I certainly am very ignorant regarding the mystical properties of this yeast that is able to transform itself into other lifeforms razd.Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?Thanks in advance.
One should always go to the original source to discuss a scientific theory, rather than rely on dubious websites by authors of unknown expertise.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The process of evolution occurs constantly, all around the world, in all forms of life.
Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?
You can compare the hereditary traits in one generation to those in the next and measure the differences. That is evolution occurring "in the natural world" and it is an observed fact.
Darwin's insight was that this simple process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, prehistory, archeology, geology, paleontology, the fossil record and the genetic (though he didn't know about it) record.
This theory is tested, among other ways, by using the fossil record to see if it matches what the theory predicts. What the fossil record shows is what happened, the theory - if it is correct - explains how it happened.
The only response from seekingfirstthekingdom (before he was suspended from posting on that thread) is 3 consecutive replies to another post of mine:
Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?
Is there a possibilty similarities in our genetic structure are due to someone or something forming us to all cohabit on the planet?Remembering ive asked all of you to come up with a ancestral line and only one seems to have managed it.Give me time, ill try to offer scientific reasons why i think it doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
i can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.
If I may summarize your position it is
that you think evolution theorizes a single organism (that you miscall a yeast) that has over the millenia transformed itself into each of the various life forms we see today.
that listing all the transitional fossils from the first life to man is in some way required for evolution to be true.
If you don't mind, I will call the first concept in this list the "amazing magic yeast" concept.
You will note that in my previous response quoted above I asked you for documentation of where this "magic yeast" concept was found in the scientific literature, and -as yet- you have failed to provide that. Now is your opportunity to do so.
Admin -- Is it Science Forum would probably be best
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : added amazing
Edited by RAZD, : changed title to suit Great Debate forum
Note to seekingfirstthekingdom: the Great Debate forum is limited to a small number of participants, and is good for posters that generate a large number of replies, so that you don't have to deal with 50 replies to each of your posts.
This should help you focus on your position and be able to support your assertions clearly.
The forum rules are also relaxed somewhat.
You (or Huntard) may want to start a similar debate thread (with Huntard) on the fossil history of life on earth.
Re: the "amazing magic yeast" concept - bump for seekingfirstthekingdom
You may wonder why this topic is titled "Remedial Evolution" so I ought to explain:
You have posted several posts regarding an "amazing magical yeast" (AMY) concept. This concept, if I understand you correctly, posits that all life is descended from a single yeasty like organism that has transformed itself into the various life forms we know.
You further claim that there is no evidence and no "proof" for the existence of AMY.
For the record, I will stipulate that you are correct: there is no evidence for the existence of AMY.
I'll go you one better: science has shown, demonstrated, proven, that your AMY concept is falsified by the evidence in the fossil record and the evidence in the genetic record, and that behavior such as you attribute to AMY has not been observed in any way in life existing today, in history, in prehistory, in the archeological record, in the paleontological record, in the fossil record or in the genetic record.
The AMY theory is invalidated by the evidence, RIP, etc etc etc.
Now, do you want to learn what the science of evolution actually says happened? Do you want to learn what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) actually says? Do you want to learn what Evolution is?
If yes, then we can begin with what evolution is, and then proceed to discuss what this means for the diversity of life, and then see how that compares to the fossil record and the genetic record.
I called this thread "Remedial Evolution" because it is your opportunity to learn what evolution is really about.
I have the ancestors tale sitting right in front of me and the words to describe our initial ancestor is a single celled protozoa.His words in the inside cover talk of a final pilgrimage is taken together by all living things back to the origin of life itself.Thats not a common ancestor or him alluding to a common ancestor?Ok.
That is Dawkin's walking back through the evidence to see where it leads. It is not the theory of evolution.
You are confusing the theory of evolution with the evidence of life on this world.
I certainly dont.Merely asking for clarification and looking for some sort of agreement from you that the fossil record so far doesnt support the fact of evolution.
You are asking about the fossils. those are the facts that show what life on this world included at different times in the past. That is not the theory of evolution, they existed before the theory was conceived and will continue to exist if the theory is falsified.
The amazing single celled magic organism must of existed,for evolution IS FACT.I read you loud and clear.This organism for all intents and purposes only seems to exist in evolutionary textbooks,but because T.O.E is infallible only an idiot like myself would dare question it or ask for some sort of tangible evidence.Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.
Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation (otherwise known as descent with modification) - has indeed been observed and indeed is a fact.
You will note that this is not fossil evidence, but a known biological process occurring in the world today. This is not a theory, but one of the facts on which the theory of evolution rests.
