Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[rdean]

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life

I was watching this special on BBC.

It's totally amazing. Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".

The examples are great and compelling.

Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".

What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

 

[blu]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

 

[rdean]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Shhh, don't distract it from it's journey. It has a ring to protect.

 

[Emeraldgreen]

that was a very interesting special.

 

[JBeukema]

Wait.. wrong tree of life

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

 

[JBeukema]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo[/ame]

 

[rdean]

​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo

The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

its science

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

 

[JBeukema]

Yes... DNA is speculation...

 

[Old Rocks]

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.

You know what amazes me?

The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.

 

[JBeukema]

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms...

 

[FA_Q2]

I still fail to understand why this completely negates this concept. You question the ORIGINAL starting point but the actual tree itself is a valid description of the path of life. Then again, you also fail to give an alternate starting point.

 

[u2scram]

the most astonishing thing about darwins theory of evolution is that no-one else had ever thought of something so obvious. farmers for example, had been breeding cattle to improve stock for centuries.

if it wasnt for wallace informing him of his thoughts on the topic darwin, who once trained for the church, would not have released his findings until after his death. he was aware of the controversy that would arise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually Darwin's grandfather had some interesting thoughts on the subject, but did not do the research to gather evidence for his ideas. However, Darwin started out a creationist, but what he saw in nature changed his mind.

 

[Old Rocks]

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.

You know what amazes me?

The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.

Perhaps you should take a basic course in electricity, and how an electric motor reacts to load, compared to an ICE.