An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well, this certainly does not disprove evolution as a whole. In fact, it goes a long way towards backing up evolution.

Maybe some made up version of the theory you are about to formulate, but the standard theory teaches that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates. This shows that cannot be the case, period. I didn't say it disproved it, but that it causes a major problem that needs to be addressed. It completely throws off the entire chain of evolutionary history. The invertebrates, Sponges and cnidarians, were the first groups of animals to evolve over 650 million years ago. The first vertebrates were fish that appear in the fossil record 530 million years ago.

It does support the multiple lines theory but if it is only in the mitochondrial line, then i would imagine that this happened when the split between eukaryotic and prokaryiotic took place.

My point was that if the commonly taught theory of how mitochondria came to be in cells is correct, vertebrates cannot possibly have come from invertebrates. If you want to take the approach that vertebrates evolved in a completely separate line on their own you are going to have a hard time explaining how backbones randomly show up in the fossil record 530 million years ago with no evolutionary history what so ever.

Are you trying to say that this proves evolution false? Or are you just saying that our understanding of evolution is incomplete? because we already knew that. That's why we continue to study at it

I am saying it disrupts the current theory of how new morphological features are said to have formed as vertebrates could not possibly have from invertebrates which I can tell you recognized, because you said " i would imagine that this happened when the split between eukaryotic and prokaryiotic took place." This is exactly what I mentioned in the OP:

the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into invertebrates must have formed when a prokayotic cell that used the common code engulfed a cell that used a different code. The eukaryotic cells that evolved into vertebrates must have formed when a prokaryotic cell that used the common code engulfed a cell that used yet another different code.

a reply to: Noinden

Because he/she mentioned it:

It is rational to conclude that if life could find the right conditions to arise once, that it could arise multiple times from scratch and that these 'starts' would have differences from each other.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Be that as it may, it is still not evolution, and thus not topical

But on topic

If you can not understand how mitochondrial DNA might also change, just like nuclear DNA does. Then the entire premise of this thread is something you can not grasp
Do you understand how it has been proposed mitochondria got into cells in the first place?

a reply to: Astyanax

After millions of years of evolution, why would anyone expect mitochondrial DNA from vertebrates to be the same as mitochondrial DNA from invertebrates?

Maybe if you understood that what I meant by different is that a codon in an invertebrate will be read differently in the code of vertebrates. Similar to the way UGA in mycoplasma and human cells are read differently. In human cells UGA stops the translation process and in mycoplasma cells it codes for tryptophan. They are completely different coding languages.

a reply to: Noinden

Maybe if you understood that what I meant by different is that a codon in an invertebrate will be read differently in the code of vertebrates. Similar to the way UGA in mycoplasma and human cells are read differently. In human cells UGA stops the translation process and in mycoplasma cells it codes for tryptophan. They are completely different coding languages not just different as in variation.

Do you understand how it has been proposed mitochondria got into cells in the first place?

I don't know why people keep assuming I don't know this I explained this in the OP:

Current evolutionary theory says that prokaryotic cells evolved first, and at a later date one of these cells engulfed another cell, this cell eventually became the mitochondria for the cell that engulfed it.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Not for me, though. I'm a scientist - and as scientist, the evidence for the theory of evolution is a sea of correlations that perfectly explain the qualities of living beings in terms of a diachronic progression of a changing structure.

All you have said here is that the theory of evolution is explains how living beings change over time. Yes that is what is supposed to explain, but the question is does it do so adequately ? I think not

Were talking about eukaryote - little itty bitty barely visible cells. What are cells but self-regulating dissipative structures? Have you read Ilya Prigogine? Stuart Kaufmann? Harold Morowitz? Terrence Deacon? The convergence of the thermodynamic and physical sciences with the observed properties of living beings - microscopic and macroscopic - lends, for me, an ocean of information to which your problem poses a very minor problem.

Are you just trying to use words you think most people won't take that time to look up? Literally all you said is that cells are self-regulating, thermodynamically open systems which exchange matter and energy with its environment. Yes all of that is true, but again doesn't even attempt to solve the issue I've presented here.

Now, if mitochrondrial DNA differed between vertebrates - THAT would be a major problem, because vertebrates are very large macroscopic organisms built - it is assumed - over a very long evolutionary time-period. That all vertebrates share the same mitochrondrial DNA is perfect confirmation of the theory.

