Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 10:17 PM
68 online now:
ramoss, Tanypteryx (2 members, 66 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,821 Year: 18,644/29,783 Month: 589/2,043 Week: 141/386 Day: 44/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Huntard
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 46 of 77 (539974)
12-21-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
12-21-2009 6:44 AM


Just this part for now:

Peg writes:

Darwin's 'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' is still widely accepted as fact, yet there is no evidence of a simple beginning.


Not again Peg. Once more then: Beginnings have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They aren't even mentioned in the theory.

Im saying this because some theories ARE proved wrong, or are perported to be factual before the evidence has been presented. If it turns out that there could not have been a primordial soup which caused life to exist, then the theory of evolution will need to revised too. It will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link.

Could you explain how abiogenesis is crucial to descent with modification?

I just dont think its fair to teach something that cannot be proved yet.

They're not.

and I know you'll say that evolution does not require abiogensis, but it does when we are told that humans came from apes and all species are related.

No it doesn't. God could've poofed our "ancestor-apes" into existence, and all evidence then still points to us being descended of them. No abiogenesis required.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 12-21-2009 6:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 77 (539984)
12-21-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
12-21-2009 6:44 AM


i'm not going to speculate on varieties of simple life forms that 'may' have existed

But you already did. I was talking about the simple forms of life that may have existed and you retorted "even the simplest life forms are extremely complex". Are you retracting that as a rebuttal to my point?

If this is what molecular biology has shown, then how is it possible that evolutionary science can continue to teach that life had a simple beginning? There is no evidence of a simple beginning.

Let's tighten up here. The question seems to be why do natural historians conclude that life had a simple beginning? The evidence shows that multicellularity is a relatively modern phenomena, so by that measure life was simpler than it is today. There are three broad possibilities,
1) Life always existed.
2) Life had a simple origin.
3) Life had a complex origin.

The first is problematic since there is no evidence that this is, or even could be, the case.
The third is problematic since it goes against the evidence that complex things don't just occur without simpler precursors.
So we're left with the second, which coheres and is consistent with all available evidence.

So that's why.

how do they know that the primitive atmosphere lacked oxygen?

They know because experiments have shown that compounds such as amino acids are not stable in the presence of oxygen.

Nope. They know because of the distribution of oxides such as iron oxides (like rust) in the geology.
The know because of the evidence in geology of certain non living compounds existing in certain states that are not stable in oxygen rich environments.
They know because of various isotope signatures that are indicative of low oxygen enrionments in the geology.

So plenty of evidence of low oxygen levels. I don't know the details, but it took just a few minutes to find a handful of examples.

The Italian physician Francesco Redi (1700's) comes to mind. His experiments proved that maggots appeared in rotten meat only after flies had laid eggs on it thus disproving the prevailing belief of spontaneous generation.

Thus disproving the theory surrounding the origins of life on earth coming from rotten meat. Which is self evidently false and has never been proposed.

And im sure you know Louis Pasteur. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life forms could arise by themselves. He was able to show that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination.

Which disproves the origins of life theory that has bacteria forming in sterilized water.

And the Russian Alexander Oparin theorised that if the atmosphere was much different, life could possibly generate spontneously and in the
1950’s Stanley Miller attempted to test his theory and experimented with a flask. Apparently, producing some amino acids proved that Oparins theory was a possiblity.

So Oparin had a theory about how life originated and Miller demonstrated that it was possible. How is this an experiment which shows 'life cannot originate by chance'? None of them are experiments that show this.

abe: I just realized you lifted that section out of WTBTS' book, "Creator?" without really appreciating what you were doing. The bit about Miller in that book starts off with the experiment being hailed as a success, but that the enthusiasm died because the problem was more difficult than originally believed. You might want go on to quote the Author of 'of Pandas and People' with a view to portraying him as a voice of science - with a straight face. It is his claim after all, a creationist, that it is 'fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.', upon which I think your argument fundamentally rests. Incredulity from a young earth creationist!

and you may already know this, but at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who attended were still unable to provide an answer to how DNA and RNA molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells

That we haven't solved all the answers in the Grand Theory of Life is a given in this debate. I fail to see how specifying an unsolved question is relevant.

But complete theories do get thown out. You've heard of the phlogiston theory?
It was a scientific theory introduced in the 1700's and was proved completely false.

