Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: Barcs

is there a chance you could post that evidence that suggests common ancestry is flawed?

I am not a biologist, or organic chemist, or geneticist, or any other type of scientist in a field related to the subject of evolution. I have no original science data to offer. I must rely on reading what is published and available upon which to make my own opinions on the subject. Here is an abstract of a book.

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
Eugene V. Koonin* and Artem S. Novozhilov

The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly non-random. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physico-chemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, i.e., the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment. Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments. Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out. However, such scenarios for the code evolution are based on formal schemes whose relevance to the actual primordial evolution is uncertain. A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system.

a reply to: pthena

can you tell us what the bolded sections mean to you? im guessing they were bolded because of your interest in them.

a reply to: TzarChasm

seems to me the mistake you are making is in looking at evolution like its a production line. evolution is not a business.

I think you are confusing me with whoever decided that the definition of evolution should include the notion of one and only one first ancestor of all life. I'm not that guy.

evolution is a biological lottery riddled with happy coincidences perched on a mountain of forgotten failures.

Sure, I have no reason to disagree with that statement. That's evolution. Evolution is, and doesn't rely upon a theory propagated by schools. If the schools are pushing the theory as a way of dumbing down the presentation to make it understandable to high schoolers, well, maybe they should make it clear that there are a whole lot of maybes, we thinks, and a few seems to mosts. Maybe that is the way it's taught. I don't know, I think I was busy talking to the girl who sat in front of me that day.

originally posted by: pthena
In my view, just my opinion, is that it is too rigid in definition, therefore modification is very slow to occur, like a very traditionalist as opposed to evolving view.

I think the problem is that people think it is too rigid a definition.

In my opinion, what is taught at the moment is a place holder.

Q: "It's possible that all life originated from a single instance. What do you all think?"

A: "Sure, let's go with that for now."

Anyone who thinks it is a definite answer or that it is offered as such is in the wrong, whether they agree or disagree with the theory itself.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

it is also the least flawed theory we have available.

Maybe as far as handed out for public consumption theories go.

Not really. When you get right down to the bones of it, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, as well as its precursors since Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species', would be the most heavily and widely studied Scientific Theory in the history of science and has the most supporting data and evidence of any theory in the history of science.

Did you miss my little what if?

What if a new life form comes to be today?

Hypothesis: If discovered in 5 years by scientists would it be classified as a more primitive life form and get plugged into the currently theorized evolution tree as an ancestor to more developed life forms?

Answer: Absolutely.

Why "Absolutely"? You've provided no context or criteria for this hypothetical find aside from it being a member of an entire Kingdom, Archaea. That's a massive group of organisms to pick from and it seems entirely arbitrary that you have decided that it most certainly would be concluded to be more primitive than any other known Archaea and that it would be determined to be a precursor to all other Archaea. There's nothing scientific about that except for the use of the word 'Hypothesis'.

Conclusion: There's something flawed about the currently theorized evolution tree.

And what exactly is it that is flawed? There isn't much to begin a dialogue on here except for misnomers and assumptions. Be careful... raggedyman will come out of the mirror if you say his name 3 times while making an assumption like that!

a reply to: pthena

Sure, I have no reason to disagree with that statement. That's evolution. Evolution is, and doesn't rely upon a theory propagated by schools. If the schools are pushing the theory as a way of dumbing down the presentation to make it understandable to high schoolers, well, maybe they should make it clear that there are a whole lot of maybes, we thinks, and a few seems to mosts. Maybe that is the way it's taught. I don't know, I think I was busy talking to the girl who sat in front of me that day.

maybe next time you should try paying attention with the other head.

a reply to: TzarChasm

This is page 23 of the thread. I'm thinking that all my brilliant thinking is going to be lost to posterity as just so much rubbish by association.

Oh well, it's a learning experience.
a reply to: TzarChasm
The bolded sections indicate that before the common ancestor theory can be certified, a new model for the relationships must first be developed.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

This is page 23 of the thread. I'm thinking that all my brilliant thinking

is going to be lost to posterity as just so much rubbish by association.