Your issue ultimately scales back to a period when an untold number of "eukaryotes" - or an archea eating up a bacteria (according to the common theory) - could have occurred in multiple of ways

I don't think you even know what the problem I've posed is. Obviously well aware of where the issue scales back to, and that is why it causes a problem with the current evolutionary history and fossil record of all vertebrates. That is not a tiny problem. Vertebrates supposedly came from invertebrates, do you want to explain how that is possible when their mitochondria use different coding languages? As you have rightly pointed out a very old prokaryotic cell must have englufed another prokayotic cell, and this evolved into a eukaryotic cell with mitochondria that we see today. The problem is these eukaryotic cells turn into invertebrates before vertebrates, and now we know that the eukaryotic cells that evolved into invertebrates must be different from the eukaryotic cells the evolved into vertebrates.

What about the reverse? Maybe you've spent a lot of time obsessed with disproving evolution because you think it is incompatible with a spirituality or a theistic God - and in its bothering you, you tendentiously interpret information with minor significance as being a death-blow to evolutionary theory.

I would be perfectly happy to accept theistic evolution. I am just not convinced, so no I don't frantically try to disprove it. I objectively look at the evidence and only consider fact what we know for certain.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Since evolution depends on vertebrates evolving from invertebrates it seems we have a dilemma !!! What to do what to do.

Evolution does not DEPEND on that. It uses it as the most probable explanation based on evidence. Cool stuff, no doubt, but not really anything that is contradictory to evolution.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

the standard theory teaches that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.This shows that cannot be the case.

It shows nothing of the sort.

Maybe if you understood that what I meant by different is that a codon in an invertebrate will be read differently in the code of vertebrates.

Maybe if you stopped assuming others' ignorance and considered the gaps in your own knowledge you would make more sense of evolutionary theory.

Do you understand what a mitochondrion is and does? And how it interacts with the rest of the cell? If you did, you would not be so quick to advertise this as a 'dilemma' (better look up what that means, too) for evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

Evolution does not DEPEND on that. It uses it as the most probable explanation based on evidence. Cool stuff, no doubt, but not really anything that is contradictory to evolution.

So backbones just spontaneously appeared in the fossil record 530 million years ago with no evolutionary history ?

a reply to: Astyanax

It shows nothing of the sort.

Yes it does I've explained it numerous times if you can't understand it I can't help you. If you refuse to accept it I can't help you there either so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Maybe if you stopped assuming others' ignorance and considered the gaps in your own knowledge you would make more sense of evolutionary theory.

Maybe if your first response didn't imply that millions of years explains away different coding languages in the mitochondria of vertebrates and invertebrates. I wouldn't assume your ignorance.

Do you understand what a mitochondrion is and does? And how it interacts with the rest of the cell? If you did, you would not be so quick to advertise this as a 'dilemma' (better look up what that means, too) for evolution.

If you think you have something that shows I am wrong, then quit beating around the bush and explain it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I don't know why people keep assuming I don't know this I explained this in the OP:

Part of the picture painting routine. I could say more about how this might not be deliberate (as in thought out like that) but part of self-confirming and nurturing people's personal intellectual superiority complexes, how pride (and those having pushed that button and are continuously pushing eachother's pride buttons or stroking egos) is involved or fear of seeming stupid, or projecting or painting that view on someone's personal picture or view of others they are talking to as well in that process (that they just don't understand, that they're gullible and ignorant, conditioned, brainwashed, badly educated, etc.), but I think this time I'll just leave a verse from the bible that hints at the contagious nature of this behaviour and how people view eachother and in their expressions of those views encourage others (in this case readers) to feel the same way as they do about themselves and those they disagree with (they are the smart ones with the rational view of things). But first:

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: article in my signature

1 Corinthians 15:33

33 Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.*

*: Or “corrupt good morals.”

That also counts for believing and spreading false stories/myths/falsehoods/lies (advertently or inadvertently). And what's mentioned in my signature and under my name is also involved again.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Astrocyte
All you have said here is that the theory of evolution is explains how living beings change over time.

