Evolution

[Sparky]

Well, thanks ,Ted, but there was no direct answer to my inquiry/?

Yes, yes, I know about the tree..I'm talking about the evidence that all of the tree had the same beginning, Abiogenesis.? There are suppose to be traceable dna all the way back to bacteria, fungus, and other small stuff....

If there is evidence that every branch arose from a trunk that resulted from a single origin , then that would be very suspicious... If every life form has the same basic dna signature, and mutations and combinations of life forms arose from those later, then what is with that?? Do we really know the basic dna structures that came out of Abiogenesis?

Let me try that one again. Suppose you were to believe in both evolution and abiogenesis not involving any sort of an engineering process or intelligence and then suppose you were to plan a trip to the stars... What would you expect to see? Most scify writers expect to see something totally different, i.e. not involving RNA/DNA at all. I mean, if DNA/RNA just formed up by accident here, then the odds against that exact same accident happening on another star system would be insanely beyond astronomical or anything even imaginable. That's why most scify stories involve seriously different creatures and not just slightly different ones.\

Nonetheless what Troy and I have demonstrated is that the same RNA/DNA info system and similar creatures did in fact rise up on two totally disconnected systems which, for all intents and purposes, may as well have been 50 light yeas apart. The chances of that same DNA/RNA system arising by chance on both Earth and Ganymede are basically zero.

Evolution is basically a bunch of BS. It's being defended by academic dead wood because it serves as a sort of a pseudoreligion for them.

Ted. if you were not so intent on promoting your agenda, you would comprehend my simple question and respond to it directly. I have no dog in this fight, and really do not care one way or the other what perspective wins or even produces a strong argument. I just had a question:

If there is evidence that every branch arose from a trunk that resulted from a single origin , then that would be very suspicious... If every life form has the same basic dna signature, and mutations and combinations of life forms arose from those later, then what is with that?? Do we really know the basic dna structures that came out of Abiogenesis?

Is there anyone here that has knowledge that may be directed at my question?

thanks...

[chrimony]

Macroevolution is not true.

Evidences for Macroevolution

Again, the experiments with fruit flies amounted to a coercive demonstration that macroevolution and the so-called theory of evolution are false, and that no combination of microevolutionary changes could ever agglomerate to a macroevolutionary jump.

Actually, such experiments have indicated that jumps can occur involving changes in body plan. While it's true they haven't developed a viable new "macro" type species as far as I know, they haven't had the entire Earth as a laboratory and thousands or millions of years to succeed, so your claim is not conclusive at all. In the meantime, there is all the positive evidence for evolution, which you continue to willfully ignore. All this while you propose your own sci-fi fantasy as serious science, or make ridiculous claims about dinosaurs living with Indians, in complete contradiction of the fossil record.

[tholden]

@ D_Archer

Life only adapts to its environment,

And very quickly too it seems. Adaptation would be very important in the design of living things, when the environment can change greatly over short periods. One case was a birds beak that adapted (they say evolved) when the birds primary food source changed (it needed a longer beak), but changed back again when the food source again changed. So does DNA store all the evolutionary changes just incase they are needed again, or were all the possible adaptations there from the very beginning?
Scientists reverse evolution with snouted chicken

Chickens and other birds are thought to have descended from dinosaurs through a series of genetic changes.
But by altering the DNA of chicken embryos in the early stages of their development, scientists are able to undo the progress made by evolution and give them qualities they lost millions of years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... icken.html

Apparently, we share something like 40% of our DNA with bananas. Does that mean that we evolved from the banana? Does it mean that if you were to alter somebody you didn't like back into a banana, that would prove macroevolution and the theory of evolution?

To me what that proves is that today's creatures are products of continual genetic engineering and re-engineering, albeit that process appears to have stopped prior to our own recorded history.

[tholden]

My favorite transformation story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfggccwQrcY

[chrimony]

Apparently, we share something like 40% of our DNA with bananas. Does that mean that we evolved from the banana?