Oh well, it's a learning experience.

page 23 of this thread, which is only one of many. nothing new in the origins and creation forum, just the same song and dance. one of these days (if im bored enough) i may go through the ats database and put together a compilation of all the creation vs evolution threads. call it a collectors archive... a list of reasons not to start another thread on the subject, not that it would stop anyone.

a reply to: peter vlar

Why "Absolutely"? You've provided no context or criteria for this hypothetical find aside from it being a member of an entire Kingdom, Archaea. That's a massive group of organisms to pick from and it seems entirely arbitrary that you have decided that it most certainly would be concluded to be more primitive than any other known Archaea and that it would be determined to be a precursor to all other Archaea. There's nothing scientific about that except for the use of the word 'Hypothesis'.

The very doctrine of Universal Genetic Code states: The exceptions prove the rule.

Until that doctrine is modified, then yes, absolutely.

In any case, for now, my participation is as a student of the theory and of the subject of what evolution is in and of itself outside of the classrooms and textbooks. I'm not selling anything yet.

a reply to: TzarChasm

one of these days (if im bored enough) i may go through the ats database and put together a compilation of all the creation vs evolution threads. call it a collectors archive.

That would be some epic level boredom

I was just getting my feet wet. Is this thread really typical of the lot?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: peter vlar

Why "Absolutely"? You've provided no context or criteria for this hypothetical find aside from it being a member of an entire Kingdom, Archaea. That's a massive group of organisms to pick from and it seems entirely arbitrary that you have decided that it most certainly would be concluded to be more primitive than any other known Archaea and that it would be determined to be a precursor to all other Archaea. There's nothing scientific about that except for the use of the word 'Hypothesis'.

The very doctrine of Universal Genetic Code states: The exceptions prove the rule.

Until that doctrine is modified, then yes, absolutely.

In any case, for now, my participation is as a student of the theory and of the subject of what evolution is in and of itself outside of the classrooms and textbooks. I'm not selling anything yet.

where is the "universal" coming from? all of the studies we have ever done on genetics come from one planet. earth. nothing universal about it.

a reply to: pthena

that still doesn't explain why out of an entire kingdom, a hypothetical new Archaea would be designated as more primitive than, and a precursor to, all other Archaea which is what you said would happen. You may not have drafted a bill of sale but you've still placed goods on the shelf. Did you read the citation I provided earlier? I think you're looking at this from too broad of a perspective and not actually looking at the facts that support exactly how the rare exceptions do in fact prove common ancestry.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: pthena

that still doesn't explain why out of an entire kingdom, a hypothetical new Archaea would be designated as more primitive than, and a precursor to, all other Archaea which is what you said would happen. You may not have drafted a bill of sale but you've still placed goods on the shelf. Did you read the citation I provided earlier? I think you're looking at this from too broad of a perspective and not actually looking at the facts that support exactly how the rare exceptions do in fact prove common ancestry.

a broad perspective is the only perspective you have when you are working with a laymans understanding of modern evolutionary synthesis.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: peter vlar

Why "Absolutely"? You've provided no context or criteria for this hypothetical find aside from it being a member of an entire Kingdom, Archaea. That's a massive group of organisms to pick from and it seems entirely arbitrary that you have decided that it most certainly would be concluded to be more primitive than any other known Archaea and that it would be determined to be a precursor to all other Archaea. There's nothing scientific about that except for the use of the word 'Hypothesis'.

The very doctrine of Universal Genetic Code states: The exceptions prove the rule.

Until that doctrine is modified, then yes, absolutely.

In any case, for now, my participation is as a student of the theory and of the subject of what evolution is in and of itself outside of the classrooms and textbooks. I'm not selling anything yet.

where is the "universal" coming from? all of the studies we have ever done on genetics come from one planet. earth. nothing universal about it.

I think its merely a reference to the fact that all DNA on Earth is comprised of the same 4 bases, Adenine,Thymine,Cytosine and Guanine as opposed to all life in the universe sharing common ancestry. Universal as in all currently known life, which obviously is limited to Earth.

a reply to: TzarChasm

maybe next time you should try paying attention with the other head.

Whenever I spent much time giving attention to the girl sitting in front of me, the girl sitting next to me would feel a bit neglected(I'm guessing, not a mind reader). She would reach into her purse and pull out some perfume and spray me with it.

