What is Life?

we should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long. 80% of all living things are still single cell organisms.

Can you explain (with supporting evidence) why you think this is so? As it stands you are making an unsupported assertion.

You say 'we should expect x,y and z' without giving us any reason to believe you.

If you can put into words why all the bacteria should have evolved to different things I would be very grateful.

jar writes: First, evolution is simply change over time.

Agreed

jar writes: Second, it is NOT directed.

That is opinion which goes beyond the T of E.

jar writes: Third there is no directionality.

Again, that is opinion

jar writes: Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded.

Which goes back to the last two points. The theory is a theory as to what happened, not why it happened. It is no different that the scientific answers for how the universe was formed. Science can observe what happened and even how it happened but it can only speculate between random chance, directionality or some combination of the two.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

jar writes: Second, it is NOT directed. That is opinion which goes beyond the T of E. jar writes: Third there is no directionality. Again, that is opinion jar writes: Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded. Which goes back to the last two points. The theory is a theory as to what happened, not why it happened. It is no different that the scientific answers for how the universe was formed. Science can observe what happened and even how it happened but it can only speculate between random chance, directionality or some combination of the two.

But that wouldn't be the Theory of Evolution would it. It would be something else.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

GDR writes: jar writes: Second, it is NOT directed. That is opinion which goes beyond the T of E.

How? Why is it opinion? Is there any evidence of some directed force?

GDR writes: jar writes: Third there is no directionality. Again, that is opinion

No, it is observation. We see things becoming more complex and less complex. No directionality.

GDR writes: jar writes: Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded. Which goes back to the last two points. The theory is a theory as to what happened, not why it happened. It is no different that the scientific answers for how the universe was formed. Science can observe what happened and even how it happened but it can only speculate between random chance, directionality or some combination of the two.

Nonsense. We can look and see that there is no directionality, things both living and non-living become more complex and less complex. There is no directionality.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Dr Adequate writes: ........this isn't really a scientific question. In the context of these boards, the convenient place is that point at which the (short) answer to any given question is "evolution". That is, the significant features defining "life" should be reproduction with variation.

The priori of the Buzsaw infinite life and infinite energy hypothesis involves (but is not limited to) evidence of the existence of the Biblical infinite god, Jehovah.

The priori of the evolutionist SM is that of a temporal relative (I say relative) uniformitarian universe all the way back to the beginning. It's other priori is that life had a beginning.

Question: Which priori is most compatible to 1 Lot science law and which is more compatible to probability theory?

Since evidencing the Biblical god, Jehovah would likely not be acceptable here in science I won't go there. That has been addressed in other appropriate forums.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct misspelling of priori

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

...priory...

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

quote:

---

A priory is a house of men or women under religious vows headed by a prior or prioress.

---

Buz, I can't help but feel that you're now working the "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" methodology. Call it word salad, call it gibberish, call it (?) - I haven't a clue of what you're trying to say.

What do mean by using the terms "priory" and "priories"? Please reply at the Whine list topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Screwed up subtitle.

jar writes: "things both living and non-living become more complex and less complex. There is no directionality."

If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality.

However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality.

Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity. Things began very simple and are becoming more complex.

Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.

Why are there still single cell organisms? Why haven't they evolved into more complex organisms?

Organisms don't evolve.

I hate to sound pedantic, but in science it's fairly important to be precise in vocabulary. If you're going to insist on being wrong about the science, could you at least try and use the right words in doing so?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality. However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality. Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity. Things began very simple and are becoming more complex.

I'm sorry but again that is simply nonsense. I'm not even sure how you are proposing measuring complexity.

But please stop and think.

If things become more and also become less complex, then there is not a uniform directionality.

Granted, the very first life was almost certainly very simple. At that point in time, there was only one direction possible, to become less complex would mean becoming non-living.

Once though multicelled individuals existed, then there was the possibility of bi-directionality; and it has been that way ever since.

Nor does the existence of single celled organisms have any bearing on the issue. For example, just in diatoms there are over 100,000 different species extant. And the diatoms that are extant are different than the diatoms that are extinct. They evolved while still remaining single celled critters.

BUT WAIT ... there is more ...

looking still at diatoms we also find species that are colonial; not yet multicelled organisms but on that pathway.

Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.

They might well believe that, but yet again that is simply another incorrect position, totally refuted by the evidence available.

And you still have not provided your model for measuring complexity or contributed anything towards the topic of the thread which is "What is Life?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Philip Johnson writes: Why are there still single cell organisms? Why haven't they evolved into more complex organisms?

Single-celled organisms are doing quite well as they are. They're the major serious biological threat to mankind. Why would they change?

Some of the first shelters were made of tree branches. Our houses today are considerably more complex, yet we still use a simple stick to hold up a flag. By your logic, a flagpole should have thousands of parts.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Hi, Philip.

Welcome to EvC!

