If you meant to say "template," I have answered that in the previous point.
You made the same claim later, about the appearance of the genetic code. I will answer it there.
...That's not what I was discussing.
The points I was making were that 1) the bacteria observably adapt to their environment and 2) the adaption is reproducible no matter how many times you run the experiment.
I was responding to your apparent view that if mutations are random, the same adaptation cannot arise independently more than once. Quote (page 39, post 1):
Of course, that does not mean that the adaptations are exactly the same ‒ the response is not programmed, as I discussed earlier. The mutations will occur at different times, and will often be slightly different. It is the phenotype which is the same, which is the important part.
Replied above.
What is "not enough"? How much time would be enough? Also, which specific "ideas" are you talking about?
Even if you think that the world is less than 10,000 years old or something like that, there is plenty of time for at least some speciation to occur. I agree that you probably couldn't make major evolutionary jumps, but you would still observe speciation happening.
I also point out that you said above,
Do you still agree with this statement, or do you have some meaning of "variations" that would not include the variation I am discussing in my probability example?
My point was that I think "driving force" is a vague term, and I'm not sure how establishing it is important to the discussion. Again, both the mutations and the selection are required.
No, it is not evidence – that was the point. As a general principle, if two different theories make the same prediction, observation of the predicted result is not evidence for either theory.
If Theory A predicts that the sky is blue, and Theory B predicts that the sky is blue, and then we go out and look at the sky and it's blue, that tells us nothing about which theory is correct. I apologize if I am being overly blunt.
I haven't suggested that NS in unlimited, however it is attributed with going from Amoeba to Man. That's a very bold claim, so what is the evidence to back it up. [/quote]
...But that wasn't what we were talking about. I was replying to the quoted statement, "If the capacity for change is limited." It certainly looks like you were suggesting that natural selection only works if the capacity for change is unlimited.
Of course I can reply to this new statement as well, and I refer you to the pages I linked when we were discussing macroevolution above.
I was trying to illustrate the concept that adaptation is always a race – the organism must adapt faster than the environment can change, and this is the criterion for when species go extinct. (In this context, "environment" broadly refers to any change that might affect the species' reproduction.) I thought that this might help you better understand the paper.
To whom are they (supposedly) disturbing for this reason?
Previously, you were saying that the authors found it disturbing for this reason. I then gave you a direct quote from the authors saying that they found it disturbing for a different reason.
Also, did you understand my response? You didn't comment on anything other than my last paragraph out of three.
That's fine, but
1) you previously asked me to accept something they had said because they had said it, which is the reason I made that comment. (Page 38, post 10).
2) we were talking about what disturbed him. I think that a direct quote answering that specific question is sufficient to provide a definitive answer.
(See below for my final post.)
Last edited by AstraSequi on Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I havent cared to read all 44 pages of reply's and I'm fairly certain you've enough material for your paper at this point though I feel certain things oughtn't be left out of your paper. With evidence provided by the Miller-Urey experiments it is known the general composition of our early atmosphere was capable of producing something that we today might identify as lifelike- presumably a protobiont with a primitive lipid membrane and some means of reproduction- presumably RNA. under proper circumstances these RNA molecules could multiply, though it is doubtful any kind of orderly cellular structure developed for millions of years, a simple strip of RNA may as well be classified as a living thing due to it's ability to reproduce.
I don't understand what you mean.
I was pointing out that scientists are generally interested when it is shown that some previously accepted belief is false (and the scientists that do this usually become the most famous as well) – because it means that our beliefs have been made more accurate.
I am glad to see that you understand the data is equally applicable to both arguments point which I referred to above.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "the common ancestor argument." If you are referring to the statement "a universal common ancestor existed," then it is an inference from the data. One line of evidence supporting this is that the fossil record shows less and less diversity as you look in older and older rocks.
So in other words, you agree that a "God did it" argument (that is, a general statement with no evidence) is fallacious?
So you understand that "proving evolution false" would not mean that creationism were true, since the two are separate things. It is possible for both to be true (as long as you don't insist on interpreting your scripture literally) or for neither to be true – although I see no need to publically endorse a position on that here since it's not relevant to this argument.
Since this statement presupposes the existence of the common ancestor, I suppose that my inference about your "common ancestor argument" statement above is wrong? However, if so, I don't know what you mean by "common ancestor argument."
I also agree with the statement, with "the method" being natural selection. The common ancestor was not the first form of life, only the one from which all current life is descended.
If you could describe why you quoted this (out of all the possible paragraphs in the speech), it would help me understand what point you are trying to get across. It doesn't seem to be related to your following statements.
There are most certainly answers that scientists find plausible. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
These do not address the origin of the cell per se, but rather are theories about what came before the cell, which I'm sure you'll agree is a prerequisite before the experiments to investigate how non-cellular life became cellular life.