Speciation - the division of a species into two or more new species, daughter populations, that are reproductively isolated - has also been observed and is also a fact.
This too is not fossil evidence, but a known biological process occurring in the world today. This is not a theory, but one of the facts on which the theory of evolution rests.
The fossil evidence is the (partial, spotty) record of (some of the) past living organisms (not all organisms fossilize, most decay away). This too is not a theory, but a set of facts on which the theory of evolution rests.
When you arrange the fossil record in a chronological sequence, what is observed (fact) is that the visible traits change from generation to generation among populations of similar fossils - similar to the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation that we see in biological life today.
When you arrange the fossil record in a chronological sequence, what is observed (fact) is that some populations of similar fossils divide into two or more populations of similar fossils that become increasingly different from the other populations that share the same ancestor populations - similar to the division of a species into two or more new species, daughter populations, that are reproductively isolated that we see in biological life today.
These are the facts and observations on which the theory of evolution is derived, they are not a theory, they are fact.
These facts existed before the theory of evolution was conceived, and they will continue to exist even if the theory of evolution is invalidated.
... because T.O.E is infallible only an idiot like myself would dare question it or ask for some sort of tangible evidence.Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.
The Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, is not infallible, and no scientist will tell you it is. In addition, no scientist will consider it improper to question a theory -- if fact they insist on it: every scientific theory must make predictions that should be true for the theory to be valid.
For this reason no scientific theory is considered a fact, rather they are regarded as tentative explanations of the facts, subject to change or disposal should new evidence invalidate it.
Every scientific theory is based on the pool on facts, observations and knowledge that is known at any one time.
At any time, new evidence, observations, test results, discoveries, etc, may come along, and when it does those theories are tested to see if they can explain the new evidence. If a theory cannot explain new evidence then it must be changed - perhaps limited to a subset of evidence - or replaced by a new theory that includes all the previous evidence, explains the old evidence as well as the previous theory (or better) and explains the new evidence.
Then the new scientific theory is based on the pool on facts, observations and knowledge that is known at that time, and the process continues. There is no absolute end, no absolute proof for any theory.
This continuous testing process is what happened when relativity replaced newtons theory of gravity, when there were anomalies (the orbit of mercury for one) that could not be explained.
Ive explained why this is.I simply do not have the time.Plus posters have offered things that deserve better than off the cuff answers.I have told huntard and to a lesser extent razd(who has challenged me on certain things) that i will attempt to answer.
This is your opportunity to concentrate on just one set of posts.
... because T.O.E is infallible only an idiot like myself would dare question it or ask for some sort of tangible evidence.Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.
The theory of evolution (ToE) is based on the evidence of modern biology and the evidence of what is currently known from the fossil record of past life on this planet.
The theory of evolution (basic version) states that the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and the process of division of species into reproductively isolated populations, daughter species related to each other through their common ancestor population, are (between them) sufficient to explain all the diversity of life we know, from the living world around us, from the historical record (includes recently extinct species), the archeological record (preserved drawings, carvings, etc), the geological record (relative dating by superposition of layers), the paleontological record (fossils), and all of this evidence was available to Darwin, Wallace and others that were considering the implications of life as they knew it.
This was the basis for Darwin's theory of descent with modification and the process of natural selection that separated traits that provided adaptation to the environment from those that did not.
As noted before, all new evidence is a test of any existing theory. This is what happened to the Theory of Sedimentary Superposition (geology) when radiometric dating methods were developed, and the new evidence validated the theory, confirming that the relative ages were indeed correct, and providing new more precise dating, as well as providing links between different sedimentary layers of different types in different areas, and this validation of a geological theory also validated the relative ages of fossils and species for the theory of evolution, ones that previously could only be positioned relatively and tentatively for fossils in different types of layers in different areas.
Radiometric dating could have completely turned the fossil record into entirely different patterns, even disrupting the pattern of shared descent from ancestor populations, but it didn't.
As a result we can add the evidence from geo-physics to the previous list of evidence explained by Darwin's theory.
Likewise, when genetics was developed, and the relationships of species by their genetic record of ancestry this was a test of the theory of evolution with a whole new set of evidence. The evidence once again could have been completely at odds with the theory of evolution, and instead it has matched the fossil record with nested hierarchies of ancestry, confirming the validity of common ancestry of daughter populations.
As a result we can add the evidence from genetics to the previous list of evidence explained by Darwin's theory.
The theory of evolution is not infallible, but it is highly tested and validated, and to date there is not one piece of evidence, one fossil, one set of genetic data, that does not show a consistent and continuous pattern of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and the of the division of ancestral populations into daughter populations that, once divided, continue to become more diversified.
