Evolution and the Origin of Life

[Max Power]

Whether complex or not, evolution on the "micro" level has been observed and verified, and therefore proven. Once proven, it's no longer a theory, it's a fact. Evolution on the "macro" level is as yet unproven, and so remains theory.

You are 100% incorrect.

Special relativity has been observed (clocks placed on planes measured different times depending on their velocity). It remains theory.

Here is a good explanation of scientific theory, law, and hypothesis.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

BTW What makes you think that macro-evolution hasn't been "proven" any more than micro-evolution?

 

[manu1959]

Proving how something "IS" can be very different than proving how something "happened"

At times, when sleuthing, we can "discount" some possiblities.

For example, if a nickle wound up on a dresser, and we know for a fact that it was previously on the floor, then we can make that logical deduction that it didnt "accidentally" fall from the floor to the dresser.

Now, to get to the point of non life, (nickle on floor) to a living, breathing, replicating single cell organism, (nickle on downstairs dresser) its perfectly reasonable to assume that the nickle got to the dresser via an external LIVING force.

Now, while it is true that at one time we couldnt prove the earth was round, we also couldnt prove it was flat. We just thought we could, but not based on sound reasoning, but only based on human emotion.

you are assuming it is the same nickle and the one on the floor could be under the bed...anyway .... it was "fact" once .... according to the great thinkers of the day ... that the world was flat ..... it was only a theory that the world was round until proven by sailing around it and our viewing it from space....unless of curse you are flat earther in which case the world is still flat ..... the real fact is neither of us know any of this for a fact as we have not expeienced it personally we take it on faith that what we are shown is true and factual and real.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Hagbard Celine:
I would disagree with you. I think the ability of new species to emerge because of Micro-evolutionary stimulus is provable. Maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary here with the micro and macro stuff, but the only thing faith-based in the evolutionary theory is how life sprang from the elements. Subspecies can easily evolve into totally different species given time and the inability to mate with the common ancestral organism.

First, let me explain the difference in nomenclature:
The whole micro/macro evolution distinction was made by opponents of the evolution theory proposed by Darwin, i.e. by proponents of intelligent design, or creationism.
As scientific data started accumulating over the last century, with the discovery of DNA being the ultimate source of variation (whereas this was the proteins in Darwin’s time), filling in more and more of the previous blanks, Darwin’s original theory had to be updated. For example, he knew nothing of Mendelian genetics either – a central European Monk, Gregor Mendel, started with a selective cross-pollinating experiment with peas in the 19th century, and showed there to be consistency in genetic material passed from parent-peas to first and second generation offspring. Mendel’s experiments remained largely unrecognized until the beginning of the 20th century.

The synthesis of different sets of data led to the present situation, in which Darwin’s general hypothesis still stands, but has been adapted and transformed so much that now it is called: Neo-Darwinism.

Since this seemed to keep on growing into an alternative view of the origin of species, that gained evermore momentum through the fact that the hypothesis itself adapted and evolved to accumulate all the new information, creationism was faced with an everlarger challenge.

As is the case in evolution, it was time for creationism to adapt to it’s changing environment – natural selection pressured it into reviewing their previous stance on the matter. So instead of claiming the creator had created every species on the planet from dirt, faced with the evergrowing mountain of evidence in support of the evolution hypothesis, it was decided that indeed evolution deserved it’s place in the creator’s work.

Thus the distinction of micro/macro was coined, to acknowledge partly the work of science over the last century in unraveling the mysteries of life, and yet keep the creator in the equation.

Micro-evolution refers to the speciation events within an ancestral "Arc of Noah" species, such as all the different kinds of dogs created by man through crossbreeding and selecting for traits and birds we observe.

Macro-evolution refers to the coming into existence of these ancestral "Arc of Noah" species, such as the archetypal wolf and the bear and the lamb, that were all made by a creator. After Noah rescued one pair of every species, they could then through micro-evolution form into all the different species of the world we observe today.

So in short, the creationist story follows the evolutionary guidelines of natural selection and adaptation to a challenging environment to the letter. As does the hypothesis of evolution in a way, by adapting slightly everytime there is new information that does not fit in the existing hypothesis.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by dmp:
To me, the closeness among species points towards intelligent design, not away from the concept. Speaking of leaps of faith:
....Wysong (1976) wrote that the most basic living organism would require 124 proteins of properly sequenced amino acids. The odds of even the simplest living organism forming by chance was 10^-78,436. Furthermore, the total probability of the chance formation of the proteins and DNA required by the smallest self-replicating entity is 10^-167,626 (Hadd, 1979).....

Althoug I personally do not agree with the scientific grounds of statistics, since you can build assumption upon assumption upon assumption and thus prove anything, I will try to answer beyond my contempt for statistics.

