Evolution

[Sparky]

Spektralscavenger:

The first life form is not the same thing as the common ancestor.

Well, if there were dna evidence to that effect? But what dna evidence we have goes how far back?

Spektralscavenger, thanks for trying.... I guess I am looking for what standard biologists hold to be true about the dna line.

me:

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?

Daniel:

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

Daniel, thank you, but I am looking for evidence of dna evolution, true or fabricated.

webo:

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.

Errrrr, depends on what kind of truth.... Results from certain chemical reactions can be said to be true....
But "truth and beauty", that comes from alignment of synapses with the frequencies of the stars..

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

[Sparky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

Good video!! Thanks, chrimony...

This answered my question about similar dna linked to all life forms. ...Yes..

To me this seems to be more of a problem than they let on. Was there competition between dna , somehow allowing only one line of evolution? Why don't we see multiple lines, even if extinct?

[tholden]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
,...

[/quote]

That's the most major problem with evolution and why the question is important.

[Sparky]

Button up the back flap, your agenda is showing....

[chrimony]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

Good video!! Thanks, chrimony...

This answered my question about similar dna linked to all life forms. ...Yes..

To me this seems to be more of a problem than they let on.

It's not a problem for evolution, as abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories. That the lines can be traced to common ancestors is strong evidence in favor of evolution. You could even say that life was started by a "creator" and then left to evolve on it's own, and evolution would still be valid.

Was there competition between dna , somehow allowing only one line of evolution? Why don't we see multiple lines, even if extinct?

The simple answer is we don't know. All we have is speculation and multiple hypotheses. One argument is that it is statistically unlikely to happen, so when it does happen on a planet it only happens once. Another is that when it happens the first time, it fills the environment and makes it impossible to happen again. Another is the competition idea you mentioned.

[Sparky]

chrimony :

It's not a problem for evolution, as abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories. That the lines can be traced to common ancestors is strong evidence in favor of evolution.

I agree that a common ancestor origin lends weight to the evolution argument. It makes it much easier to follow. But if life began with one type of dna, it seems more probable that life would have begun again with anyone of the multiple dna's available to be assembled. Unless there is a "morphic" field that directs all phases of life.

But I think it is a cope out to divorce abiogenesis from evolution. I know that evolutionists don't want the expanded controversy, but it needs to be addressed honestly. At what point in abiogenesis does life begin? Pick a point, then explain why, just 1/2 step before, it was not life.

Thank you....

[Plasmatic]

Webo said:

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.

Hehe, Web you have me all fired up with your post conflating conception with perception (perspective with premises).... I wont derail this thread to hammer out this issue and others, but could you tell me (in PM if you want) what you think metaphysical means? It appears from your usage, coupled with the way you use "faith" that you mean something like non-empirical....?

[chrimony]

I agree that a common ancestor origin lends weight to the evolution argument. It makes it much easier to follow. But if life began with one type of dna, it seems more probable that life would have begun again with anyone of the multiple dna's available to be assembled. Unless there is a "morphic" field that directs all phases of life.

How can you discount the possibility that life is very unlikely to occur on any given planet, and that when it does it only occurs once? There's actually some weight to this idea, given the immense size of the known Universe and we don't know of any specific way to reproduce such an event beyond hypotheticals.

But I think it is a cope out to divorce abiogenesis from evolution. I know that evolutionists don't want the expanded controversy, but it needs to be addressed honestly. At what point in abiogenesis does life begin? Pick a point, then explain why, just 1/2 step before, it was not life.

I don't think it's a cop-out at all. While the questions are related, they really are different theories. Could you address my previous analogy, which I will expand here? Imagine you were a scientist (creator), and you reproduced life in the lab (chemically or on the computer), and then let the thing take it's course as part of the experiment. Any evolved sentient beings would be correct on the theory of evolution, regardless of the origin.

[Sparky]

Any evolved sentient beings would be correct on the theory of evolution, regardless of the origin.

Yes, I agree.....And so too would the other beings which evolved in other computers, which is what I would expect.

I see the world teeming with life. That it all came from one origin is suspicious, and
should be investigated by whatever means we have. That the universe is big is no argument for common ancestor being most likely. With the variety of life we have with common dna, it seems out of place that we have only one dna line..

I don't think it's a cop-out at all. While the questions are related, they really are different theories.

It is convenient to separate those into two theories. I still think it is a cop-out, even if I do misspell that...

So, I do and you don't. Thanks for the link to video...