Yes, of course theories can be falsified. I didn't say otherwise. But when the phlogiston theory was falsified, it did not mean that everything we knew about combustion was false.

I was talking about when theories combine into a greater whole. When that happens, it doesn't mean that both (or however many) theories were completely false. Being presently unable to unite two fields of related study is not evidence that one or both are necessarily false.

If it turns out that there could not have been a primordial soup which caused life to exist, then the theory of evolution will need to revised too. It will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link.

Not at all. And that's my point. Could you tackle where I raised it in my OP about how it doesn't work this way?

The theory of evolution is the theory that explains how populations of life change into different forms of populations of life.

The Grand Theory explains how life originated and changed.

Any Grand Theory that has life starting from natural origins would be falsified by overturning natural abiogenesis.

If I explained God by saying 'I created God' and I explained life as 'God created life'. Then my first theory could be falsified by pointing out that I am alive. Does this falsify the 'God created life' theory? No, of course not!

The same applies here. Please don't repeat your position again, I know what it is. But can you deal with the rebuttal? Can you justify your position?

This quote needs repeating, since this is close to a defence of your position as there is:

{evolution} will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link

Not necessarily. First of all - do you agree that most of the ancestral links would still have the same evidence in support of them? Agreed - there would be a weakening of the position for universal common descent, but only a small one. The evidence for it (and it's not proposed to be a single common ancestor at that point - due to Horizontal Gene Transfer, it stops making sense to talk about such things) would be the same. But if that first population of organisms was *poofed* into being, evolution would still work just fine. The Grand Theory is affected, but not 'sub parts' - just like with the falsification of the God Theory.

So yeah - natural history would require some rewrites to the early chapters, we'd have eliminated many Grand Theory candidates - but evolution escapes unscathed.

Edited by Modulous, : looked up Peg's sources


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 12-21-2009 6:44 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:07 PM Modulous has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2409 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 48 of 77 (540161)
12-22-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Granny Magda
12-19-2009 9:27 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
We see very little change in our lifetimes. that is in complete agreement with what the ToE predicts. In asking for a visible increase in "complexity" you are asking for something that the ToE never predicted.
So uphill evolution (is that a better term?) is just theoretical when studying todays species, it hasn't actually been observed?

Right. So you really do imagine that you know what I and others like me think better than we know ourselves. That is extraordinarily arrogant.
Just as nearly every evolutionist on here believes that creationists deliberatly lie, and distort or disregard facts. I would say those type of statements are in a way arrogant as well. All I was doing was giving my opinion as to why people believe what i think is wrong idea. As I am outside of the group of people that believes in evolution therefore any opinion that I have about that group will come across as arrogant (and vice-versa). I mean hey, whenever a psychologist makes any sort of remark about a person or group of people he is making an arrogant remark. It comes down to the question of whether a person outside the group can see patterns of behaviour that people inside of the group are unaware of. But yes, as you say later on
What you imagine motivates others to believe in this progression is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is evidence. I could easily make the same the criticism of Christianity; people only believe it because they find it comforting to do so. This has little or no bearing on whether Christ died for us on the cross, hmm?
which shows that when we believe something to be true we tend to look for reasons as to why people don't believe the things we do. I have no intention of being arrogant in the sense that "I'm a better person than you". But I am basically saying "I think that I am right, and you are wrong, because i am certain of the things I believe". I would prefer if everyone was "arrogant" as in my second example i.e.being sure of what one believes. Do you have a problem with that? So anyway my opinion is that one of the reasons why uphill evolution is attractive is because it allows for the possibility of a similar naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, while downhill evolution is unattractive because it would logically lead to the necessity of an intelligent designer.

The rabbit isn't the point. The point is the anachronism of finding a rabbit in a period so ancient that its supposed precursors had not even emerged themselves. This would blow the ToE out of the water. There are endless possibilities for such an observation. Grasses in the Devonian, birds in the Carboniferous, frogs in the Cambrian. I could literally go on al day naming anachronistic fossil/period combo's. The point is that none have ever been found. Not one.
Firstly many of your combos would not be expected in a creationist/diluvialist framework. 2nd, The ranges of fossils keep on extending and as time goes on and more research continues to come in pinpointing a certain organisms range in the fossil record is becoming increasingly difficult as range extensions occur http://creation.com/the-fossil-record. 3rd, as I have shown before on this forum, just because something is not found beyond some point in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't continue to exist e.g. coelacanth who doesn't appear on the fossil record for supposed millions of years only to be still swimming around today!
but Yes, there is a rough general trend in the fossil record which is consistent with the creationist framework.