And if we don't know, is there something wrong with that? Science does not claim to know everything. However, there is no special reason to think that once we know enough, a problem which currently is unsolved will not be solved in the future. It has certainly happened enough times in the past, after all.
This is not an argument, but rather an assertion. (Arguments have both premises and conclusions. )
If your argument is that we do not know how the cell emerged, therefore it was an outside agency, then that is argumentum ad ignorantium.
This is affirming the consequent. "It is possible for an outside agency to manipulate life; life came into being; therefore an outside agency was the cause."
I don't see where the contradiction is. All I interpret from these quotes is a number of statements about natural selection ‒ and I also infer Mayr felt that natural selection (the unifying principle of biology) was an important consideration in the philosophy of biology, which I imagine is probably unremarkable among these philosophers.
Also, I am sure you know that science does not hold the words of any individual scientist as more important than the next. Newton was wrong about many things, Darwin was wrong about many things, and no scientist has any trouble saying so. Authority (at least ideally) derives only from the experiments that you are capable of and the results you derive from them.
I think this might be something you're having trouble understanding. A quote from a famous scientist does not mean that they were right – in fact, it doesn't even say anything about the current state of knowledge unless it was made in the last few years. Even scientific papers have some chance of being wrong or containing wrong statements. I'm not saying that Mayr was necessarily wrong about any particular statement, but you seem to be assuming that I (or "scientists") must agree with him simply because he said it.
(I can't think of any other line of thought that makes these quotes relevant to the discussion.)
I'm not sure about "every scientist" – are you including those which don't even work with programs?
Anyways ‒ is this meant to be a definition, or a description? If a definition, where does it come from? If a description, what is the definition and how do these characteristics derive from it?
If it is meant to be a definition, why not simply "A sequence of instructions that perform a specified task"? (slightly modified from the Wikipedia definition of "Computer program.")
I imagine that he was speaking to an audience of scientists, and thus felt no need to justify something that everyone in his audience already knew the evidence for.
I imagine that you could analyse the Tree of Life using decision theory, but the Tree of Life is not itself a decision tree.
The term "decision node" implies a single point of decision. Species do not reach a certain point in time and then get "forced" to choose one or the other path – change happens gradually, every generation, including when speciation is not occurring.
Natural selection works with what is already there, plus what is generated by mutations.
If you wanted to use an actual decision tree, it would involve every occurrence (action or random event) ever done by or to every single member of the species that was relevant to its reproduction or lack thereof. On this level, natural selection most certainly is acting at the decision nodes – at every node, there is a change in the likelihood that the organism will reproduce.
Not really. The inference is something like this: the Theory of Evolution has accounted for the vast majority of the evidence, no other explanation can do this to nearly the same degree, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it probably can account for the rest of the data as well.
It is the same kind of inference as "the sun has always risen in the past, therefore I think it highly likely that it will do so tomorrow as well."
You may dispute the premises, but if you do not (and Mayr himself probably did not), then the inference itself is quite reasonable.
To be specific: no, I do not know how natural selection built the genetic code. For all I know, it didn't ‒ for example, perhaps it was built by an external agent (say, aliens with advanced technology). However, I see no reason why natural selection couldn't have been responsible, so without external evidence I see no reason why I should go against Occam's Razor and postulate an additional factor in my model.
I already answered this before ‒ this is not an answer to the question.
This is very much a non sequitur. I was talking about the results of climate change ‒ and pointing out why it would be disturbing, which is what you asked me to answer. Of course, man-made climate change is quite uncontroversial among scientists, but that is not the issue I was responding to.
Also, you fused two of my replies to each other and only responded to the second.
So you are saying that logic only reflects reality if the premises of the argument are true? I agree with that.
I also agree that if the premises of an argument are true (and the logical argument itself is correct), then the conclusions are also true.
I also agree that for an inductive argument, if the premises of the argument are true (and the logical argument itself is correct), and the inductive argument has been shown to be correct many times in the past, then there is no reason to think that the conclusions are not true. This does not mean that the conclusions are true, but that it is unreasonable not to proceed under the assumption as if they are, until more evidence can be gathered.
But you agree that if something is supported by evidence, then it falls under science? Just to make sure that we share common ground on this.
Thank you for the discussion.
there are 7 theories of a life.
Perhaps life did not begin on Earth at all, but was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. For instance, rocks regularly get blasted off Mars by cosmic impacts, and a number of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth that some researchers have controversially suggested brought microbes over here, potentially making us all Martians originally. Other scientists have even suggested that life might have hitchhiked on comets from other star systems. However, even if this concept were true, the question of how life began on Earth would then only change to how life began elsewhere in space.
Simple Beginnings
Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions. These might have been contained in simple capsules akin to cell membranes, and over time more complex molecules that performed these reactions better than the smaller ones could have evolved, scenarios dubbed "metabolism-first" models, as opposed to the "gene-first" model of the "RNA world" hypothesis.
