Evidence for evolution

hi cmanteuf
The problem with Ed Golenberg's magnolia work, all of the amber studies, and the one published dinosaur DNA study is that none of the studies could be reproduced. The dinosaur study fell apart when it was determined that the sequence was actually a human mtDNA pseudogene and not a sequence from the fossil i.e. contamination. A systematic study of amber failed to detect DNAAustin JJ, Ross AJ, Smith AB, Fortey RA, Thomas RH. Related Articles, Links
Problems of reproducibility--does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects?
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997 Apr 22;264(1381):467-74.In one particular case, the amber work appears to have been fraudulentGutierrez G, Marin A. Related Articles, Links
The most ancient DNA recovered from an amber-preserved specimen may not be as ancient as it seems.
Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Jul;15(7):926-9. No abstract available.Golenberg's work is not fraudulent...but he himself never reproduced it and considering the inability of anyone else to confirm the results of any really ancient DNA study, it is not currently accepted as bona fide sequence.After all, it is hard enough to get DNA out of less ancient samples so the standards for really old samples has to be significantly higher.

Good on you! Gakk. Well, yeah, it's important in one sense. However, your original question to me was about the best evidence for evolution. As you say, abiogenesis is a different topic from the ToE. I mentioned biogeography as a key line of evidence in favor of evolution writ large, and also for evolution-the-theory (the how of biodiversity). So what I meant was: do you have any questions concerning what I wrote up to this point? Not that I'm necessarily the best one to quibble about being on-topic, but I would prefer to complete one discussion on this before starting another.There are several good origin of life threads in the aptly named forum Origin of Life that would be a better place to persue abiogenesis discussions.

We know that 4.5 bya there was no life on earth, we know that 3 bya there was. Some where during that time life appeared on earth from somewhere. Now it is, as you say, possible that life came from somewhere else but that merely pushes the problem off earth and onto somewhere else. And since we also know that there was no life 13.7 bya at the moment of the big bang we're still left with the conclusion that at some point somewhere between 3 bya and 13.7 bya something that wasn't alive became something that is alive.

You know, in the popular mind, abiogenesis and TOE are one and the same.

Because other people are ignorant is no reason to propogate ignorance.

That's not the point. I am pointing out a gap in communication.The gap is that, in the popular mind, scientists are claiming as much evidence for the origin of life as for evolution proper.

It is not actually a gap in communication. Several creationist and IDist organizations claimed that the ToE and abiogenesis are the same thing. Scientists did not initiate the claim. Thus it is not miscommunication. It is misrepresentation of science by non-scientific organizations.If you claim I own a dog when I never made the claim myself, that is not a miscommunication of ideas.

I did not mean to suggest that the miscommunication was intentional on the part of scientists (or perhaps "science popularizers" would be more accurate).But we have all seen shows on TV (public TV comes to mind) about "The History of the Universe" or some such thing. They go through the whole business, from Big Bang to the beginnings of civilization, without any differentiation in terms of evidence. So naturally the assumption by a non-scientific viewer is that there is equal evidence for all of it. It's not like a disclaimer is made during the part of the show dealing with the origin of life: "This part of our program explains a hypothesis about the origin of life for which there is no empirical evidence but which is very plausible."

I'll give you that. A lot of popular science shows are crap. Including a lot of the BBC and Discovery Channel shows that go more for special effects and story than actual scientific content.The problem is that most scientists interact with other scientists. Only a small subset interact with the general public on any regular basis...and even when there is interaction with the media..they often get the stories wrong...a newspaper just covered some of my research and misreported a few facts including giving me the wrong nationality and claiming my colleague comes from somewhere else as well...even though we supplied him with written text.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-15-2004 10:36 AM

No, you don't ask simple questions.You ask simplistic questions, and when you don't like the answers, you refuse to say why, but simply dismiss them.Open your own mind before you accuse ours of being closed. Then maybe you need to work on your writing. Honestly it's not easy to determine exactly what you mean most of the time. Question away. We're happy to answer. But the flip side of that is that you need to show a little more respect when we go to the trouble of answering you. If you don't get the answer you expect you need to tell us why. And you need to consider that maybe you phrased the question wrong.

The origin of life is NOT on topic here.Let's not head down that road here. Thanks.

1) First there was non-life.2) Later there was life.3) Life and non-life are made out of the same stuff.Ergo: Non-life became life. This conclusion is reinforced when livings things turn non-living matter into living matter.I've only told you this about 4 times now, and every time you dismiss me and ask the question again. Exactly what about the answer do you find insufficient, already?

Since life is made out of non-life, that doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

The origin of life is not the topic here or a topic for this forum.

I don't know, I've always enjoyed those shows, but I do find myself wondering from time to time, how much of this is thoroughly known, and how much is speculation?The creationist movement in America strikes me as bizarre, and so one tries to figure out what caused the phenomenon.