If you spent some time studying the evidence of evolution instead of reading creationist propaganda, you would know that it means we share a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from a banana. There's a difference.

To me what that proves is that today's creatures are products of continual genetic engineering and re-engineering, albeit that process appears to have stopped prior to our own recorded history.

And you also think humans were transplanted from a distant moon of another planet, and that dinosaurs and Indians interacted.

[Sparky]

I'll try a different forum for an intelligent answer..

[Spektralscavenger]

I have some concerns about evolution, the biggest is the dna. Does it not appear that life began and proceeded in one line.? What are the odds of that? How come we don't see multiple lines from multiple Abiogenesis around the world?

This, to me. seems to be an important area to examine. Has anyone heard of a good explanation for this?

thanks.........

Hi, Sparky

It´s worth a try.

The first life form is not the same thing as the common ancestor. Earth life could have existed for eons before the common ancestor was around_ in other words, Earth was full of exotic forms for modern canon. For all we know life could have originated many times, or just once; either way, like you say, could have evolved in thousands of fashions and directions instead of sticking to one basic plan. We´ll never know the original bio-organization/s so I start from generic initial conditions. Obviously, some organizations work better or allow more adaptability; apparently ours was the best/most adaptable and in time exterminated any alternative life (if really was any); even slightly different ones (g.e., one different amino acid). Survival of the fittest. Ain´t broken, don´t fix it. Probably primitive life forms were more flexible thus capable of experiment more profound changes without dying; millions of years later they were very specialized, that is, any change in the basic structure would be lethal (or even if not it´d perish in the "game of life" anyway).

Something similar is seen in animal evolution:
At first many body plans, in the last 600 million years (standard chronology) many body plans went extinct and no brand new b p evolved ever since.

[D_Archer]

Sparky wrote:
I have some concerns about evolution, the biggest is the dna. Does it not appear that life began and proceeded in one line.? What are the odds of that? How come we don't see multiple lines from multiple Abiogenesis around the world?

This, to me. seems to be an important area to examine. Has anyone heard of a good explanation for this?

thanks.......

Evolution has no origin and never had, it was more a description of how there could be changes in the same species in different areas (Galapagos was Darwin's Eureka moment). But the changes where NOT evolution, it was adaptation. After that the whole fairy tale of evolution started and evidence was sought (and fabricated) but never actually found and now it a sort of new religion for dumb people. The fact that there is propaganda for evolution should be telling.

Life is electric and there is a "design", this design is a template that is an outcome of fundamental physical properties of the matter universe. So only when we understand the small of the physics of the universe and how electricity and plasma make the emergence of life possible can we begin to answer questions such as yours Sparky.

But my emergence of life through physics idea could be an answer of why there is no multiple Abiogenesis...

Regards,
Daniel

[chrimony]

Evolution has no origin and never had, it was more a description of how there could be changes in the same species in different areas (Galapagos was Darwin's Eureka moment).

While it's true that evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life, you massively downplay the scope of Darwin's theory. The title of Darwin's foundational work is, "The Origin of Species" (bold mine). The following quote is from Darwin's concluding chapter: "When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

But the changes where NOT evolution, it was adaptation. After that the whole fairy tale of evolution started and evidence was sought (and fabricated) but never actually found and now it a sort of new religion for dumb people. The fact that there is propaganda for evolution should be telling.

Life is electric and there is a "design", this design is a template that is an outcome of fundamental physical properties of the matter universe. So only when we understand the small of the physics of the universe and how electricity and plasma make the emergence of life possible can we begin to answer questions such as yours Sparky.

But my emergence of life through physics idea could be an answer of why there is no multiple Abiogenesis...

Why is it that people who do no science and examine no evidence feel the need to engage in their own propaganda to tear down established science and propose their own ill-specified and unsubstantiated theories?