RNA World
Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient. RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened.
Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA.
Chilly Start
Ice might have covered the oceans 3 billion years ago, as the sun was about a third less luminous than it is now. This layer of ice, possibly hundreds of feet thick, might have protected fragile organic compounds in the water below from ultraviolet light and destruction from cosmic impacts. The cold might have also helped these molecules to survive longer, allowing key reactions to happen.
Deep-Sea Vents
The deep-sea vent theory suggests that life may have begun at submarine hydrothermal vents, spewing key hydrogen-rich molecules. Their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents, rich in chemical and thermal energy, sustain vibrant ecosystems.
Community Clay
The first molecules of life might have met on clay, according to an idea elaborated by organic chemist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. These surfaces might not only have concentrated these organic compounds together, but also helped organize them into patterns much like our genes do now.
The main role of DNA is to store information on how other molecules should be arranged. Genetic sequences in DNA are essentially instructions on how amino acids should be arranged in proteins. Cairns-Smith suggests that mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns. After a while, organic molecules took over this job and organized themselves.
Electric Spark
Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although research since then has revealed the early atmosphere of Earth was actually hydrogen-poor, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and been filled with lightning as well.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Sorry for being out of the loop for a while.
My early childhood bout of chicken pox has revisited me in the form of shingles and has left me low for about ten days. Still not over it but have got back online to have a look at progress, if one could refer to any of wbla3335 posts as scientifically progressive
Thank you for the time you have put into your final response. I will read through it all, that amount of effort is certainly worth due consideration.
Thank you also for your response. I will read and digest. I did prepare a little information to post on antibacterial resistance before I went down, so I will put it up later for you to comment on if you wish.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Theories - Origin of Life
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I was simply stating that ID proponents argue that way. You do not share that view.
You say that science supports your view, they say it supports their view also.
Fight it out among yourselves, it has nothing to do with me.
May I suggest you read what I have said and not attribute statements to me I have not made.
I am not writing any paper nor have I requested any suggestions.
I find the wikipedia defination of design quite adequate.
As to why the genome is not a designer— well because it is the product of design that is intended to accomplish certain goals.
If you wish to believe the genome designed itself, then go ahead and believe it.
I don't know, why are you?
Once again may I remind you to attribute my statements to me, not those of someone else. May I suggest you check my postings more carefully so that you understand more clearly what I am actually writing and therefore not confuse me with anyone else.
Am I to understand that Matrix/DNA Theory is one that you have developed?
If it is then try and get it peer reviewed and published so that you may add credibility to your work.
Btw the quotes you have attributed to me are from by chilipanda » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:35 pm
Well well!!, now you have got me doing your homework for you.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
In the beginning …
So begins the account in Genesis.( I will return to this later)
There is also another "In the beginning.." narrative
So goes the account in EARTH SCIENCE The Story of O2 Richard A. Kerr June 2005
What does chemistry tell us?
We have rocks, made up of granite. Granite consists of different amounts of Quartz (SiO2) Feldspar of which there are three kinds (KAlSi2O2, CaAlSi2O2, and NaAl2Si2O2), and Mica (every Mica molecule contains 12 Oxygen atoms (O2).
Limestone and Marble contain copious amounts of oxygen atoms as well.
So there is plenty of oxygen atoms in rocks.
Water contains oxygen (H2O)
Now stellar evolution tells us that accretion was the process that formed the Galaxies Stars and planets. The process consists of the collision of microscopic dust (the elements) and then sticking together. Let's assume this is correct.
So the hypothesis is that all these, rich in Oxygen compounds, formed the rocks and water but without a remainder O2 for the atmosphere.
What is the physics or chemistry that can confirm this? There is none.
So why is it so emphatically stated that the early earth had no oxygen?
Is there a reason?
Why yes but it's not a scientific one.
Oxygen cannot be in the atmosphere because if it were amino acids for instance could not form. Therefore no peptide chains. If there were none of these molecules then we don't have proteins, therefore no robosomes etc etc.
In other words life could not begin. (the other assumption of course, is that life is simply a coming together of biological molecules in a certain way.)
So an atmosphere devoid of oxygen has to be a given, in order for life to get
There is no science behind this concept of no initial oxygen in the atmosphere, just speculation because of a philosophy. May I repeat.
This "given" is a philosophical view and has nothing to do with science.
Of course this "given" piles on even more philosophy.
For the account then goes on. ".. and life arose from nonlife". ( just like that!!! as a famous comedian would announce when comically doing his magic tricks)
However, there is more to this tale, because today the atmosphere contains about 21% oxygen.
If there was no oxygen to begin with where then did all the oxygen come from?
Any ideas?
"In the satellite (Europe) is present thin atmosphere composed mainly of oxygen."