Note that no mention is made here to your concept of the "Amazing Magical Yeast" ... because this is the reality: "AMY" does not exist and is not a part of the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution explains existing evidence, not imaginary evidence.
Offering another point of view.I can handle you calling me arrogant just as long as you can handle me pointing a few things out to you guys.I got the feeling you cant.Im done replying to you, its off topic cupcake.
Calling people insulting names will get you suspended again. If you want a shouting match we can set you up -- I'm sure there are a number of people that would not mind taking the reins of courtesy off to tell you what they really think of your "point of view" and knowledge of facts.
It's a matter of common courtesy: behave like a grown-up to be treated as one, but behave like a pompous buffoon and you will be regarded as one -- even if people are too polite to say so. Only you are responsible for the impression people have.
No im not.Its all the same thing as far as im concerned.I can lump abiogenesis in with the theory of evolution as well.I dont care what special definitions you have for it.Bottom line.No creator is needed here.
You can, but you will be the one confused by a fantasy rather than reality, and you may cause other people to be confused as well.
Instead you can learn to use the terms as used in science by the scientists, so that you can talk about the science in real terms, rather than your fantasies about science.
You cant show me this in the natural world.Nothing is even remotely like this animal.You cant even replicate it using the smartest biologists and the greatest minds.The only place it exists is in evolutionary textbooks.
The problem is that your "Amazing Magical Yeast" does NOT appear in any evolutionary textbooks. You are confused about what the concept of descent from a common ancestor means - not just about the daughter populations, but about the parent population.
When we look at the process of speciation in the living world today what we see is:
A parent population with a set of hereditary traits shared in different degrees by different individual organisms within the population,
Over the course of several generations this original population divides into two or more sub-populations inhabiting slightly different ecologies,
Over the course of several generations each subpopulation will acquire an increasing set of traits that are better adapted to their ecology than previously, losing some of their original traits that are not advantageous in that ecology,
The traits acquired and lost by the sub-populations will differ because the ecologies differ, the selection for adaptation to the ecologies differs,
As the sub-populations interact less and less reproductively those differences will accumulate rather than be ameliorated by sharing,
Eventually the sub-populations will reach a point where they cannot interact reproductively, at which point they have become different species.
This is what we know from observations of this process in the living world.
Let's see what this means for the total set of traits for each group, the parent population and the daughter populations "A" and "B":
The parent population will share some traits with daughter population "A" and it will share some traits with population "B" and it may have some traits that neither daughter population carries,
Daughter population "A" will share some traits with the parent population, and some of the traits shared with the parent population may also be shared with daughter population "B", but it will also have some traits that neither the parent population nor daughter population "B" carry, it will gain some traits and lose some traits, and it may have more or less traits than the parent population,
Daughter population "B" will share some traits with the parent population, and some of the traits shared with the parent population may also be shared with daughter population "A", but it will also have some traits that neither the parent population nor daughter population "A" carry, it will gain some traits and lose some traits, and it may have more or less traits than the parent population,
the total number of traits carried by any one of these populations may be more or less or the same as the other populations.
The parent population does not, however, have all the traits of both daughter populations: it may have more than one of them or it may have less than both of them.
From this we can make a prediction based on the observed biological processes of evolution and speciation, that species are related by common ancestors, and that these relationships will form nested hierarchies of relationships based on how recent common ancestor populations are shared by different species.
But as we go back in time to previous common ancestors we do not need to accumulate all the traits of all the descendants: each ancestor population can easily have less traits than the descendants.
Notice that this does not mean that there MUST be a single common ancestor, nor does it say that any common ancestor must be anything special.
What the theory of evolution predicts is that there will be a pattern of common ancestry, how far back and how many ultimate common ancestors are involved is irrelevant.
A prediction made by a theory is not the theory, but a test of the theory.
To find out we would need to look at what the fossil evidence says, for the fossil evidence shows what occurred in the past.
I understand the human fallibilty element that you are claiming and im trying to show respect despite not being shown much because of my beliefs .
So you are admitting that you are intolerant of other beliefs, while expecting us to be tolerant of yours? Glad you realize it.
However evolutionary science by its very definition totally removes any chance of an intelligent designer.
This kind of statement really burns me, (a) because it is logically false, and (2) because it is intolerant of my personal belief.
My personal belief is that god/s (unknown, unknowable) created the universe with all the physical laws etc such that life was inevitable, and the evolution of that life also was designed to reach - ultimately - a level equal to theirs. We are nowhere near that now, but life is not over yet either, nor is life necessarily limited to this planet.