[webolife]

Plasmatic,
Long time no hear -- I think the question of metaphysics is central to this thread, though others [like Chrimony] may disagree. I tend to [deliberately] cloud the distinction between natural philosophy and science, because I find that the Baconian empirical root of modern science still grows in the soil of philosophy, premises and perceptions. If you believe the universe is fundamentally material and deterministic, then you will overlook, disregard, or disrespect any evidences that there is intelligent design at work, and you will be stuck with a theory like macro-evolution that has no power to create the structures, functions and forms we see today even if you gave it 100 billion years, including its unbridgeable gaps, and imagined original spontaneous generation. If you believe the universe is fundamentally supernatural, that it was intelligently designed, then you will see order where others see chaos, and information where others see pseudo-patterns. Your opposing conclusions are inescapable linked to your premises, even if you are looing at the same evidences. Many feel they have to take a side on this, which need not but may lead to ignorance of major features of the cosmos. Throughout the course of my life study I have fluctuated between these two aspects, attempting to draw closer to the elusive middle ground of "the way things really are". We've had this discussion before, but it has been a while.

[webolife]

Chrimony,
Funny you should mention the reptilian-jaw-to-mammalian-ear transition. I use this particular evolutionary claim as a key attack against the total illogic and powerlessness of macro-evolution. To analogize the point, let's play a game: Take the phrase REPTILIAN JAW and try transposing one letter at a time until you end up with the phrase MAMMALIAN EAR -- Not a hopeless task, you may imagine, as some of the pieces are already in place... oh, did I mention the rule of natural selection must apply at all times, so each transposition of letters must result in a viable word or phrase structure. Oh, and the letters to be deleted or added must also be randomly selected, kind of like picking scrabble letters out of a bag. Oh, and the "natural selector" must not determine viability of letters with the goal of "mammalian ear" in mind. Well, the nice part is that you have a million years to accomplish your task, so take your time. And have fun. When you're finished, you will have proven the possibility that macro-evolution could have occurred, but not that it did. The actual transformation process depends on thousands of shifts in structure and function, not just 7 as in this game.

[chrimony]

If you believe the universe is fundamentally material and deterministic, then you will overlook, disregard, or disrespect any evidences that there is intelligent design at work, and you will be stuck with a theory like macro-evolution that has no power to create the structures, functions and forms we see today even if you gave it 100 billion years, including its unbridgeable gaps, and imagined original spontaneous generation. If you believe the universe is fundamentally supernatural, that it was intelligently designed, then you will see order where others see chaos, and information where others see pseudo-patterns.

(bold mine)

On unbridgeable gaps: If you look at the history of science and trying to understand complex phenomenon, revelation and "some God did it" has been replaced with understanding of natural laws through the scientific method. Yet when confronted with gaps in scientific knowledge, we again here cries of "God did it!" This is God of the Gaps.

On intelligent design: One of the arguments in favor of evolution is the bad design we see in nature. Evolution goes in steps from what is already there and is limited by common descent, resulting in bad designs. An "intelligent designer" would come up with a better solution without being limited by common descent.

Funny you should mention the reptilian-jaw-to-mammalian-ear transition. I use this particular evolutionary claim as a key attack against the total illogic and powerlessness of macro-evolution. To analogize the point, let's play a game: Take the phrase REPTILIAN JAW and try transposing one letter at a time until you end up with the phrase MAMMALIAN EAR -- Not a hopeless task, you may imagine, as some of the pieces are already in place... oh, did I mention the rule of natural selection must apply at all times, so each transposition of letters must result in a viable word or phrase structure. Oh, and the letters to be deleted or added must also be randomly selected, kind of like picking scrabble letters out of a bag. Oh, and the "natural selector" must not determine viability of letters with the goal of "mammalian ear" in mind. Well, the nice part is that you have a million years to accomplish your task, so take your time. And have fun. When you're finished, you will have proven the possibility that macro-evolution could have occurred, but not that it did. The actual transformation process depends on thousands of shifts in structure and function, not just 7 as in this game.

Your rules of the game are broken. Evolution didn't start with the goal of turning a reptilian jaw into a mammalian ear. There are countless paths evolution can take. Looking at one particular path that resulted in a successful design and saying "impossible!" is to ignore all the possible outcomes. I turn this challenge around to you, and ask why an "intelligent designer" would take the route as shown in the fossil record. Why would there be these transitional forms at all, instead of just having the ear magically appear on the scene?