[D_Archer]

Why is it that people who do no science and examine no evidence feel the need to engage in their own propaganda to tear down established science and propose their own ill-specified and unsubstantiated theories?

What you said can not be about me. Maybe i should not have said it was my idea because it is not really. It is also EU/PC, as plasma has lifelike characteristics, the double helix nebula looks like DNA, i am only saying that that is not a coincidence.

Regards,
Daniel

[webolife]

I've been busy of late and haven't had time to post to this thread for a while, but Chrimony's previous comments lead me to want to chime in here.

First, a few comments about myself. My major was Earth Science with a minor in Math from the University of Washington. At the end of this school year, I retire from 37 years of teaching science and math in the public sector, and this year marks my 40th year of study and teaching on the subject of Life Sciences and Genetics, Evolution, Earth history and catastrophism, as well as experimentation and extensive study in the field of the physics/optics of light. I have organized and led field studies in Pacific northwest ecology and geology for classes of students and adults. I teach a 20 hour presentation on catastrophic earth history in reference to biblical hermeneutics, so I have acquired a firm grasp of both Hebrew and Greek texts and contexts for the Genesis stories and other biblical references to them. I am highly skeptical of a significant number of creationist doctrines, but hold a deep respect and consideration for those who recognize that knowledge comes through study and experience, but "truth" comes through revelation.

At its base and core, truth is and must be metaphysical, because every one of us sees the cosmos from a different perspective, even if viewing the same physical evidences. This is why true science cannot be authenticated on the basis of its scope or respected due to its establishment or "consensus". See my signature line for the reason I relish dialogue with reasonable people of opposing viewpoints. I find it rather limiting of growth and understanding to associate only with people of like mind to myself, or to ridicule reasonable people with a different approach or perspective.

Chrimony speaks of the "scope" of Darwinism, and evolution as "established" science. The scope/prevalence and establishmentarianism of the evolutionary paradigm are precisely what subject it to the extensive criticism and skepticism with which it is met in this thread and others in the EU boards. Yes, there are some pretty wild alternative views presented in opposition to traditional evolution theory, and I would not be the last person to say that Tholden's ideas are about as far-fetched as they come. Those who have followed my posts over the years know that I hold to some fairly iconoclastic propositions as well. Check Lloyd's blog for the flavor of a couple of my recent recap posts regarding continental drift. In scientific endeavors evidence gathering is a key process, but the ingrained-ness of our own predisposition often blinds us to relevant criticism by others and controvertible flaws in our own thinking.

With this as my premise, Chrimony, I believe you hold too strongly to a view of evolution that is both circular and misconceived: Macro-evolution is at its core self-contradictory, illogical, and unsupported. Darwin understood this objection, and though the preponderance of [evolutionary] gaps in the fossil record was an enigma to him, he made the leap of logic that the information-reducing process of natural selection (aka micro-evolution) could over time lead to the information explosion required by phylogeny (macro-evolution). He was able to get away with this because in his day, popular belief held to the "fixity of species", which he masterfully put to death with his Galapogus finches and the publication of Origins. Even today, the tradition of evolution is held by Chrimony and other adherents to be highly supported with many Darwinian style evidences filling the closets, shelves and display cases of the world's natural history museums. These multitudinous examples affirm the undeniability of speciation, explosive variation and radiative adaption largely within families. But today, as in Darwin's day, despite the vast fraction of extinct species revealed by the fossil records, there remains no case in which one major clad of animals can be observed to transition over time to another clad. This certainly does not prove the case for "design", but it is a good beginning place to recognize that macroevolution is in a desperate strait. The evolutionary tree, if you can envision it for a moment with me, is accurately represented by dotted lines at every major juncture, which is really just a pile of branches lying on the ground, and no tree at all. Creationists are correct in demonstrating that the fossil record shows distinct and complex kinds of animals from their earliest appearance in the Cambrian and Ordovician et. al., to their present [or extinct] forms to be identifiable and un"evolved". Much variation within a form is noted, and attests to what even SJ Gould understood as a rich inherent variability in the DNA of original kinds. Despite Chrimony's objections to the contrary, there has not been nor could there be enough time in the universe for un-directed and random mutations to accumulate to any degree like we see today in the genomes of the earth. The objection continues that natural selection is not a random process, that viable mutants are preserved and passed on from one generation to the next, without acknowledging the observed evidence that the preponderance of mutations are lethal to the organism in which they are observed. To the evolutionist, every piece of DNA of every creature on earth past and present is/was once a random mutation, hence by fiat of faith, the accumulation of these mutations MUST have been a positive upward progression of information from the first appearance of simple life forms on earth by spontaneous generation. The belief system of evolutionists is tight, circular, defensive to the point of arrogant, and as blind as the watchmaker Dawkins invented to silence his detractors. The evolutionary paradigm is a powerful tyrant in the public sector today, as it was in the day of Hitler, and it deserves to be critiqued and dismantled.