As you well know, the Urey/Miller experiment in 1953 showed that in an anorganic soup, in which they tried to simulate the composition of the ancient ocean, they did manage to get several important amino acids - 13 out of the 21 used in organic life - after treating the soup with a bolt of lightning. (On a sidenote:Check the thread: A whole new understanding of the UNIVERSE in the Science/Technology section for more on lightning's role as a driving force, this may be something very BIG).

This step alone is very critical in our understanding of what may have happened. It shows that while you can statistically "prove" it requires a 1 in a million chance to get 13 out of 21 amino acids from anorganic molecules, thus making it a logical assumption that it would have taken a million or so years. Yet Ury and Miller's experimental mixing of the anorganic molecules: H2O, CH4, NH3 and H2, defied "statistics" and managed to produce these 13 amino acids in a few seconds, instead of in a million years. It took them the ONE out of the million chances, and they forgot about the rest. So what happened: did they cheat?

Were they lucky? Maybe, but they had quite a clear idea of what amount of anorganic molecules were supposed to be around in the ancient earth's oceans and atmosphere: established through scientific hypothesis and the studying of ancient rock formations.
Mix it all together, and nothing happens, not for a million years, proving statistical analysis right....however, jolt a single bolt of lightning into the mix, and BEHOLD!! 13 out of the 21 organic amino-acids spontaneously form, in literally seconds.

That the process of evolution is a very gradual process has long been refuted in the scientific community. Evolution has no goal, no direction, and is driven mostly by a process called natural selection. In a stable environment, almost nothing happens; no new species arrive on the scene. The existing ones may adapt a little in the beginning, but when the environment is stable for dozens of generations, there is no need for change: species may evolve new traits still, but since there is no pressure/selection on these traits that make them more or less advantageous, nothing seems to happen.

There is plenty of evidence that there are long periods in which nothing happens, whereas other periods show very high numbers of new species, that are thought to have evolved in response to a dramatically changing environment - and thus a highly competitive selection.

Take an Ice age for example, that is some natural selection you have there: whomever is not prepared to deal with a geological "sudden, i.e. a decade-long" drop in temperature, is a gonner. Whomever adapts, passes on this new trait to the next generation, selecting for everthicker furs for example, until it is no longer a trait worth to be selected upon.

Now on to the statistical "evidence":
The problem with statistics is that it can go anywhere. Because of the inherent uncertainty, there is always either a 1% or a 5% error margin in statistical analysis. Thus, you can statistically prove that 1 is indeed equal to 2.

Suppose 1 is statistically 1, but we're only 95% sure it is, maybe it's something else, like 0,99999. That means there is a 5% chance it is not 1.
Because we cannot be 100% certain that this 5% part is 0,99999 instead of really 1, but could just as easily be 1,00001 or maybe even, let's be radical 1,00020 in extreme circumstances. That would give us, again, a 95% certainty that these other numbers are close to 1, say within a percentile of it. That would still leave 5% of the numbers unaccounted for however.
And so on and so on, if the numbers are great enough, 1 could be anything.

Ok, let's say, the 5% that we're not sure of, is realistically still pretty close to 1, so within a percent of it, either 0,99 or 1,01. And so on.

Let's take 1^100 possible "1s".
That would give us 1^100/20 --> 5% of the "1s" = 5^98 are not 1s.
That would give us 5^98/20 --> 5% of the "0,99 through 1,01s" = 2,5^97 are not that.
That would give us 2,5^97/20 --> 5% of the "0,9801 through 1,0201s" = 1,25^96 are not that.
And so on and so on. . . until,
That would give us 8,47^8 "1s" that is, close to a billion 1s, that are actually "2s" - even more than 2 already, be it by a small margin.
So 1 = 2. At least almost a billion times.

 

[5stringJeff]

(Oh you're going to hate me for this one)

Is that law necessarily true?

Yes, that law is necessarily true. However, I did misspeak. The premise is true because of the Law of Bivalence, not the Law of Non-Contradiction. My bad. But the premise is still true.

First, assume that there is no God.
Second, in order for us to even consider the question, it is necessary that the life arose via natural processes.

If you take the first premise and assume that there is no God (i.e. no supernatural cause for supernatural processes), then you have eliminated the only other potion, and you must say that life arose via natural processes. However, I think that the assumption is a bad one to make.

I seriously suggest you read up on the anthropic principle.

I mean... even if the probability of life arising is next to zero, it's still real, and the fact that we are considering it means it happened.
Is there any reason to believe that our universe is the only one? Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes w/o life because evolution never happened.

Or not.

I understand the anthropic principle. What I'm saying is that the cause of the origin of life is supernatural, not natural, which does not contradict the anthropic principle.

 

[Max Power]

I understand the anthropic principle. What I'm saying is that the cause of the origin of life is supernatural, not natural, which does not contradict the anthropic principle.