See ya all again in January some time,
God bless, have a fantastic Christmas and a superb new year

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2009 9:27 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 12-22-2009 5:54 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2009 11:45 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 49 of 77 (540211)
12-22-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-22-2009 2:35 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Firstly many of your combos would not be expected in a creationist/diluvialist framework.

Actually it would, since finding rabbits in pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician etc. would give credibility to your flood. If your flood was true then there should be rabbits in all levels, trilobites in all levels, dinosaurs in all levels, humans in all levels etc.

Edited by bluescat48, : clarity


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-22-2009 2:35 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 50 of 77 (540302)
12-23-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-22-2009 2:35 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Arphy,

So uphill evolution (is that a better term?) is just theoretical when studying todays species, it hasn't actually been observed?

Evolutionary change has been observed in the here and now, as in the example of Galapagos finches (that I'm sure has been presented to you a score of times already). The point is that the amount of change is small. This is exactly what we would expect to see, quite in contradiction the demands of creationists, who say "Well it's still a finch!" and thus demand a rate of evolution that no-one ever predicted.

Just as nearly every evolutionist on here believes that creationists deliberatly lie, and distort or disregard facts.

It is a matter of record that many prominent creationists are liars; or perhaps you should be campaigning for the release of the convicted fraudster Kent Hovind. Just take a look at some of dwise1's tales about creationists repeating arguments they know to be false (as here; Message 119) and you will see what I mean.

For the record, I do not believe that most creationists are lying about their beliefs. I think that creationism is a delusion, propagated and supported by the very victims of the delusion. Most creationists are merely repeating falsehoods that they have been fed by their church or by creationist organisations ans their websites.

As to why creationists are so willing to be deceived, I really couldn't say. Indeed, that is the main thing that keeps drawing me back to these discussions and to religious debate in general; I cannot comprehend why people hold such peculiar beliefs.

All I was doing was giving my opinion as to why people believe what i think is wrong idea. As I am outside of the group of people that believes in evolution therefore any opinion that I have about that group will come across as arrogant (and vice-versa).

You make a fair point here. I would just say that I am certain that you have drawn the wrong conclusion about what motivates belief in evolution. You seem insistent upon linking belief in evolution to rejection of your god and this is simply not the case for anyone I have spoken to. People who have expressed their reasons to me believe in evolution because all the evidence points in that direction. I repeat; evolution is not necessary to reject your god. A quick leaf through the OT is sufficient for that.

I have no intention of being arrogant in the sense that "I'm a better person than you".

I believe you and I absolutely never thought that you were. I just think that you are attributing motivations to others on the basis of a complete lack of evidence.

Who believes in evolution "because it allows for the possibility of a similar naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis"? Can you name anyone who says that? Most evolutionists say they believe as they do because that is how they read the evidence. Are you saying that they are lying? Are you saying that you know better?

while downhill evolution is unattractive because it would logically lead to the necessity of an intelligent designer.

Flat wrong. It is unattractive because a) there is no evidence for it and b) there is an enormous wealth of evidence for the opposite. That's it. No other motivation required. Indeed, no other explanation is feasible given the state of the fossil record, which clearly shows no life in the oldest layers, simple life in the very ancient layers and gradually more diverse complex life in the more recent layers.

The fact that "downhill" evolution is only supported by fundamentalist theists and that it brings about more questions that it answers is simply icing on the cake.

Firstly many of your combos would not be expected in a creationist/diluvialist framework.

I disagree. Grasses are specifically mentioned in Genesis as being created on the third day. The simple fact is that these plants do not appear until the late Cretaceous. That is a gap of well over 4 billion years from the actual origin of the Earth and over 4 million years from the first complex life.

That is a big gap.

We never find fossil grasses in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian...

If a flood were responsible for the "fossil record", we would expect to see grasses fairly evenly distributed. We don't.