It's not enough to dismantle the paradigm, however. We must replace it carefully with study, perseverence, and careful consideration of all the questions presented to us by the organisms, biosphere, and cosmos we see around us, ever mindful that each of us is absolutely limited in our own perspective and bound to conclusions that proceed from our own faith base, true of evolutionists and non-evolutionists or creationists alike. The evolution debate will likely never be resolved on the basis of who has the "superior" evidence (ultimately we all have the same "proofs"); rather through the respect and open-mindedness that invites opposition, challenge and criticism let's all proceed to draw closer to the secrets that the universe awaits to reveal.

[chrimony]

I am highly skeptical of a significant number of creationist doctrines, but hold a deep respect and consideration for those who recognize that knowledge comes through study and experience, but "truth" comes through revelation.

That's not science, that's dogma. This is a science board, or at least supposed to be.

With this as my premise, Chrimony, I believe you hold too strongly to a view of evolution that is both circular and misconceived: Macro-evolution is at its core self-contradictory, illogical, and unsupported. Darwin understood this objection

Let's stop right there. Can you reference Darwin where he "understands" such an objection? Because those are some very strong objections. Darwin addressed objections which might be raised against his theory, but "at its core self-contradictory, illogical, and unsupported" doesn't sound like anything Darwin would have been sympathetic to.

and though the preponderance of [evolutionary] gaps in the fossil record was an enigma to him

He put forth reasonable arguments as to why there might be gaps.

But today, as in Darwin's day, despite the vast fraction of extinct species revealed by the fossil records, there remains no case in which one major clad of animals can be observed to transition over time to another clad.

I've already quoted one example (reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones).

This certainly does not prove the case for "design", but it is a good beginning place to recognize that macroevolution is in a desperate strait.

If you actually addressed the positive evidence for evolution, as I tried to get tholden to do, you'd have an argument. I've linked to an hour video that gives a good summary of solid evidence. I've also linked to Evidences for Macroevolution.

It's not enough to dismantle the paradigm, however. We must replace it carefully with study, perseverence, and careful consideration of all the questions presented to us by the organisms, biosphere, and cosmos we see around us,

That's the problem. The people bashing evolution here aren't willing to examine the large amount of scientific evidence we already have in favor of evolution.

ever mindful that each of us is absolutely limited in our own perspective and bound to conclusions that proceed from our own faith base, true of evolutionists and non-evolutionists or creationists alike. The evolution debate will likely never be resolved on the basis of who has the "superior" evidence (ultimately we all have the same "proofs"); rather through the respect and open-mindedness that invites opposition, challenge and criticism let's all proceed to draw closer to the secrets that the universe awaits to reveal.

Funny, you don't sound very open-minded to me, and all this talk about "faith" over evidence is not science.

[tholden]

It's not enough to dismantle the paradigm, however. We must replace it carefully with study, perseverence, and careful consideration of all the questions presented to us by the organisms, biosphere, and cosmos we see around us, ever mindful that each of us is absolutely limited in our own perspective and bound to conclusions that proceed from our own faith base, true of evolutionists and non-evolutionists or creationists alike....