But if your only argument for such is due to low probability, then you aren't properly using the anthropic principle.

 

[5stringJeff]

But if your only argument for such is due to low probability, then you aren't properly using the anthropic principle.

It's not just low probability, it's infitesimally small probability.

The anthropic principle remains unviolated because supernatural processes can meet the criteria just as well as natural processes can.

 

[Max Power]

It's not just low probability, it's infitesimally small probability.

The anthropic principle remains unviolated because supernatural processes can meet the criteria just as well as natural processes can.

I don't buy the whole "infitesimally small" argument. That author of that article citing those probability numbers didn't have much of a grasp on biology or probability.

the odds, a one-cell organism is so complex that the likelihood of its coming together by sheer accident and chance is computed to be around 1/10^78,000

Is that the odds for it to happen in a liter of water over the course of a second? Or in an ocean over a year? There is so little information given, that it's evident that the author is just fabricating numbers.
It also ignores biology, in which enzymes facilitate numerous biological processes.

the probability of the emergence of the horse as 1/10^3,000,000

That's another utterly meaningless number. Nobody is claiming that a horse "emerged" from random atoms and molecules.
That's like saying that the probability of the emergence of a mountain, or the statue of liberty is 1/10^3,000,000,000. Even if it's TRUE, it's irrelevant, because the statue was built, not "emerged." The mountain was formed, not "emerged."


Of course, it's not surprising that those people who are trying to debase science have little interest in understanding it.

 

[5stringJeff]

I don't buy the whole "infitesimally small" argument. That author of that article citing those probability numbers didn't have much of a grasp on biology or probability.


Is that the odds for it to happen in a liter of water over the course of a second? Or in an ocean over a year? There is so little information given, that it's evident that the author is just fabricating numbers.
It also ignores biology, in which enzymes facilitate numerous biological processes.


That's another utterly meaningless number. Nobody is claiming that a horse "emerged" from random atoms and molecules.
That's like saying that the probability of the emergence of a mountain, or the statue of liberty is 1/10^3,000,000,000. Even if it's TRUE, it's irrelevant, because the statue was built, not "emerged." The mountain was formed, not "emerged."


Of course, it's not surprising that those people who are trying to debase science have little interest in understanding it.

I haven't researched the sources behind the stats the author cites. But I already answered this question in post #47.

 

[Max Power]

I haven't researched the sources behind the stats the author cites. But I already answered this question in post #47.

I saw that, but still... one can't help but wonder exactly HOW the author came up with those numbers, or what they even signify. I wouldn't put the least bit of credibility into them.

Not to mention the ridiculous assumptions and oversimplications made by the author, for example, assuming that a horse would be randomly assembled, or "emerged."

It also ignores any scientific experiments that have been performed. In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Miller and Urey re-created some primordial earth conditions. After ONE WEEK, 13 of the 21 life-essential amino acids had been formed. Imagine what could've happened in a billion years. I wonder why this was left out of that "probabilistic" analysis?

So, not only are those numbers completely meaningless, but the author also ignored some essential scientific experiments.

 

[Bullypulpit]

True, but it's more rational than a belief in a magical deity/creator because it puts faith into tried and true and physically observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? All things being equal, the simplest answer is correct. What's more plausible, that a magical being that has never been physically witnessed to exist by anyone and of which no physical evidence exists created the universe? Or that the universe has been formed through physical processes, the evidence of which can be recorded and studied by scientists?

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the whole evolution vs. creation debate is a result of religionists trying to insert their favorite deitiy into the gaps of knowledge provided us by science. And as we see those gaps grow smaller, I think it safe to say that the religionists will become all the more strident in their efforts to fill those gaps with their gods.

 

[dilloduck]

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the whole evolution vs. creation debate is a result of religionists trying to insert their favorite deitiy into the gaps of knowledge provided us by science. And as we see those gaps grow smaller, I think it safe to say that the religionists will become all the more strident in their efforts to fill those gaps with their gods.

you betcha---science is gonna have all those gaps filled any century now.

oh ya--I always have this great vision of a bunch of scientists coming out of a lab announcing that they have "discovered" God, therefore he exists.

 

[5stringJeff]

I saw that, but still... one can't help but wonder exactly HOW the author came up with those numbers, or what they even signify. I wouldn't put the least bit of credibility into them.

Not to mention the ridiculous assumptions and oversimplications made by the author, for example, assuming that a horse would be randomly assembled, or "emerged."

It also ignores any scientific experiments that have been performed. In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Miller and Urey re-created some primordial earth conditions. After ONE WEEK, 13 of the 21 life-essential amino acids had been formed. Imagine what could've happened in a billion years. I wonder why this was left out of that "probabilistic" analysis?