Yeah, but he did manage to sound very fancy, sophisticated, elaborate, educated and intelligent when saying it his way, as if sharing advanced knowledge about reality. See my previous comment about picture painting, it works both ways, and is not always intended for the audience either, but personal confirmation and feeling clever about it (their own beliefs that some deny as being beliefs and opinions based on conditioning and blind trust in the wrong types, rather than the facts/truths/realities/certainties that have already been discovered, confirmed, established, verified as being correct, without error/true/factual/certain/absolute; such as that 1+1=2 and that E=MC^2).

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I don't know why people keep assuming I don't know this I explained this in the OP:

Part of the picture painting routine. I could say more about how this might not be deliberate (as in thought out like that) but part of self-confirming and nurturing people's personal intellectual superiority complexes, how pride (and those having pushed that button and are continuously pushing eachother's pride buttons or stroking egos) is involved or fear of seeming stupid, or projecting or painting that view on someone's personal picture or view of others they are talking to as well in that process (that they just don't understand, that they're gullible and ignorant, conditioned, brainwashed, badly educated, etc.), but I think this time I'll just leave a verse from the bible that hints at the contagious nature of this behaviour and how people view eachother and in their expressions of those views encourage others (in this case readers) to feel the same way as they do about themselves and those they disagree with (they are the smart ones with the rational view of things). But first:

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: article in my signature

1 Corinthians 15:33

33 Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.*

*: Or “corrupt good morals.”

That also counts for believing and spreading false stories/myths/falsehoods/lies (advertently or inadvertently). And what's mentioned in my signature and under my name is also involved again.

Seems like you posted to the wrong thread. This is a discussion on evolution not propaganda. Part of the discussion is how each views the evidence shown in order to come to a conclusion. Both sides are stating good material and a wealth of knowledge. Somewhere in between is common ground that they both share.

As for bible verses, I'd say you have found your own personal contribution of propaganda.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Astrocyte
All you have said here is that the theory of evolution is explains how living beings change over time.

Yeah, but he did manage to sound very fancy, sophisticated, elaborate, educated and intelligent when saying it his way, as if sharing advanced knowledge about reality. See my previous comment about picture painting, it works both ways, and is not always intended for the audience either, but personal confirmation and feeling clever about it (their own beliefs that some deny as being beliefs and opinions based on conditioning and blind trust in the wrong types).

You are quickly becoming a troll now.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The content of your post is a typical example of how the real definitions are manipulated to suit an agenda.

1. NOWHERE on the NCBI website does it "acknowledge 19 different coding languages". The link in Rossiter's book pulls up "The Genetic Codon" page.





2. All organisms on this planet use the same nucleotide bases: adenosine, thymidine, cytidine and guanosine. This is why the life on this planet is considered to be of common ancestry. In case you don't know what a codon is and why the genetic code is referred to as universal:







3. Your comparison of vertebrate vs invertebrate is faulty. If all life had exactly the same sequences, everything would look exactly the same. This is simple logic. Think about it when you have time. Diversity of sequences via mutation allows organisms to change and evolve.

4. The blog post by Wili intentionally distorts the definitions of genetic code and codon. He's another Creationist scammer. Rossiter's book, where Wili acquired his information, is full of flaws. The National Center for Biotechnology Information is a database. It changes as new sequences are elucidated. Rossiter and Wili both deliberately convoluted the purpose and content of the database to suit their own purposes. They fully expect people to accept their deception as fact because their followers are cultists, like you.

Recommendation: Do your homework and stop acting like all this information isn't out there. The topic as you presented it isn't event worthy of discussion as it has been regurgitated ad infinitum.

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Astrocyte
All you have said here is that the theory of evolution is explains how living beings change over time.

Yeah, but he did manage to sound very fancy, sophisticated, elaborate, educated and intelligent when saying it his way, as if sharing advanced knowledge about reality. See my previous comment about picture painting, it works both ways, and is not always intended for the audience either, but personal confirmation and feeling clever about it (their own beliefs that some deny as being beliefs and opinions based on conditioning and blind trust in the wrong types).

You are quickly becoming a troll now.

You must be new around here

a reply to: whereislogic

I completely agree.

a reply to: Phantom423

The content of your post is a typical example of how the real definitions are manipulated to suit an agenda.

