Darwin- would he have changed his theory?

PaulK, search on the Science Channel's website.........I think the documentary was called "Finding Atlantis", or something.Jack, first life wouldn't have to be as complex as today micro-organisms, but it WOULD have to be incredibly complex (by far more complex than any single evolutionary adaptation).......and it would have to have formed within a relatively short period of time.I forget, how many of just the right amino acids would have to combine in just the right way to make a single protein molecule? At least dozens, if I recall correctly......and then at least dozens of full formed protein molecules would then also have to combine in just the right way.

Dembski puts a ridiculous probability on a single protein molecule forming in the course of a billion years, like 10 to the hundreth power, or something.......

I searched on the Science Channel's website ( http://science.discovery.com/ ) for Atlantis. The search returned nothing.

I don't consider half a billion years a short period of time at all. We don't know. Current estimates suggest that somewhere between 60 and a 100 are required, IIRC (which I may not). Note however that this isn't 'in just the right way' - there is not only one answer that evolution need hit, but several. Note also that amino acids do not just randomly connect, but preferentially connect in a manner that may (or may not, to be fair) have aided the process. Finally, note that some organic compounds (such as lipids) have properties that lead them to spontaneously form cell-like structures.And, once more, the origin of life is irrelevant to Darwin's theory - he does not deal with the origin of life.

This is a pretty inaccurate (or at least misleading) characterization, IMO. The discussion of PE, for example, revolves around the mode and tempo of evolution, not the basic facts of evolution: descent with modification, non-constancy of species, lack of discontinuities, gradualism, and natural selection.On heredity, Darwin recognized the fact that he didn't know how it was done - he had an erroneous idea that variation was unlimited but had no good idea how such variation arose in the first place. It was left to Hugo de Vries, one of the "rediscoverers" of Mendel's works around the turn of the century to show the particulate nature of heredity. In fact, de Vries corrected Mendel, who thought that heritable variation was discrete and limited because, either by design or accident, Mendel picked species and traits that WERE discrete - de Vries reproduced Mendel's experiments using different species and found radical new traits arising de novo; he called these traits "mutations". Ultimately Fisher, Wright and Haldane showed how a synthesis of Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics explained the diversity of life. Up to now, this has been the last great conflict in the theory - Darwin's basic views have been borne out, not thrown out or replaced as you suggest.All of the current arguments within biology revolve around details. Which is more important: ns or drift? How fast is "gradual"? Does the fossil record show more stasis than continuous transition? How important are regulatory genes in modifying phenotypes? etc etc. Not one single practicing biologist or ecologist to my knowledge denies the underlying fact of evolution - exactly as originally described by Darwin.

This has nothing to do with Darwin's evolutionary theory. Where in any of his writings does he discuss the origin of the universe?

The topic of this thread is changes to Darwin's theories.It has NOTHING to do with the flood. Charles, Sir etc. Please do not wander or rush off topic!

Do NOT discuss the flood in this thread

Darwin's theory says nothing about how the first one or a few organisms arose. Evolutionary theory says nothing about how the first imperfect replicator arose.I'm a bit astonished that regulars here have missed that point.Darwin leaves it as unknown as to how life arose. Evolutionary theory is about changes in already living things. Yours is a common misunderstanding.

Come now, you know better.

Again you know better.

sorry - that's why I did ask if was enought material to spin off a topic.

But punctuated equilibrium doesn't change the theory in the least; punk eek is just a way of looking at the rates of change based on population size and the opening of niches. Since Darwin's theory didn't really dwell on that, it's not really a change to the theory.Darwin posited that environment places selection pressures that shape organisms; punk eek doesn't change that. Which I mentioned, already. Mendel's work was already done, but unknown to the rest of the world. As it was, though, Mendel's work only changed our thoughts about the nature of traits (as I said), not our knowledge about how they interact with their environment. Darwin was dead-on about that, and still is. Huh? Sorry, buddy, that's astronomy, down the hall and to your left. This is the Biology department, where we study evolution. Actually, it hasn't really changed that much. The core of Darwin's theory, that environment selects organisms that have hereditary adaptations, is still very much the same. It's the nature of the adaptations themselves that we've learned more about, and had to revise. Darwin thought all traits were continuous; we've learned since that most traits are discreet.{Fixed a quote box (a vital service). - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-21-2004 10:57 AM

Actually, this is incorrect; the person who discovered microorganisms was, predictably, the guy who invented the first usable microscopes: Anton van Leeuwenkoek, in the 1600's. This is also not true. Mold is fungus; bacteria are not. Mold comes from spores. But what you're talking about and what he's talking about is something entirely different. He;s talking about taking myth at face value, without question. You've given examples of how we've learned some myths were originally based in historical truth. But we didn't come to that conclusion by taking myth at face value; we came to it by the analysis of evidence.

You've mistaken conclusion for evidence.The evidence is the inference of heredity between disparate groups of organisms. The conclusion is common ancestry and a last common ancestor. You don't start with the common ancestor, oddly enough; you end with it, because we're looking backwards in time.So, no. Even without specific knowledge of the last common ancestor, we conclude it was there, because that's what the evidence says.