More generally, rather than picking on what you perceive as weaknesses in evolution, why don't you address the positive evidence for evolution as laid out in the video I've linked to before? Or the Evidences for Macroevolution website if videos aren't your thing. Looking at the whole of the evidence, does intelligent design make more sense or evolution?

[Sparky]

webo:

disrespect any evidences that there is intelligent design at work,

Somewhere I came across the definition of evolution as ,"the ability to adapt and change." And I also came across the definition of "intelligence" as the ability to learn, adapt, and change.

So, evolution appears to be "intelligent", though there seems
to be some inefficiencies in the design. Remember when "junk dna" was suppose to be leftover bits that had no use?

The only thing I can come up with is that it is all "intelligently designed" by "committee".

[webolife]

Chrimony,

This is a science forum, yes, but "evolution" is not a very scientific theory, but is a philosophy of nature driven by naturalism, materialsism, determinism, and in post-modern era by atheism. Sure it is an empirical endeavor organized by scientists, but the conclusions drawn from the work are made by humans with beliefs.

You seem to be still operating from the Darwinian view that macro-evolution can come about by means of natural selection. This is like saying you can keep throwing hand grenades into a pile of rubble, and "select" each time those bits that seem shaped to stack well until eventually an entire building is formed... without of course the benefit of an architect, a builder or an intelligent "selecter", or for that matter any predetermined plan for stacking the pieces. Let's keep doing that for a million years, and see if anyone realtor would be able to sell the results. The faith required to believe the three bones of the reptilian jaw could magically transform from a hinging function to the highly specialized and finely tuned mammalian hearing function over any number of eons is beyond anyone's imagination. There is no transitional fossil series describing this magical change... you are the evolutionist of the gaps!! I am not inclined toward the there's-no-evidence-so-God-must-have done-it mentality. If there's no evidence there's no evidence, nothing is proven! But that's part of my point as well... in order for macroevolution to have occurred, the transitional evidence must be the rule rather than the exception! There must be billions of transitional species linking all the major clads throughout the alleged geologic history of the phylogenetic tree, yet what is predominant in the record is distinct clads. This was and is Darwin's Enigma. And the tree branches are still today unconnected by any evidence to the trunk. This is not the story of the "god of the gaps", rather it's about magical transformations that have no viable mechanism, no logic [suitable cause and effect], and no evidence.

A few wishful transitionals, such as the classic Archaeopteryx, show species of present animals/organisms that are unusual for sure, but their DNA still is still present [bird teeth for example], just lacking expression; the hoatzin has and uses wing claws in its fledging stage, and the number of fused tail bones in some modern birds outnumbers Archie's unfused 22. "Likely" transitionals, such as the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs are not considered to be ancestral to birds, while others that are, eg. the raptor classes, have the least likely forearms to have developed wings. The theropods from which Archaeopteryx is supposed to have arisen were toothless, while Archie has teeth! The accidental "feathering" that is supposed to have helped dinosaurs be able to fly seems to appear in forms that are unsuitable for flight, while the bird Archaeopteryx has well developed flight feathers.

Whale "evolution" from a terrestrial form has been a joke for a century. The fish Tiktaalik, exhibits an unusual combination of forms that are all found in modern fish. The famous "horse series" is no longer considered to be proof of macro-evolution, and all the myriads of other evidences for speciation, ie. micro-evolution, are not under consideration here. I do not debate natural variation within a genome, as all studied genomes appear to have genotypes that vastly outnumber their phenotypes. The shared DNA of multiple clads of organisms shows nothing about evolution, as similar organisms often have less DNA in common than some distinct groups. There are common instructions for common functions all the way down to bacteria; the thousands of genes we share with these lowly creatures shows if anything the remarkable complexity of the simplest of organisms, while there is no "chain of being" sequence between bacteria and humans. The human evolution story is another gappy example of wishful and predetermined conclusions. "Lumping" versus "splitting" fuels the debate in interpreting many relationships among organisms... everyone has access to the same fossil information, but each interprets what they according to their own premises, and as the human way goes, according to their own interests. The sequence of fossils required by macro-evolution is typically out of order, and the fossil record itself attests to equilibrium that is "punctuated" only by suddenly appearing and dramatically distinct forms. S.J.Gould's solution was that the evolution occurred too rapidly for the process to be preserved in the record. The evolutionist of the gaps. Funny... we don't see slow transitions today [because they're too slow to witness], and we can't see them in the record [because they happened too quickly]...

[Sparky]

Well said....