Now, see if you can get off your high horse and prove that my god necessarily does not exist if evolution is true. If you cannot prove this, then your statement is logically false.
One could compare the intelligence of a designer that does not need to tinker with his design, to one that has to go back to the drawing board to create a mate (eve), has to wipe the slate clean (flood) and start all over (noah), and then has to send in a remedial team (jesus and mary and the apostles) to set things straight again -- looks to me like one failure after another ... because when it comes to "intelligent design" the concept is pwned by deists.
Unlike you guys im actually quite relaxed about the possibilty that yall could be right and that darwin and dawkins will be names lauded to time indefinate.However i dont honestly think you guys like the idea that people like me could be right.Occams razor you say.Yeah you bet..
I'm not at all concerned in the least about the possibility that you are right, seeing as most of your comments here about evolution and common ancestry are invalidated by actual evidence.
Curiously Occams razor says you are wrong. Why? Because your "Amazing Magical Yeast" does not need to exist for evolution to be true. Because evolution and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Because what are mutually exclusive are beliefs that contradict reality, and that reality.
Now how about you start dealing with the evidence and the reality of evolution?
I feel bad once again emphasing that evolutionary supporters make assertions like this.You cant show me this in the fossil record.You cant show me this in the natural world.
Once again, you have not been paying attention.
As noted previously, one of the predictions, a test of the validity of the theory of evolution, is that the fossil record shows a pattern of common ancestry.
It also predicts that common ancestors could have more or less or the same number of traits as their descendants, that they do not need to be special compared to other organisms, and they could become quite primitive in features as you go back in time.
Now we look at what the fossil record shows to see how it compares to the predictions of evolutionary theory:
does it show change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation? Yes. There is no group of fossils that do not show changing traits over time.
does it show change beyond the ability of evolution and speciation according to the rates known today? No. There is no group of fossils that shows dramatic change that would exceed the rates or degree of change that we see in modern life.
does it show a general pattern of common ancestry? Yes. There are frequent patterns of branching in the fossil record.
does the pattern extend back to a single common ancestor? Undetermined.
Undetermined because the oldest fossil is one simple form of life, a cyanobacteria that forms stromatolites. It may not be the original life form, it may not be the only life form living at that time (others may not have left a fossil record).
quote:The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!
Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).
If you remember, I previously told you that yeasts were comparatively late comers on earth compared to the first life forms, and that they were eukaryotes. Here is some information on the early evolution of life, not from theory, but from the fossil and genetic record:
quote:The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (2006) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1650 million years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2100 million years ago.  Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red alga.
Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between the eukaryotes and other forms of life. Eukaryotes are colored red, archaea green and bacteria blue.
Note that the cyanobacteria are in the green group - the archaea, and that fossils in this group are older than fossils in the other groups, but that some bacteria, the blue group, could also be that old (the evidence is genetic as there are no known fossils of bacteria that old)
This phylogenetic tree, btw, shows the pattern of common ancestry based on the fossil evidence.
quote:Cladistics is the hierarchical classification of species based on evolutionary ancestry. Cladistics is distinguished from other taxonomic systems because it focuses on evolution rather than similarities between species, and because it places heavy emphasis on objective, quantitative analysis. Cladistics generates diagrams called cladograms that represent the evolutionary tree of life. DNA and RNA sequencing data are used in many important cladistic efforts. Computer programs are widely used in cladistics, due to the highly complex nature of cladogram generation procedures.
This is a more complete tree of life showing the relationships of common descent from ancestor populations, with humans and chimps etc shown around the outer edge, and the transitional/common ancestors shown as nodes on the diagram.
It is still incomplete as there are millions of species living today and many more that have gone extinct (and the extinct lineages don't show up on the genetic cladogram - we don't have DNA samples).
This is the genetic evidence for the relationships between the living organisms, and it matches the phylogenetic tree of the fossil record.
No we don't have a positive ID fossil for the first living organism, but that is not necessary to piece together the evidence from the fossil record and from the genetic record to see what the evidence shows.
This example has been used before.Please dont compare your human great great grandfather with single celled organisms.That comparison is hard to fathom.I guess your superior education has also given you a much larger imagination.
Curiously, the fact that you cannot fathom it somehow does not prevent it from having occurred.
It's not a matter of a larger imagination, as it is of being open-minded and of not being encumbered by false concepts.