2nd, The ranges of fossils keep on extending and as time goes on and more research continues to come in pinpointing a certain organisms range in the fossil record is becoming increasingly difficult as range extensions occur

This is a non-ponit. You are basically saying "Well, some evidence might come along and bail me out... Fingers crossed!". This might be acceptable if you were actually trying to find these hypothetical fossils, but you are not. You are simply hoping that others will do your homework for you. In general, creationists don't seem too keen to fund the search for the Pre-Cambrian rabbit. I wonder why that is...

3rd, as I have shown before on this forum, just because something is not found beyond some point in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't continue to exist e.g. coelacanth who doesn't appear on the fossil record for supposed millions of years only to be still swimming around today!

That is one species of fish. I am talking about a group of plants with over 3500 species here. Also, there is an enormous abundance of grass, compared to only a very small population of coelocanths. It's pretty obvious that coelocanth fossils are going to be rarer than grass fossils. Grasses are showing up in dinosaur coproliths in the late Cretaceous. Why not before? We know that grasses fossilise well, why are there none earlier? Why are there early fossils of primitive plants like Cooksonia (that would probably have been out-competed by modern grasses) but no grasses alongside them? What kind of flood sorts all the grasses into the top layers, whilst picking out plants like cooksonia and depositing them on the lower layers?

but Yes, there is a rough general trend in the fossil record which is consistent with the creationist framework.

I would absolutely love to see you try and justify that statement in a dedicated thread, perhaps when you come back in January. It's not even remotely justifiable. There is a very clear pattern of evolution in the fossil record.

Merry Christmas to you and see you in the new year.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-22-2009 2:35 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 12-23-2009 8:18 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:36 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 77 (540323)
12-23-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda
12-23-2009 11:45 AM


Grass
Hi, Granny Magda.

Granny Magda writes:

What kind of flood sorts all the grasses into the top layers, whilst picking out plants like cooksonia and depositing them on the lower layers?

I never thought of using grass to make this point before. That's probably actually the most powerful observation you could have thought of to make this point! Well done!

-----

Granny Magda writes:

We never find fossil grasses in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian...

If a flood were responsible for the "fossil record", we would expect to see grasses fairly evenly distributed. We don't.

Why is "fossil record" the term in quotes here? "Oh, that so-called 'fossil record...'!"

Anyway, I think you've neglected the possibility that Cambrian grasses might have been able to run faster than therapsids, sphenacodonts and temnospondyls, thus allowing them to stay ahead of the floods

Or, how about the possibility that before the Flood, due to the vapor canopy and all that, there were more animals around to eat the grass, and they simply consumed all the grass before it fossilized? I bet you didn't think of that, did you?

Merry Christmas, Granny!


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2009 11:45 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 52 of 77 (540328)
12-23-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
12-16-2009 3:58 AM


Darwin's black box / Behe's empty box
In some way, the understanding of molecular biology does put evolution on shakey ground because even the simplest life forms are extremely complex making it highly unlikely that they developed without guidance in an organic soup.

Some would say that just about anything found in Genesis is highly unlikely. What basis for comparison do we have other than science?

complexity does not come together by chance

This is garbage-in, garbage-out because of how the statement in poised. If ever there is anything in nature that is complex, this to you is evidence of the guided hand by a Designer. Since you automatically assume that complexity equals intentional design by a cognizant mind, would you be able to look beyond a personal bias and incredulity to ever give random processes a fighting chance (pun intended) to be examined as a logical possibility?

Some scientists have shown thru experiments that life cannot originate by chance...that in itself puts evolution (basic lifeforms advancing to more complex lifeforms) in doubt.

What experiments? Behe's? If so, have you seen the refutations?

there is no such thing as 'simple' life....its all very complicated and even though you know that, you will continue to be led by the idea that complicated life is the result of slow evolution. Why?

Because thus far it is the only theory that has any explanatory power. I go on record submitting that there are unanswered questions in evolution and it could not possibly explain all things related to genetics. But that is the nature of science, and creationism is a failure beyond reasonable doubt.

I thought scientists were supposed to be the ones who look for evidence before they believed a particular theory. In the case of evolution, the theory has come before the evidence.

I suppose you are alleging that creationism is immune to this??? Of all scientific theory, creationism is the most biased theory on the planet. The entire theory is premised upon a book, full of [pseudo] scientists who distort evidence to conform to a book, rather than seeing whether or not the book conforms to the evidence.

So if the study into abiogenesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that life could NOT have arisen in a primordial soup, you are still absolutely certain that the ToE will hold true???

