|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meyer's Hopeless Monster | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I find it surprising that we think life only arose once. I can understand that only one lineage made it so there is a LUCA. However, it might very well not be also the original form of life but just the furtherest back of the surviving line.
I'd find it cool if we could find any trace of a separate line. I certainly can't see that that is a big deal otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I would go so far as to say that it is an almost certainty that we will find out that life started many times, oth here and on other worlds.
The chemistry seems so straight forward and the likelyhood of creating life so probable that I find it hard to believe it happened only once. My best guess is that life is probably been created as we speak but that unless it happenes to begin where there is an open niche it would simply be short term protein, dinner for whoever was already occupying the niche. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5836 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
I’m going to try and beat ID-man to the punch here, as he either has the wrong end of the stick (at best), or hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about (at worst).
There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree — if you analyse the sequences of a number of primitive genes for example you would be presented with a LUCA that had more biochemical functions than any existing prokaryote.
Here is a very good (4 year old) review of the ideas behind it If you don’t have access to the full text then here is a pubmed central article (that I haven’t read in full) which is written by one of the main proponents of the theory about the origin of cells. How this helps the ID movement I don’t know! This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-12-2004 09:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree I am totally in agreement with you on this. Evidence seems to indicate more of a hedge of life rather than a tree of life. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
ID: pg. 92 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. 1-3 are unsupported assumptions, and the conclusion in 4 issimply a opinion based upon those unsupported assumptions. If 4 IS correct then it necessitates a creation event at somepoint in the past (even if that was not on Earth). It also means that no creator can exist who wasn't him/her/itself designed. If an non-designed creator can exist then 1 & 3 MUST be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It would help *if anyone* ever figured out what I was saying!
I guess I am ready for your mill of o's,The clue could be found in Gould's failure to follow Bateson INTO THE ORGANISM where the implication of disjunction was significant and determining (as to a wave or flucutation rather than a simple code for rate process relativity). if you SEE ALL CURRENT EVO BIO as using a transilient environment that was materially when not particularly a divergence behaviorally. I will pick all this up on the gong show thread if one is really pressed to find the continuity where currenlty Gould threaded Galton orthoganilly in a pigeon without a hole. Sorry to be cryptic and name dropping but just remind me of my KNOWLEDGE of the diff specifically between the chemical mutation of R.paluestris and Pipens where I will attempt to open up more time to talk about this as a quasi-closed system you might if you were "mad" enough to keep from being but the open living system. There is this world of difference between the chance speciation of a frog calling its toxicity and the knowledge that a human can divide amphibians discretely & genetically this way. We tend to have it currently taught that Fisher gained the continuity particulate wise and that these data divisions specify our taxonomic knon seperations maintained differently by baraminologists and cladists say but we dont (unless we tried to USE macrothermodyanmics) have a way to say that the different subspecific geographic distribtutions vicariances ARE the pariculate differences NOT THE genome letter divisions Gould would still be teaching were he alive to this way laid day of Provine's childhood chicken difference of inbreeding in the field (for any Mendel) vs brood chamber and hen house. I know that the two frogs I mentioned are subjectively different and THIS is why we tend to think of ONE life but I DONT KNOW in the same way, just becuase molecular phylogenies can be restructed that they are of the same degree UNLESS I TAKE IT THAT the continuity IS ONLY of the FISHER PARTICULATE GRADE. IT IS NOT on my view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website.
quote: OK let's see PaulK spin that... "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There's no need to spin it.
There are plenty of possible explanations, not least the fact that Behe's departure would be very damaging. And the ID movement is all about politics, PR and spin. Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: So you admit you are wrong?
quote: Let us hear some of those expalnations and please support them.
quote: The reality is that ID is all about finding out the reality to our existence. And then understanding that reality. Period.
quote: In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, I don't admit that I am wrong. Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong. As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.
And I've got to admit that I laughed at your description of ID. No, ID is all about influencing the American school curriculum. Want to explain why the ID movement won't even take a stand on the age of the Earth ? And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Maybe its because THE FORM, is not extinct. When Gould looked at Romer's T-Rex he ^thought^ "Ohhhh now I get it, it is no longer-it was, it is NOW extinct". When I saw the drawing in my book, I IN ADDITION saw in the corner of the page, at the feet of the RECONSTRUCTION, a colored (rex was all bones in B&W) turtle and some other herp and I ^thought^ 'well at least something survived!'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Paul said...
Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?
To which you said...
In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation Do I really need to point out that you said that YOU disagree with Behe on common descent? That then places YOU in the creationist camp then, no? And you claimed to be ID so some within ID are creationists, yes? Can't wait to see how you spin that one. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ID man writes: Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website. As stated a couple times already, the ID movement, including Dr. Behe, would like very much to distance itself from the largely discredited Creationist movement. It would prefer to identify itself as an independent movement unrelated to traditional Creationism. But when you look behind the curtain, there are all the usual players, like Philip E. Johnson and so forth. You quote Dr. Behe saying, "that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent," as if denial of common descent were the definition of Creationism. IDists shout "I am not a Creationist" for the same reason racists shout "I am not a racist", because they don't want to be associated with a discredited concept. When you look under the hood of ID it has many similarities to the Scientific Creationism effort, where Creationists promoted the Genesis account of creation with all mention of God removed. ID just says that some unknown intelligence created and guided the evolution of life on earth. If this intelligence wasn't God then it was an alien race, which just pushes the origins question off to another planet. Ultimately you still have to answer the question of how the first life arose, and if your answer is that it didn't arise naturally, then your answer is still God. And that's why ID is still Creationism. There are good reasons why traditional Creationists like Philip E. Johnson are involved in the ID movement. They know that traditional Creationism has already lost the battle, so they're looking for other alternatives like ID. But they want to take great care that ID doesn't deviate too far from traditional Christian beliefs. They know that evangelicals would not accept getting ID into schools only to find it meant denying Genesis. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Your statement is too general, given the observations. It should be "Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agent THAT IS PART OF THE NATURAL REALM." Therefore, life had to originate naturally somewhere, and this rules out the possibility that life can only arise through an intelligent agent. This rules out God as the designer which is something the ID movement is against because they are creationists.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024