- And where there is oxygenation? It is also possible on Earth as it formed, as on Europe:
"The limited surface of the atmosphere is formed by radiolysis (the decomposition of molecules by radiation) [64]. Solar ultraviolet radiation and charged particles (ions and electrons) from the face of Jupiter's magnetosphere with the icy surface of Europa, splitting water into its components - hydrogen and oxygen. These chemical components are adsorbed and then "sprayed" into the atmosphere. Further components under the influence of the same radiation leaving the surface, and the balance of these two processes form the atmosphere [65]. Molecular oxygen - the most dense component of the atmosphere, because it has a long period of life after return to the surface it does not settle (frozen), a molecule of water or hydrogen peroxide, but, rather, again knocked out by radiation from the surface. Molecular hydrogen is never settles on the surface, leaving it as it is light enough and at such a low gravity disappears in space [66] [67]. "
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Thanks Leopol, however, how does this apply to earth?
Without any more boring details of chemistry, the current consensus is that photosynthesis, initially from cyanobacteria produced the oxygen.
Now it takes one CO2 molecule (Carbon Dioxide) to produce one carbon atom and one O2 (oxygen gas) molecule.
So if there is 21% oxygen in the atmosphere now then there must have been 21% Carbon dioxide in the early earth atmosphere.
The current carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 388.5 parts per million which 0.0388%.
It has been calculated that prior to the industrial revolution, around 1750 CE, the atmospheric concentration was 280 parts per million, ie 0.0337%.
So the rise in CO2 concentration over this period amounts to 0.0051% and this rise in concentration is causing immense concern by many Climatologists, over it's effect to life on this planet.
What effect therefore would an atmosphere containing 21% CO2 have on life, let alone getting it started.
The planet Venus has an atmosphere rich in CO2. Go here to examine it's effects.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl ... earth.html
Here is what it says
So is all this hype about an early earth atmosphere being devoid of oxygen really based on science, or are these musings ( I am trying to be polite here) simply the result of a pre conceived philosophy of abiogenesis.
The conditions that actually would destroy life are the same conditions that got life started. Does that really make any sense?
When life began the atmosphere of the earth was essentially no different than it is today.
Is this view scientifically plausible or implausible?
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Here is my theory. It is just a theory, but I think it makes some valid points:
http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/201 ... gin-birth/
Initially, the Earth as a planet and all, had a higher hydrogen atmosphere with small amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon. Then there was the dissipation of solar wind hydrogen. Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon remained, and the hydrogen is moved farther - to the giant planets, which gradually adsorbed. Venus has an obvious deficiency of hydrogen, so there is nothing to do water ocean! But on Jupiter's moon - Europe - more water than all the oceans of the Earth!
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Your speciality appears to be random ramblings.
My advice would be to stick to what your good at, not that you have to follow it.
However if you do then less ignorance of science would be displayed.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, as you seem to be making the same point that the lecture I referred to makes.
The lecture concludes with this point.
My point is that questions 2 and 3 that relate to the earth, are not being adequately addressed by evolutionary theorists.
Accretion theory that you and the lecture clearly are referring cannot answer these questions, therefore the answer must lay elsewhere.
The view that photosynthesis (mainly from cyanobacteria) was the answer lacks scientific credibility simply because the amount of CO2 that would have been required to generate the oxygen we have in the atmosphere would have prevented life from even getting started. That then raises the question as to how the cyanobacteria even got started?
There is also another problem with this idea of photosynthesis.
Recall the increase in concentration of 0.0051% in CO2 since about 1750.
This is telling us that all the photosynthesis currently occurring today has not been able to absorb just this small percentage of CO2.
How much vegetation can we imagine would have been required to absorb all the 21% CO2?
This whole idea is fundamentally flawed.
All this goes to buttress my argument that an outside agency was involved.
That is why the genesis narrative (without all the bells and whistles that creationists attach to it) makes sense.
There are none of these chicken and egg situations we continually find in materialist explanations.
Well water - hydrogen and oxygen, and, two moles of hydrogen per mole of oxygen. With Venus hydrogen dissipated due to the solar wind, so the oxygen contacted with carbon. The result was the CO2 and CO.
The theory of accretion, I do not like. I believe that all the planets, stars, the so-called "Main Sequence" - were released in the form of fragments from the end sleeves Central galaxy's hyper-astroid. It's such a huge Laplace-black-star in the center of galaxy, weight - how many millions of solar masses. From two opposite-facing spindle-shaped elevations on the equator of the object under the influence of centrifugal forces are constantly torn plume material, which is fragmented into pieces of various sizes, with the Coriolis force, give them the time of rotation. Since are formed spiral arms of galaxy.
Oxygen was first associated with the whole hydrogen due to an excess of hydrogen. But after the dissipation of most of the hydrogen started radiolysis of water in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen remained, and hydrogen - dissipated. Later, when the Earth moved in from outer space holders nano-molecular peptide nucleic technology, the situation began to change. Apparently, these first settlers were stored after photosynthesis in the form of oxygen, peroxides, and hydrogen - in the form of hydrocarbons.