Evolutionists are quick to claim that anybody wishing to do away with evolution must demonstrate something to replace it with; my answer has always been that you could replace it with just about anything, i.e. you couldn't do worse than a theory requiring an essentially infinite sequence of zero-probability events. In other words, you might could buy off on a theory requiring one or two probabilistic miracles in the history of the world, but not something which stands everything we know about mathematics and probability on its head.

My own choice for something to replace evolution would be any sort of an old Coasters' album from around 1959 with a cut of "Run Red, Run" on it.

Lieber and Stoller (The Coasters) described a process for going from a monkey to a man back in the mid 50's, and all which was involved was a simple process of education and assimilation.

Occam's principle thus in fact demands that the Lieber/Stoller process be preferred over evolution. Named after Friar William Occam, the principle, sometimes known as Occam's Razor.

"Occam's Razor" is generally interpreted to mean that of two competing theories with equal explanitory power, the simpler should be chosen. Scientists generally adhere to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVMQbZwP-0

##################################################


The Lieber/Stoller solution:


Well, Red went an baught imself a monkey
bought im from a pawnshop brokah
He taught the monkey how to guzzle beah
an e taught im how to play stud pokah
last night they was gamblin in the kitchen
The monkey he was takin a beatin
The Monkey said 'Red,
I'm gonna shooot you dead,
because I know darn well ya been cheatin

You bettah Run Red Run, cause he's got yo gun,
an he's aimin it at yo head
Boogity boogity boogity boogity
Run Red Run, cause he got yo gun, an he's aimin it at yo head
Whoa! Boogity
You better git up an wail, you better move yo tail,
befo he fills it fulla lead

Well, Red jumped up an he started to move
like P-80 sabre jet
he zoomed around the corner an he dissappeared
an everybody started to bet
You know, the race was on, you know the chase was on,
an Red he sure could run
But let me tell you sport, don't play that monkey short,
cause he's a travelin son of a gun...

You bettah Run Red Run, cause he's got yo gun,
an he's aimin it at yo head
Boogity boogity boogity boogity
Run Red Run, cause he got yo gun, an he's aimin it at yo head
Whoa! Boogity
You better git up an wail, you better move yo tail,
befo he fills it fulla lead

Long saxaphone solo

Well, the monkey trapped Red in the parkin lot,
long along the avenue
The monkey said 'Red, you made a man outta me,
now I'm gonna make a monkey outta you',
Gimme yo car keys, an gimme yo watch,
give em to me or I'll shoot,
I'm gonna put on, yo new stetson hat,
an go to town in yo new brown suit

You bettah Run Red Run, cause he's got yo gun,...

[tholden]

At the end of this school year, I retire from 37 years of teaching science and math in the public sector, and this year marks my 40th year of study and teaching on the subject of Life Sciences and Genetics, Evolution, Earth history and catastrophism, as well as experimentation and extensive study in the field of the physics/optics of light....

I have two friends who I view as best/brightest category who both taught biology courses on high school and college levels including evolution for decades and both say the same thing, i.e. that they spent decades looking for any way to believe in evolution and never found it. One of them actually used to tell students about what I'd tell them, i.e. that evolution is a bunch of bullshit but that it was some sort of a state-sanctioned religion and that they needed to study it to get through school and get on with life. Evolution is not defended with rational arguments. It is defended with insults, threats, lawsuits, political action and social and workplace coercion; no real science theory is defended in such a manner.

[tholden]

Try your hand at the ultimate WW-II computer/action game!!

Sail with Kapitän Fritz Hintze on DKM Scharnhorst, as he sets out to save the world from 150 years of grief and disaster, by sinking the HMS Beagle off the Galapagos islands!!!

http://bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/Sin ... eagle.HTML