You could put a gray spot over the center of both the phylogenetic tree and the cladogram and say "here there be monsters" and the fact remains that the first life known outside that grey area includes cyanobacteria, and that the world was covered with archea and bacteria for many millions of years before the first eukaryote evolved, that it took more millions of years for the first organism with a spine to evolve ... that the path to human (and all other modern life) took billions of years, with many (extinct) false starts along the way.
Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations.
Two simple concepts. What better way to create the diversity of life we know?
Hi seekingfirstthekingdom, glad you found this topic.
On personal information, what I have made public is on this thread: Cancer Survivors. Other tidbits that have been passed on in other discussions include:
I grew up in Ann Arbor, a university town that was rural in the summer, urban in the winter, where my dad taught biology and did research at the University of Michigan. He would take us on field trips (he was a naturalist biologist) to places to test them out before taking his students.
I was a boy scout, later became a scoutmaster, and prefer minimalist wilderness camping.
I am a birder, and a hobby naturalist with a wide interest, including archeology.
I've lived in the north, east, west, and south and been to all but four states and one province in the US and Canada, as well as trips to Russia (before collapse), France, England, Mexico, etc.
Hmm.Im searching for an appropriate net owning comeback,but i got bored.
Yet you continue to post in tid-bits at a time. Interesting.
Semantics.Please no more.After looking over the length of your posts and your habit of repeating yourself,im wondering if my approach might be the more economical one.After all waste not,want not.
Sometimes repetition is the only way to get a point across when it is ignored.
It is not semantics to differentiate the theory from the evidence, it is proper procedure in order to discuss the tentative theory vs the factual evidence.
The evidence of fossils and the genetic record etc shows how life has developed on this planet, from the oldest fossils of single cell life to what we see in the modern world. These are the facts that need to be explained, and the theory of evolution explains how such diversity develops.
You made quite an error here.You misrepresented what i said.Thats all i have to say.
Sorry about that, however I went with all the evidence at my disposal.
Now im interested.What evidence do you have of this apart from your own personal take on it.Free thinking is fine and dandy.But without a basis,i can just dismiss.
I'll just say I had a personal experience. Feel free to dismiss it, that does not concern me, as another personal belief is that any persons religious path to enlightenment is their own, and cannot be shared by others.
lol we cant even agree on evolution.Slow down a tad sport.The rest isnt on topic and you havent factored in humans freewill into the equation.I want to focus on the chart from now on if i may?Thanks for your time.
Focus all you want, take your time. The world won't go away, nor will reality change.
But what's to agree about? You either use a definition of evolution that is used in the biological science of evolution or you are talking about something else.
Evolution impacts some religions, others not at all, and the difference is the religion, not evolution.
I agree that religion isn't on topic, this is just an aside to clear the air about the position of religion in science: science is agnostic.
By definition science only deals with natural world processes, what can be subject to scientific study via the scientific method to see what part of reality we can understand as a result.
Religion is free to believe anything. Religion only comes into conflict with science when it includes beliefs that are contradicted by the evidence of reality that science has determined - the shape of the earth, the orbits of the planets, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of life.
Curiously when such conflict arises it is again only between some religious beliefs and not with others, and the fault is with the belief that is contradicted by the evidence.
Ill clarify.My understanding of evolution is that desirable traits are promoted down thru generations until the organism looks nothing like its ancestors.It even means according to you that the organism could even change kinds.I agree with aspects of evolution that of course there is a certain amount of natural selection and variety.
There is no such thing as "desirable traits" what you have is an organism and an environment. In that environment the organism has some traits that are adapted to that environment and enhance the organisms ability to survive and reproduce, and some traits that inhibit the organisms ability to survive and reproduce, and some traits that do not affect the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Different organisms have different mixes of traits, so as a result some are better able to survive and reproduce than others in that environment. Change the environment and the mix of adaptations changes, and different organisms will be better able to survive and breed than the others.
If two populations of the same species inhabit different environments for several generations without interbreeding they will accumulate different mutations and different new hereditary traits.
I dont believe this means that kinds can change into other kinds.There seems to be genetic boundaries that of course evolutionary scientists attempt to blur.
Now you are going to need to define what a "kind" means. Then you need to actually show there is a genetic boundary, something in the cell that prevents mutations beyond a certain level.
But not to the extent you and your kind claim it to be.
Can you point to one single population of organisms that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation?
You raised an alarm in my head when i asked where in the natural world could you point out the type of evolution that you promote.You immediately pointed to a textbook instead of an example in your mind.
Seeing as I have not referenced a single textbook this is rather dubious. Perhaps you are confused by the number of posts from different people on the old thread.