But if by the time of colonization of these intelligent ancestors of bacteria in the atmosphere and hydrosphere have been a lot of oxygen - oxygen store in the form of peroxide was not necessary ...
But if, in the hydrosphere, or anywhere else would be an excess of hydrocarbons ... Wow! ! It's on Titan! That's where the bacteria stockpile peroxide instead of carbohydrates! Yyess, it also goes in my sci-fi story!
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Try to look for Miller-Urey experiment and more alike experiments which concluded origin of life .
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I know we are going off subject a bit but it does have some relevance.
I agree about accretion theory. It creates more questions than it provides answers, but it is a poplar theory and that is why I cited it.
However the Laplace Black star model also has it's problems.
By defination a Laplace black star has an escape velocity that is greater than light speed.
Any matter leaving it will be moving at less than light speed. Therefore it will return to the star as gravitation pulls it back.
It therefore cannot escape to form planets etc unless it travels at a greater velocity than the black star's escape velocity.
I am not aware of any accretion mass that has been known to travel at above light speed.
However this is all really quite academic, because whether the atmosphere contained either CO2 or O2 it would not matter. Either way metabolic pathways could not get started.
The theory of photosynthesis is fundamentally flawed.
As I have stated before there is no scientific reason to conclude that the current atmospheric breakdown was any different to when life first started..
btw have you been in touch with James Cameron yet
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Andrew D. Brovold, Darien, WI (1978-2014)
July 23, 1978 - March 15, 2014
Andrew D. Brovold, age 35, of Darien, WI, passed away on Saturday, March 15, 2014, at Mercy Hospital Janesville. He was born on July 23, 1978, the son of Jim and Julie (Schell) Brovold. Andrew was united in marriage to Jayme Bennett on July 17, 2010, in Darien, WI. He was the owner and operator of Brovold Welding and Fabrication in Darien, WI.
Andrew is survived by his loving wife, Jayme of Darien, WI; his four children, who were the world to him: Trayke, Addalynn, Ihleea, and Wylan; one brother, Aaron of Las Vegas, NV; two brothers-in-law, Jeremy (Sheena) Bennett and Adam Grochowski; his mother and father, Jim and Julie Brovold; and his mother and father-in-law, Barb and Ken James. Andrew was preceded in passing by his brother, Adam; grandfather, Elwood; uncle, Lee; and his grandparents, Shortie and Bessie Schell.
Funeral Services will be held at 12 p.m. on Thursday, March 20, 2014, at OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH in Delavan, WI, with Rev. Robert P. Rickman officiating. Visitation will be held from 9:30 a.m. until service time on Thursday, March 20, 2014, at OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH. Interment will follow funeral services at Darien Cemetery. MONROE FUNERAL HOME, in Delavan, WI, is assisting the family. Visit us at monroefh.com.


text:
GC Appointments
Marrone Bio Innovations is committed to plant health, but the health of its legal department is perhaps just as important to the company's long-term growth. That's why the company has hired in-house veteran Linda V. Moore as its next general counsel. In addition to being co-founder and principal of The Moore Group, Moore has also previously served as GC and chief compliance officer of Merix Corp., Phoenix Technologies, and Jabil Circuit. "Linda brings a very valuable set of skills to MBI," said company CEO Pam Marrone. "Her broad corporate experience in the critical issues facing a rapidly growing company such as ours is outstanding."
Mark D. Nielsen sure knows how to jump around industries. Previously, he served at international industrial gases company Praxair, Inc. Before that, he was an associate general counsel for defense contractor Raytheon Co. And even before that, he served as legal counsel and chief of staff to then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. So what's the next challenge for Nielsen? Why, a GC job at telephone company Frontier Communications, of course! "Mark's extensive legal, business, and public sector experience will be of immense benefit to Frontier," company CEO Maggie Wilderotter said in a statement. "In addition to his legal responsibilities, he will work closely with Andy Crain, our former General Counsel and current Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, to close our acquisition of AT&T's wireline business, statewide fiber network, and U-verse video operations in Connecticut."
Tamara L. Joseph is making the move from one healthcare company to another, taking the job as general counsel at biomaterials company InVivo Theapeutics. Joseph comes to the company with extensive experience in the healthcare legal space, having previously served as GC at Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Mayne Pharma, and Transkaryotic Therapies. Mark Perrin, InVivo's CEO said in a statement, "I am confident that Tamara's judgment, strategic mindset, and integrity will be important assets for InVivo. We are proud to have attracted another experienced health care executive to help the company achieve its vision of bringing groundbreaking technologies to underserved patient populations."