The philosophical question of the chicken/egg debate still exists and I also reject evolutionists unilateral support of untestable data for the sake of promoting atheism.

The problem is that evolution does not equal atheism in all cases, but creationism equals theism every time without fail. It is therefore hypocritical to point to some sort of bias when you clearly have your own.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 12-16-2009 3:58 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 53 of 77 (540734)
12-28-2009 9:07 AM


General Comments
Hi all. I just have a general comment about this subject not specifically directed at any one member.

A reoccuring pattern I see here on EvC is an opponent of evolution will argue a point to which the response will be "That's because you don't understand what evolution is" and "Go read a biology book". While at times these responses are justified, I think the discussion would be more productive if the Evo community would reconize that there IS a general confusion about the meaning of evolution and some of that confusion is caused not by ignorance, but by simple misunderstanding and in some part misrepresentation. Look at these two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

Notice both timelines begin at 4600 Ma with the formation of the earth and continue on through the formation of simple life and then onto what is actually defined as evolution. I think this is the view of evolution from the average layperson's understanding. If evolution only deals with the changes after life emerged, everything before 3900Ma should be left off these timelines. I am not argueing about what the true meaning of the theory of evolution is or isn't. I am pointing out where some of the confusion comes from.

I believe this understanding of evolution to be pretty well engrained in society's thinking and when you see headlines that read "Darwin was right!" and "Evolution is True!" people tend to understand that in context of the above mentioned timelines. The evolutionary community is not ranting against wikipedia or talkorigins about their misrepresenting the ToE by including the formation of early life (but if you do so on this forum expect a thrashing), so one could expect that it is an accurate representation of the theory.

It also seems that evolution IS a theory about our origins - about how we came to be. And we have a tendancy as human beings to connect how and why. Even though science doesn't intentionally deal with the "why", I feel unintentionally it does. What is the "why" implied by evolution? random chance and undirected change.

Even if science was able to discover the very first organism to exist it would still beg the question where did it come from, and where did that come from, and so on and on and on ... So I think it is a natural, human tendancy to put more burden on the ToE than it is intended, or capable of answering.

Just my thoughts ...


  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 54 of 77 (540759)
12-28-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
12-21-2009 10:47 AM


Modulous writes:

1) Life always existed.
2) Life had a simple origin.
3) Life had a complex origin.

So we're left with the second, which coheres and is consistent with all available evidence.

in the book 'Evolution From Space' on page 8 it says that
“fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.”

and in the book 'The Enchanted Loom, the mind of the universe' on page 23 says:
"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth."

You assume that there was a simple beginning because you acknowledge that "complex things don't just occur without simpler precursors"

Another book entitled 'A View of Life' says about the cambrian period on page 638 “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”

and becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period, one Palentologist said in an article in Natural History entitled "Darwin and the Fossil Record" Oct 59'
“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.

So the 'life had a simple beginning' is not consistent with the available evidence...,not by a long shot.

Modulous writes:

So Oparin had a theory about how life originated and Miller demonstrated that it was possible. How is this an experiment which shows 'life cannot originate by chance'?

because miller was unable to create anything living. That experiement was not a success if it was to see if a primitive atmosphere could spontaneously generate life.

Modulous writes:

That we haven't solved all the answers in the Grand Theory of Life is a given in this debate. I fail to see how specifying an unsolved question is relevant.

because RNA and DNA are necessary for reproduction

Modulous writes:

First of all - do you agree that most of the ancestral links would still have the same evidence in support of them? Agreed - there would be a weakening of the position for universal common descent, but only a small one.

what's the alternative?

Creation?

Which would mean that all creatures were actually created individually including man. this would put an end to decent with modification and the idea that mutations cause species to change into new species.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-21-2009 10:47 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2009 6:25 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2009 12:23 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2009 3:15 AM Peg has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 77 (540761)
12-28-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:07 PM


Please be more careful!
...becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period...

Peg, you are off by about three billion years.

Please be more careful in your statements purporting to be accurate reflections of scientific data.