First, you might be interested in learning the formatting codes that we use here:

If you type [qs]This is a quote box[/qs], you get this:

This is a quote box

You can also put [qs=Name of quoted person] instead of the [qs] to get this:

Name of quoted person writes: This is a quote box

That ought to help you out some.

There's also a "peek" button at the bottom right of each message. You can click on that to see what codes were used for different formatting styles.

-----

Philip Johnson writes: If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality. However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality.

You suspect wrong.

I agree with Jar that "complexity" is a nearly useless word from a scientific standpoint, but I'll use it here just for the sake of argument.

Evolution doesn't take place on a gradient of complexity from "simple" to "complex": evolution takes place across a large number of gradients and other axes of variation, such as "body size, small to large," "finger length, short to long," "digestive system compartmentalization," etc. The interactions of all these gradients make a wide diversity of organisms that are not very easy to arrange on a basic gradient from "simple" to "complex.

Some lineages indeed show a trend toward increasing complexity. But, equally many show a trend toward decreasing complexity. And, by far the majority of lineages show a combination of both.

For example, you could argue that the brain has become more complex in the lineage that went from basal mammals, to basal primates, to monkeys, to apes to humans. But, at the same time, you could also argue that the digestive system and the teeth have become less complex in that same lineage. In fact, the teeth may have repeatedly vacillated between more complex and less complex over time, depending on how you define "complex."

-----

Philip Johnson writes: Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity. Things began very simple and are becoming more complex.

But, evolutionists only believe that this is the case for evolutionary lineages that are more complex than their ancestors. Evolutionists do not think that all evolutionary lineages have increased in complexity over time.

For example, look up "scale insect": these are insects that, as adults, lose all of their extremities and resemble a flat scale on the bark of a tree. Related insects and "more primitive" insects have legs, antennae, eyes and wings. In terms of limb diversity, scale insects are less complex than their evolutionary ancestors.

Once again, some lineages have become more complex, some have become less complex, some have alternated between becoming more complex and becoming less complex, and some have become more complex in some ways and less complex in other ways. This is what we mean when we say there is no directionality.

However, I fear that we've moved a considerable distance away from the topic of this thread, and perhaps we should be finding a way to get back to the discussion of the question, "What is life?"

Edited by Bluejay, : Half a sentence was missing.

---

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

Darwin loves you.

Since the common idea is that all life evolved from one common ancestor, why are there still some life forms that "have not evolved very far?"

There's no reason there shouldn't be. This is a common misunderstanding when it comes to evolution.

You need to realize that mutations can be selected against and that some mutations actually remove a part of the genome.

We don't expect the genome to just keep getting bigger and bigger over time. Also, just because a genome is larger, doesn't mean that it has to have a lot of morphological affects.

Interestingly, the Amoeba is something that you would think "has not evolved very far" but it has a genome that is, like, 200 times the size as a humans! Sizing up Genomes

FYI, Berkely has a great Evolution 101 site:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

From Message 192:

Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.

That's not all it is... NS also weeds out things that don't work.

We should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long.

It depends on what kind of selective pressure there is. Stasis in evolution is not neglected.

If a species happens to fit really well within its niche, and the niche hasn't changed, then we'd expect them to maintain those things that make it fit and avoid those things that don't.

Take the crocodile as an example. Its almost perfect for laying in the river and chomping on passing buffalo, there's no selective pressure driving the change and it is actually working against it.

Same goes for bacteria.

From Message 202:

However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality.

No, not like you're using it. Sure, we can look back through history and see the trend that things have become more complex, but the Theory of Evolution doesn't have parts in it about that. A complexity trend is all about the environment and the selective pressure it offers.

Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity.

Not true. It all depends on the environment and the selective pressure it offers. If its conducive to less complexity than that is what will happen. You know, we do see birds that have lost the ability to fly.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Since the common idea is that all life evolved from one common ancestor, why are there still some life forms that "have not evolved very far?"

Since the common idea is that all humans originated in Africa, why are there still some people that "have not moved very far?"

You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some life forms are "more evolved" than others, whereas every life form has actually been evolving for the same amount of time.

You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some people are "further from Africa" than others, whereas all people have actually been mobile for the same amount of time.

If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality.

If it is just as likely that a person will move towards Africa as away from it then there is no directionality.

Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity.

Perhaps instead of telling evolutionists what they believe, you could ask them.

Evolution will favor loss of complexity wherever this is adaptive. This is such a trivially obvious point that you must be a creationist or you'd have grasped it.

Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.

This is only one of many amusing ways in which creationists are wrong.

To clear up my misspelling of priori, I originally spelled it right in the message draft but spell check changed it to priory so I unwittingly went with that. My apologies for this fluky mistake in this thread. I will be editing in the correction in previous messages.

I'm working to expand my vocabulary. This is a handy word for some occasions such as the present one.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.