Virgin Mobile, one of the largest telecommunications companies serving the U.K., will be moving forward with a new head general counsel. Mine Hifzi joins Virgin Mobile from Scripps Networks Interactive, where she was the senior VP of commercial and legal affairs. She also spent 14 years as the head of the international legal and government affairs team at Discovery Communications and also worked in house at Turner Broadcasting Systems Europe and United International Pictures. "I am pleased to be joining Tom and the rest of the Virgin Media team at what is an interesting time for the Company and the industry as a whole," she said in a statement. "Virgin Media has a uniquely powerful network, great people and the brand to build on its success."
Molecular diagnostics company Veracyte, Inc., has brought on an in-house veteran to move its legal department forward, tapping Julie A. Brooks as the company's general counsel, executive vice president and secretary. Brooks has spent more than 23 years as general counsel and a member of executive boards, most recently having worked at medical device company Conceptus, Inc. While at Conceptus, she helped oversee the company's acquisition of Bayer Healthcare LLC. "I am delighted to join Veracyte's top-notch management team and to share its mission of helping improve the lives of patients while reducing healthcare costs," Brooks said in a statement. "I believe Veracyte is creating the blueprint for how to build a successful molecular diagnostics company, given its strong achievements to date."
Manulife Financial Corporation, a Canadian insurance and financial services company that also does business in the U.S. and Asia, is looking to insure its executive board and legal department's future with the promotion of Stephen Sigurdson. Sigurdson currently works as the executive vice president and general counsel for Canada for the company, and he will succeed the retiring Jean-Paul Bisnaire in the top position. Before joining Manulife, Sigurdson was the chair of the Business Law Department at the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt.
In just 13 years, middle market private equity firm GI Partners has already risen to managing more than $10 billion in capital investments for recognized institutional investors. If the company is to continue growing, though, it will need to navigate some treacherous regulatory waters, which is where new GC David Smolen comes in. Smolen joins GI Partners from Silver Lake, where he was senior counsel and chief compliance officer. He also previously practiced corporate law at Sullivan & Cromwell. "His joining will enable GI to maintain our firm's high compliance standards and guide us through today's changing regulatory environment," said GI founder Rick Magnuson in a statement.
Other In-House Moves
It's a promotion for Don J. Chavez of security company Northrop Grumman, as he has been named the company's associate general counsel and sector counsel for its Technical Services sector. In the new position, he will report directly to company GC Shelia C. Cheston. Chavez joined the company in 1991, and he currently works as corporate counsel in the Electronic Systems sector. Before working for Northrop Grumman, he also served as GC for Thales Avionics Inc. "Don's broad experience across our enterprise, his thoughtfulness and his analytical skills will serve our company well in his new role," said Cheston in a statement.


text:
Broadway Armory Park
5917 N. Broadway Chicago, Illinois 60660
(312) 742-7502
Fee: free
Age Range: Family-Friendly
Sharing a good home-cooked dinner is a great way to connect with the family. The Broadway Armory Park Wellness Center is hosting a family night of fun activities, conversation, and food.
Nutritionally balanced meal, games, and lots of fun! The evening/dinner is sponsored by the Great Chicago Food Depository.


text:
Walworth County votes to retain state health inspections
ELKHORN--Walworth County business owners and employees asked the county board to reject a proposal for the county to take over health inspections from the state.
At a special meeting Thursday afternoon, the board did just that.
The board voted 7-2 to amend an ordinance to restrict the county's department of health and human services from looking into, planning and promoting the possibility of the county completing health inspections while state agencies still provide the service.
If county staff members are to spend time and resources looking into the issue again, they must have prior board approval.
"If it isn't broke, don't fix it," said Joe Schaefer, a member of the Walworth County Board and the county's health and human services committee board.
Linda Seemeyer, the county's health and human services director, and Jan Ellefsen,� public health officer and manager, had proposed a plan for county workers to take over annual inspections of all 927 establishments in the county by 2018.
Because of state budget cuts and because most counties conduct their own inspections, not all venues are inspected when they should be, and state response times to emergencies are slower than the county's response could be, Seemeyer and Ellefsen claim.
The state Food Safety and Recreational Licensing Section and the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection are responsible for inspecting and licensing venues that include restaurants, hotels, public swimming pools and water parks, campgrounds and tattoo and body piercing businesses.
The board's vote comes after a health and human services committee meeting Wednesday.
At the meeting, the committee listened to about an hour of public comment on the proposal. People spoke both in favor and against it.
After public comment, the committee passed a motion to halt further discussion and action until July in order to see a two-year summary of county inspections completed by the state. The committee also wanted the county's department of health and human services to put together a preliminary budget based on the state's fee system. The state's inspection schedule runs from July to July.
Because the committee did not recommend action to the county board, the item was held at the committee level. The county board has the ability to call items from the committee and vote on them. The county board voted unanimously to call the item from the committee and discuss it.