You just make yourself look foolish, and you make the scientists among us extremely frustrated.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 56 of 77 (540762)
12-28-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda
12-23-2009 11:45 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi GM

Granny Magda writes:

Indeed, no other explanation is feasible given the state of the fossil record, which clearly shows no life in the oldest layers, simple life in the very ancient layers and gradually more diverse complex life in the more recent layers.

says that 'Enchanted Loom'on page 23
“The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”

How can there be nothing but bacteria, then a sudden burst of life in the form of multi celled creatures? That doesnt sound like a steady increase in complex life in more recent layers at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2009 11:45 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Iblis, posted 12-28-2009 7:25 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-28-2009 7:34 PM Peg has responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1872 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 57 of 77 (540764)
12-28-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:36 PM


Pre-NA World
RNA and DNA are necessary for reproduction

False. Catalytic reactions reproduce by spreading to adjacent power sources, liposomes by growing larger and splitting, polypeptide micro-spheres by growing denser and budding. These processes are precursors to the elements of cell reproduction associated with enzymes, membranes, and genes respectively.

Working in conjunction (a polypeptide core in a lipid bubble containing catalysts and raw material) this pre-life can synthesize PNA chains which will mutate and interact with other chemicals in a variety of ways. The development of the ribosome is what leads to the predecessor of "life as we know it" known as the RNA world. Further transcription error by RNA in the presence of thymine produces DNA, a more stable compound for storage purposes, which allows the RNA to specialize in transcription and enzyme management.

These earliest life forms (archaea) require a radiant power source or simple sugars, they do not eat in a modern sense. Further mutations lead to true bacteria, which are not so dependent, as they can eat each other. This causes them to begin sharing genes laterally, as a bacteria which has been consumed is an infection and thus core material is accrued. This is a preliminary to what will become breeding/conjugation, in which organisms of the same species exchange genetic material; bacteria don't distinguish between species, whatever they eat they potentially gain genes from.

One of these co-infective bacteria, the ricketsia family, specializes in invading other organisms, developing methods for breaching the cell membrane and living on inside their host without lateral absorption. And one of these specialists, the proto-mitochondrion, works its way back down the chain and successfully infects a more sophisticated version of archaea, producing the ancestor of the earliest eukaryotes.

Bacteria and now protozoans have already developed in many cases into tissue-like cultures but because of lateral transfer there is no reason to expect the members of such a culture to be genetically identical. Then one group of eukaryotes develop, and share laterally and conjugationally, a series of homeotic genes which make it possible for individual cells to specialize. Organisms which are already differentiating via anterior asymmetry and external irregularities like flagella are thereby enabled to grow larger and fill more niches by using different cells for each separate function instead of confining it all to a single unit. Further tissues which develop after this point share the same genetic makeup, and lateral transfer begins to become less relevant, but never disappears.

Worms, grubs, fish, salamanders, lizards, shrews, lemurs, monkeys, apes, us.

Edited by Iblis, : jot and tittle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:36 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 58 of 77 (540765)
12-28-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:36 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi Peg,

says that 'Enchanted Loom'on page 23...

... absolutely nothing about any "sudden burst of life". You added that bit yourself.

As it happens, Jastrow is wrong. The first Eukaryote fossils date back to over two billion years ago. Jastrow should stick to talking about UFOs and how the moon landing was faked .

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:36 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 2:52 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 59 of 77 (540775)
12-29-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:07 PM


... and becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period ...

Stop making stuff up.

what's the alternative?

Creation?

Which would mean that all creatures were actually created individually including man. this would put an end to decent with modification and the idea that mutations cause species to change into new species.

No. Even if life was magicked into existence in the Cambrian, which we know for certain it was not, the evidence for the evolution of man from Cambrian precursors would be certain and undeniable. Well, undeniable by anyone whose opinions were based on scientific evidence rather than fairy-stories about talking snakes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 60 of 77 (540782)
12-29-2009 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
12-28-2009 7:34 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
GrannyMagda writes:

absolutely nothing about any "sudden burst of life". You added that bit yourself

from http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/cambrian.htmlnational geographic

542 Million to 488 Million Years Ago

The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.

they dont call it the 'cambrian explosion' for nothing.

And what came before it?

"The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 BILLION years ago

the first multi celled animals came along much later then this
according to the same Nat Geo article

"The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 MILLION years ago...these fall into three main categories. The simplest of these soft-bodied creatures were sponges....cnidarians, which included sea anemones, corals, and jellyfish...annelids, or segmented flatworms

So if there is any confusion, its because the information provided isnt consistent.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-28-2009 7:34 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2009 3:19 AM Peg has responded
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 12-29-2009 11:45 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018