So, not only are those numbers completely meaningless, but the author also ignored some essential scientific experiments.

First, the horse illustration was simply an illustration. No one is saying that evolutionists claim the horse spontaneously appeared.

Second, the Miller-Urey experiments have been thoroughly debunked. Their "atmosphere" contained an abnormal mix of oxygen and ammonia (if I remember correctly), which was easily fused into amino acids; in other words, their mixture guaranteed their results.

Third, even Miller and Urey mention that their one week of continually applied electrical current was equivalent to something like 1,000,000 years of actual time.

Fourth, the mere presence of 13 amino acids does not account for the rise of RNA/DNA, cell walls, or other celluar sturctures essential for a cell's survival.

 

[Max Power]

First, the horse illustration was simply an illustration. No one is saying that evolutionists claim the horse spontaneously appeared.

Second, the Miller-Urey experiments have been thoroughly debunked. Their "atmosphere" contained an abnormal mix of oxygen and ammonia (if I remember correctly), which was easily fused into amino acids; in other words, their mixture guaranteed their results.

You got that backwards.

However, as soon as oxygen gas is added to the mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Recent research has been seized upon by opponents of Urey-Miller hypothesis which shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out) (Rosing & Frei 2004). It is wrongly argued by some, in an attempt to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis, that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller-Urey-like scenario. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that the oxygen is evidence merely of the existence of photosynthetic organisms

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

Third, even Miller and Urey mention that their one week of continually applied electrical current was equivalent to something like 1,000,000 years of actual time.

I haven't been able to find that... but even if their little tub for one week was 1 million years, there were millions of those tubs (the oceans) and billions of years to accomplish this feat.

Fourth, the mere presence of 13 amino acids does not account for the rise of RNA/DNA, cell walls, or other celluar sturctures essential for a cell's survival.

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes
These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one.

 

[deaddude]

1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.

No, that would be primordial biochemistery. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, it is a theory about how life could develope from its origin to its current diversity. Evolution is theoretically observable, it is just that humanity has only been keeping records for about six thousand years give or take a couple millenia.

To give an example of how little time this is on the evolutionary scale, the megatooth shark went extinct about 65 million years ago, it is still considered to be a modern shark.

So yes evolution is probably observable on the macro scale it just takes a hell of a long time.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No, that would be primordial biochemistery. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, it is a theory about how life could develope from its origin to its current diversity. Evolution is theoretically observable, it is just that humanity has only been keeping records for about six thousand years give or take a couple millenia.

To give an example of how little time this is on the evolutionary scale, the megatooth shark went extinct about 65 million years ago, it is still considered to be a modern shark.

So yes evolution is probably observable on the macro scale it just takes a hell of a long time.

True: It takes a helluvalotta time. The easiest example of forced adaptation or 'micro'evolution, is cave animals like spiders and fish that have been shut-off from the outside world and have become blind and unpigmented due to lack of light over many generations. Another example would be island life like in the Galopagos. Similar species differ slightly from island to island due to their gene pools having been concentrated on a single island.

If you really wanted to look at macro evolution, you could look at Australia. Its flora and fauna were completely separated from other Eurasian species for thousands, if not millions of years and became quite distinctive from anything on the mainland over that time.

 

[Max Power]

True: It takes a helluvalotta time. The easiest example of forced adaptation or 'micro'evolution, is cave animals like spiders and fish that have been shut-off from the outside world and have become blind and unpigmented due to lack of light over many generations. Another example would be island life like in the Galopagos. Similar species differ slightly from island to island due to their gene pools having been concentrated on a single island.

If you really wanted to look at macro evolution, you could look at Australia. Its flora and fauna were completely separated from other Eurasian species for thousands, if not millions of years and became quite distinctive from anything on the mainland over that time.

The easiest example of evolution is antibiotic resistant bacteria.
We force natural selection by killing all bacteria that are not antibiotic resistant.
You don't even have to look back a century to see this.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The easiest example of evolution is antibiotic resistant bacteria.
We force natural selection by killing all bacteria that are not antibiotic resistant.
You don't even have to look back a century to see this.

TRUER WORDS WERE NAVER SPOKEN MAX POWER.NAVER

 

[dilloduck]

The easiest example of evolution is antibiotic resistant bacteria.
We force natural selection by killing all bacteria that are not antibiotic resistant.
You don't even have to look back a century to see this.

I would imagine that an Intelligent Designer could use the same method for force natural selection.

 

[Max Power]

I would imagine that an Intelligent Designer could use the same method for force natural selection.

Do you mean mankind by "Intelligent Designer?"
Because we are 100% responsible for the conditions that forced the natural selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

And, since mankind isn't very old, and life on earth is billions of years old, does that mean that you are saying that your intelligent designer could not possibly have been responsible for the origin of species?