Later, county board supervisors Kenneth Monroe and Carl Redenius voted against amending the ordinance.
Monroe voted against amending the ordinance because he wanted more information come July before making a final decision.
"I agree that the staff did not come out with all necessary information, but I also believe they should have been given a chance to do that," Monroe said.
Seemeyer and Ellefsen were at the public comment period Wednesday and the vote Thursday.
"We would have never brought it forward if we didn't think it was needed and wouldn't improve the health and safety of this county," Seemeyer said after the vote. "I still feel it would have. Having said that, we're not surprised. We knew there was a large organized effort (against it)."
The department of health and human services will focus on other things that can benefit the county, Seemeyer said.
Jim D'Alessandro, owner of Harborview Motel in Williams Bay, spoke in opposition to the county taking over licensing and inspections at the meetings Wednesday and Thursday.
He said he likes the degree of separation with state employees completing inspections because it keeps out personal agendas and vendettas that could harm businesses.� He also said he doesn't see any flaws in the system.
"I'm kind of struggling here to see where the problem is and why the county needs to take it over," D'Alessandro said.
The owner of the 12-room motel was happy with the county's vote.
"I'm quite pleased," D'Alessandro said. "I think it's an example of the county board listening to people and what they want."


text:
Maplewood Park
1640 N. Maplewood Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60647
(312) 742-0041
Fee: Free
Age Range: Any
Back by popular demand our Family Fun Fest and Films will provide an evening of family-friendly free entertainment to community members. Activities range from art projects, lawn/table games, an entertaining live performance, and an outdoor movie. Don't forget to bring your picnic basket and blanket!
Featured movie Pirates of the Carribbean


text:
Your Views: Janesville councilman disputes suggestion on sidewalks
I want to vigorously disagree with City Council President Kathy Voskuil's characterization that councilmen had changed their minds completely and voted against the sidewalk plan. From the earliest days of my city council campaign, I have opposed the sidewalk plan.
Installing sidewalks is a project that should be done in a healthy, robust economy when people have good jobs and disposable income. This plan goes back almost five years. In 2008 the economy tanked and GM left town. Janesville has not yet recovered. This was not and is not the time to do this. In a worst-case scenario, you could push someone into foreclosure because they can't pay for their new sidewalks.
I also agree with Councilman Douglas Marklein's assessment that we need to take a close look at the characteristics of individual neighborhoods, not just look at a map. In one case, he pointed out that the neighborhood was actually designed without sidewalks and so the street was constructed 8 feet wider than a standard city street.
Last of all, I felt the vote was more about "We the sidewalk committee" and not "We the people." There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution for this, but I believe we are on the right track to finding a viable solution.
Janesville City Council


text:
Your employees deserve to have breakroom supplies available to help them through a fast-paced workday. We provide a variety of products designed to make your employees' lunch breaks comfortable, such as coffee supplies, kitchen utensils and accessories, cup holders, Rubbermaid containers, and Ziploc bags for storage. We pride ourselves on the our selection of kitchen products designed to make food preparation more convenient.
Browse our wide selection for coffee makers, kitchen utensils, and containers for food preparation.
We offer reliable breakroom products, so workers spend their time enjoying the break.
For value prices on the supplies you need, this is the place to shop.


text:
Shrink or swim: Blackhawk Tech considers asking taxpayers for more
TOWN OF ROCK—A survey sent last week to 8,000 registered voters will help Blackhawk Technical College officials decide whether to hold a $4 million referendum.
If officials like what they hear, they'll ask voters for permission to exceed the school's levy limit by up to $4 million every year. That would raise taxes as much as $37 on a $100,000 house each year.
Despite $2.3 million in cuts and savings already in place, Blackhawk Tech would fall about $3 million short of covering operational expenses every year without the ability to tax more, officials said.
The surveys were mailed last week to a random sampling of voters in Green and Rock counties. Officials are asking for responses by Monday, Dec. 16.
The Blackhawk Tech Board will hear an analysis from referendum consultant School Perceptions at its meeting Thursday, Dec. 19. No decision will be made immediately.
What's at stake, officials said, is the future of the college: Will it have the resources needed to continue producing workers ready for local jobs and boosting the economic recovery, or will it be forced to shrink its services?
"If you receive one of these (surveys), don't think it's junk mail. Take the time to read it," said Kelli Cameron, director of the Blackhawk Technical College Foundation.
The foundation is paying for the survey, not taxpayers.
Officials did not have immediate plans for cuts in case a referendum is not held, or if one fails.
"We are in the process of identifying the areas and services where we will shrink, should this be necessary, said Renea Ranguette, Blackhawk's vice president for finance and operations.
The district board would not necessarily levy the entire $4 million increase every year, Blackhawk President Tom Eckert said, but the ability to increase taxes up to the new limit would continue indefinitely.