So theory of evolution smells like lavender as far as I can recall.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: peter vlar

Why "Absolutely"? You've provided no context or criteria for this hypothetical find aside from it being a member of an entire Kingdom, Archaea. That's a massive group of organisms to pick from and it seems entirely arbitrary that you have decided that it most certainly would be concluded to be more primitive than any other known Archaea and that it would be determined to be a precursor to all other Archaea. There's nothing scientific about that except for the use of the word 'Hypothesis'.

The very doctrine of Universal Genetic Code states: The exceptions prove the rule.

Until that doctrine is modified, then yes, absolutely.

In any case, for now, my participation is as a student of the theory and of the subject of what evolution is in and of itself outside of the classrooms and textbooks. I'm not selling anything yet.

where is the "universal" coming from? all of the studies we have ever done on genetics come from one planet. earth. nothing universal about it.

I think its merely a reference to the fact that all DNA on Earth is comprised of the same 4 bases, Adenine,Thymine,Cytosine and Guanine as opposed to all life in the universe sharing common ancestry. Universal as in all currently known life, which obviously is limited to Earth.

"Universal as in all currently known life, which obviously is limited to Earth"

well then, its obviously not universal is it?!

a reply to: TzarChasm

where is the "universal" coming from?

It's the "universal" way that the codons (three letter codes in DNA (or RNA)) instruct which amino acids to add to the protein. It's universal except when it isn't, but when it isn't well that just proves that it's universal. Perfectly logical.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

where is the "universal" coming from?

It's the "universal" way that the codons (three letter codes in DNA (or RNA)) instruct which amino acids to add to the protein. It's universal except when it isn't, but when it isn't well that just proves that it's universal. Perfectly logical.

i think 'universal' is the wrong word to use for a planets worth of genetic study. still no indication of creationism or intelligent design, either way.

a reply to: peter vlar

Sorry, I did miss this post.

Based on what criteria though would it be placed at the root of a branch of currently existing archaea?

Having just come into being, it would almost of necessity be very primitive.

And then there's DNA, which seems to be completely ignored in all of your statements suggesting that evidence of a Universal Common Ancestor is bunk

I'm not sure but there are laws of chemistry which sort of determine what can go where and for how long. Would a new life form be different? Why? same laws in effect.

One of the biggest examples of a Universal Code exception is the mitochondria. At first glance it looks sketchy that an organism has a separate genetic structure from its mitochondria and that the same letter combinations are a stop codon in the organism itself yet the same exact sequence in the mitochondria is instead of a codon, that sequence an amino acid like tryptophan. When looking at the mitochondria alone, this is actually evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria were an endosymbiotic bacterium at the time when the eukaryotic cell first arose. The mitochondrial genome is small, and most of the genes of the original endosymbiont have migrated to the nucleus. After comparing many, many mitochondrial DNA samples, all of the mitochondria can be shown to have a common ancestor that luved ~1.5 BA

What if, just spitballing here, the endosymbiotic bacterium began as a lifeform at the time the eukaryotic cell first arose. The endosymbiotic bacterium which evolved into the mitochondria would not have the same ancestor as the eukaryotic cell which became its host. In the same way, the Archaea which exist in the gut may have come into being in the gut. Therefore the Archaea in the gut is not descended from the ancestral Archaea which existed before there was a gut.

It's always fun to sit back and laugh out loud based on unlikely hypotheticals but hey, if it helps you maintain your position that there was no Universal Common Ancestor then have at it!

I've only been looking at this evolution thing since getting on this thread. So my position is very young, not some long held belief or anything.

are those who have never pursued science beyond a basic 4 year collegiate level, have never sat through a conference in a room filled with people from the same field and have certainly never had to prepare for et alone defend a Thesis or Dissertation and have not submitted research for purposes of publication.

There you got me. I didn't even take college level biology. So boom! We are only peers on ATS, not peers in Academia. In Academia I was the guy driving the trash truck for the University.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

one of these days (if im bored enough) i may go through the ats database and put together a compilation of all the creation vs evolution threads. call it a collectors archive.

That would be some epic level boredom

I was just getting my feet wet. Is this thread really typical of the lot?

have a look for yourself. the links are there and so is the search engine. no need to take my word for it.