The content of your post is a perfect example of someone randomly throwing out facts in hopes that one might distract someone from the problem I've posed in the OP.

1. NOWHERE on the NCBI website does it "acknowledge 19 different coding languages". The link in Rossiter's book pulls up "The Genetic Codon" page.

Yes it does, and if you'll notice that the portion from Shadow of Oz is quoted so I referenced it. For those who want to see NCBI the link he outlined here it is: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Every single one of those items listed is a not just a different sequence of genes, but they interpret the same codon's completely differently. That shows all the different coding languages and explains which codons are read how for each code. So yes it does acknowledge these things, but rather than state it as a number they have listed them out and explained how to read some of their codons, which is unique to that cell type or structure. So you'd have to count them, which it appears there are more than 19 now, surprise surprise. You are either being deliberately dishonest or you simply didnt scroll down on the NBCI link. You'll notice the vertebrate and invertebrate mitochondrial DNA is on that list. Its exactly what I was talking about in th OP.

All organisms on this planet use the same nucleotide bases: adenosine, thymidine, cytidine and guanosine. This is why the life on this planet is considered to be of common ancestry.

The fact you have to question whether I know what a codon is tells me you didn't understand the OP, or even take the time to actually read the links, because they all talk about codons. Just because they use the same chemical basis doesn't mean they have a common ancestory. As craig venter says in the talk someone posted "maybe we will find the same base pairs everywhere we look." That would be the DNA world hypothesis. Nothing about DNA being in all living things necessarily points to a common ancestor, and this is a complete oversimplification of what is taught and its to simple. What makes them think we have a common ancestor is that certain animals seems to share portions of their DNA. Chimps and Humans share something like 96% of their DNA, and this leads scientist to think Humans and Chimps are closely related in a common ancestor. If we continue with this logic back to vertebrates and invertebrates we find that their mitochondria DNA is not just arranged differently it reads differently. If we then continue back to explain how mitochondria arose we find it implies that vertebrates and invertebrates must have came from two completely separate lines of early prokaryotic cells that were housing engulfed cells that read their code in a completely different manner. This however throws off the evolutionary time frame as vertebrates are said to have come from invertebrates. if you take the theory that they did indeed come from separate lines you are conflicted with the fossil record as that means backboned animals spontaneously appeared in the fossil record 530 million years ago with no evolutionary history what so ever. Where as current theory dictates they came from the invertebrates that existed before them about 650 million years ago or in that ball park. So it is indeed an evolutionary dilemma. If you say vertebrates evolved from a separate line the fossily record hits you in the face. If you say vertebrates evolved from invertebrates the genetics hit you in the fact. Its a problem, and everyone here just wants to dismiss it rather than just accept that this is an issue. This only effects the evolution of new morphological features. It does nothing to everything we know about variation among certain animal body plans.

3. Your comparison of vertebrate vs invertebrate is faulty. If all life had exactly the same sequences, everything would look exactly the same. This is simple logic

Yea I would appreciate it if you would quit trying to pretend I am ignorant of certain things. Not once have I said that vertebrates and invertebrates have the same sequence of code???!? You are trying so hard to make me wrong that you are making yourself look foolish. Please quote where I have said this.

4. The blog post by Wili intentionally distorts the definitions of genetic code and codon. He's another Creationist scammer. Rossiter's book, where Wili acquired his information, is full of flaws. The National Center for Biotechnology Information is a database. It changes as new sequences are elucidated. Rossiter and Wili both deliberately convoluted the purpose and content of the database to suit their own purposes. They fully expect people to accept their deception as fact because their followers are cultists, like you.

Genetic fallacy with just a bold face lie added to the beginning.

mes is an ongoing investigation, this much has already been made clear. and while a certain degree of calculated flexibility is crucial to its accuracy, any modification to the theory ought to be at least as compelling as the detail being modified. we are trying to refine our techniques, not replace them entirely, especially not for the sake of less refined studies that resent the standards of modern science.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
So backbones just spontaneously appeared in the fossil record 530 million years ago with no evolutionary history ?

That's not what I said, but if you really think that vertebrates did not evolve from invertebrates then your explanation above is the only possibility. As usual, you are misinterpreting scientific studies to push your agenda. I don't see anything in the papers that suggests what you are claiming. You made the wild conclusions, not the research.