Eckert would not say what percentage of positive survey responses is needed to trigger a referendum. The question will be whether officials think they can convince enough voters to vote for a referendum, and that will include how many voters' minds they think they could change.
Officials are considering a referendum on the date of the spring election, April 1.
Losses of state aid and changes in state law in recent years have brought the college to this point, officials said.
For many years, tech college tax levies were capped at $1.50 per $1,000 of property value. Blackhawk for many years did not levy the maximum tax allowed, Ranguette said.
Then in 2011, state lawmakers froze tech college levies at their 2010 levels. Blackhawk was stuck at a taxing level that was $1.36 million below what it could have levied under the old system. That limit remains in effect and isn't expected to change.
Meanwhile, state aid to technical colleges shrunk 30 percent, officials said. For Blackhawk, that was a loss of $1.5 million each year.
This year's operational budget is $31.62 million, and that includes a $2.17 million from district reserves.
The school can't continue to draw from reserves, officials said. Reserves need to be kept at a level that will stave off short-term borrowing to handle cash-flow shortfalls.
The district is taxing residents $20.74 million this year. That's an increase of 1.6 percent increase from last year. Most of the increase was not for operations. It was to remodel the new Advanced Manufacturing Training Center, which will open in Milton next year.
The state-imposed levy freeze does not include taxes to service debt. Also exempt from the freeze is additional taxes generated from new construction in the tech school district, which amounted to an additional $115,000 in revenue this year.
Ranguette estimates a budget gap of around $3 million for every foreseeable year. The $4 million referendum amount would give the college flexibility to tax higher, if needed.
Officials said they have worked in recent years to make ends meet, taking money-saving measures that include:
-- Suspending the aviation mechanics program, $370,000.
-- Reducing the number of student slots in the electric power distribution course, cutting a leadership program and an office systems technology position, $270,000.
-- Cutting two deans, a coordinator and other positions, $372,000.�
-- Closing the central-campus day care center, $72,000.
-- Employees paying into their pension fund, as required by the recent change in state law, for a $1 million savings.
-- Employees, who hadn't previously paid part of their health-insurance premiums, in January start paying 3 percent for the lowest-cost plan if they complete a wellness program. Those choosing higher-cost programs will pay more.
The savings add up to $2.3 million but are not enough, officials said.
The district also has added programs in student services, such as better academic advising, career preparation, tutoring, teaching soft skills that employers value, more internships and encouraging more enrollments directly out of high school.
Officials also want to be able to open up new course sections when workers and employers need them.
For example, Blackhawk has accommodated local needs in programs such as welding, which now run from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., plus Saturdays, Eckert said, "and it takes operational costs to make that go."
Enrollment is declining on a full-time-equivalent basis, Cameron said, but Blackhawk is seeing more students than before because more are attending part-time while working part-time jobs as the economy improves.
One thing officials haven't cut or frozen is wages, something that has happened in the public and private sectors in recent years.
Eckert said a wage freeze would hurt the college's quality because instructors and other positions are recruited nationally, and eventually, the quality of job candidates would suffer.
Some have asked why the college doesn't raise tuition to cover costs, but it can't do that, Cameron said. Tuition, which is the same statewide, is set by the state technical college system board.
Tuition and fees account for 28 percent of operational expenses. Local taxes pay 54 percent. State aid covers 10 percent. The rest is grants and other revenues.
Blackhawk's last referendum was for $17.5 million in 2002. It paid for building expansions, mostly at the central campus.
Cameron said district residents were right to approve that referendum. It helped the school handle the enrollment surge after hundreds of laid-off workers sought retraining in the wake of the closing of the Janesville GM plant six years later, she said.
Now, "if a new business comes to town, and we have to train a lot of workers, will we be in a position to do that?" Cameron said.�
"We've been working hard to make BTC a major part of the economic recovery, and we want to keep going. We don't want to get smaller," Eckert said. "We want to keep things rolling. But we've run into this operational crunch. … And we really need people to give us an honest assessment on that survey so we know where we stand."


text:
Lincoln Park
500-5700 N. Lake Shore Drive, Irving Park and Recreation Drive Chicago, Illinois 60614
(312) 742-7726
Fee: Free
Age Range: Any
The excitement and importance of this legendary rendition of the archetypal Western myth was sensed the day it opened, and the film earned six Academy Award nominations. The story brings Alan Ladd, a drifter and retired gunfighter, to the assistance of a homestead family terrorized by an aging cattleman and his hired gun. In fighting the last, decisive battle, Shane sees the end of his own way of life. Mysterius, moody and atmospheric, the film is enhanced by the intense performances of its splendid cast.
NR | 117 minutes | 1953
*Closed Captioned
Presented by Charter One, with additional support from RCN.
Chicago Park District Lakeside Cultural Series
Movies in the Parks is presented by:
With additional support from: