Evolve my knowledge - make me believe!, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 8-4-2008 @ 10:52 AM by TheRedneck

Thanks to madnessinmysoul (the member, not the madness in MY soul

), I have realized that my knowledge of evolution perhaps hasn't kept up with the science in all areas. So I have a serious question.

I know this forum is filled with those who follow science, and with those who firmly follow evolution. So this would be a good place to begin to re-educate myself on the latest developments. The question is this:

In order for life to have developed without benefit of intelligent design, it would have to have started with the simplest forms of life and advanced toward more complex creatures. That means that, at some time, the 'dominant' form of life would have been single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba. At some future point, multi-celled organisms had to develop from the single-celled ones. How could this have occurred?

I understand the basics of mutation, and have no problem with it. I also see wisdom in the 'survival of the fittest', wherein those organisms which are more able to breed and survive successfully would be the most likely to pass on their genetic codes. I do, however, have some problem when it comes to the concept of multiple simultaneous mutations, since a mutation itself does not necessarily mean an advancement or an improvement in survivability/breeding efficiency. The idea of multiple genetic mutations occurring simultaneously to advance a species is a bit too fantastic for me.

Multi-cellular organisms have a cellular cohesion which keeps them from falling apart into individual cells. So, given that an amoeba does not maintain any cohesion with other amoebas, and the obvious idea that two independent such animals stuck together through cellular cohesion would be less likely to survive, how could this transition have happened?

I am not necessarily looking for verified observations as much as I am for concepts that could be possible, or better yet, probable. So no links to news articles are required for a good answer. Instead, I am looking for creative scientific thought and discussion. I will be open to ideas, but I also reserve the right to challenge anything I see as too far out of the realm of possibility.

Also, I don't want this to turn into the tired old 'evolution is science, creationism is false' argument. This is not intended to be a bait for such unfruitful arguments, but a search for truth. Let's let the concepts and ideas speak for themselves. That is true science.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 8-4-2008 @ 05:09 PM by TheWalkingFox

Well, first, you have to toss away the schoolbook notion of "this species came from this other species" - i.e., "Humans come from chimps." The reality is that the two species share a common ancestor.

Thus, the earliest organisms were not, specifically, amoebas. They were single-celled organisms, amoeba-like sure, but were not the same sort of creature. With regard to cellular cohesion, there are many such organisms today that are unicellular but live in colonies - bacteria, algae, and all sorts of fungi live in this fashion, forming mats, clumps, or carpets. Many such colony creatures end up sharing nutrients with one another, whether through osmosis, or by being absorbed after they die.

The next step, of course, is an organism that creates its own colony, rather than clumping together with like organisms. Cellular division that is almost, but not totally divisive, creating large wads of cells from a single progenitor. It wouldn't be an unusual mutation - incomplete sexual reproduction or inability to separate the cell walls seems like a rather simple flaw, at least to me.

Said cell clumbs develop into more efficient forms for gathering energy, cells gain or lose function, and we start seeing the simplest of multicellular organisms - sponges and cnidarians (jellyfish and those sorts) - which are basically just single-organism cell colonies in and of themselves.

reply posted on 8-4-2008 @ 05:22 PM by MatrixProphet

reply to post by TheRedneck

In order for life to have developed without benefit of intelligent design, it would have to have started with the simplest forms of life and advanced toward more complex creatures. That means that, at some time, the 'dominant' form of life would have been single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba. At some future point, multi-celled organisms had to develop from the single-celled ones. How could this have occurred?

But you still get back to the original question: where did the simplest forms of life come from? Where did matter come from? Out of thin air? Then where did air come from?

Explain how genetically we are also paradoxically related to a banana and a porpoise and a monkey? I believe that there is some logic to certain aspects of evolution. I think that the two (creation & evolution) can work together on some level. Many scientists are looking for other answers since the missing links have never been found, and there have been many articles lately to that effect.

reply posted on 8-4-2008 @ 11:20 PM by TheWalkingFox

But you still get back to the original question: where did the simplest forms of life come from? Where did matter come from? Out of thin air? Then where did air come from?

This question is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory discusses life systems and how organisms develop. Life comes before evolution begins, and therefore evolutionary theory cannot cover the point of origin. Looking to evolution for the origin of life is like looking at meteorology to find out how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form H2O.

Explain how genetically we are also paradoxically related to a banana and a porpoise and a monkey?

How is it a paradox?

I believe that there is some logic to certain aspects of evolution. I think that the two (creation & evolution) can work together on some level.

As a matter of belief and opinion, the two are not incompatible, no. As a matter of science? They are incompatible, because there is no evidence of a creator. Without that, you can't claim something is "created."

Many scientists are looking for other answers since the missing links have never been found, and there have been many articles lately to that effect.

"Missing link" is an artificial idea, created by people seeking to debunk the entire premise. It suffers infinite reduction - if a "missing link" is found, the creationists then demand that a missing link be found that leads to or from that specimen... and then a missing link for that one... and then that one... And even when we have a near-complete line of specimens, as is the case for whales, humans, and horses, they'll turn to proven and disregarded hoaxes or flubs to "prove" the whole exercise is a joke.

Yet curiously they never try to provide evidence for this creator.

reply posted on 8-4-2008 @ 11:55 PM by dizziedame

reply to post by TheRedneck

Evolution is a theory. It has not been proved or disproved. I have my beliefs but this is not the time to go into that.

Responses to your thread will be interesting.

I do appreciate your comment about no links to articles. I do tire of reading links from other sources and not hearing the thoughts of our members.

Dizzie

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 11:27 AM by MatrixProphet

No you cannot prove that there is a Creator, nor can it be proved that there isn't one. This is where logic can come in.

Science has not been able to explain how the birds wing nor the human eye came about through evolution. It is one of the arguments that is plaguing the scientific community. The more evolved the scientific community becomes the more unanswered their questions.

There is a definite separation amongst the scientists that is going on. It would be no surprise that we would not agree. But I do find it interesting that there are some die hard former evolutionists that are now saying that evolution is no longer feasible. Out of curiosity, have you kept up on this?

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 11:34 AM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by dizziedame

It's a scientific theory. I suggest you look the term up. It's quite different from the use of "theory" in common parlance. You're mixing it up with scientific speculation, which is hunches and guesswork.

Matrix,

No need to prove there isn't. Until there is evidence of something, it is assumed to not exist. It falls on the claimants of a creator to provide evidence of it.

As for wings and eyeballs... Please, research. We do know how both came about. And we are absolutely able to use genetic suppressors to "freeze" birds in an embryonic stage, resulting in such features as scaly bodies, long tails, teeth, and fingered forelimbs. We could, in theory, do the same with human embryos, but, well, that's where morality comes into play. But if we can revert a chicken, it stands to reason that a human could be reverted the same way.

Darwinian evolution isn't the standard any longer. He was a pioneer, but hardly the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory. Advances in genetics have been changing the face of taxonomy and with it, evolution, making both Charles Darwin and Carl Linnaeus just faces in textbooks

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 01:33 PM by MatrixProphet

Are you a scientist? You say "we" a lot.

You did not answer the eye question!

In the book written by Richard Dawkins - "River Out of Eden" he went on and on about computer models of evolving eyes. David Berlinski tracked down this supposable feat and found it to be non-existent. Tom Bethell quotes Berlinski in: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science:"

"This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary development of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. There is no such model anywhere in any laboratory. No one has the faintest idea how to make one. The whole story was fabricated out of thin air by Richard Dawkins. The senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim - Dan E. Nilsson - has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye's development."

I am sure you know of; Michael Behe a Lehigh University biochemist and his arguments that left many evolutionists without an argument? I won't go into his reasoning points or research. But he made a substantial argument for how it is mathematically impossible for molecules to be brought together by the "numerous, successive, slight modifications" of natural selection. He concluded that life at the molecular level "is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design."

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA realized that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. He said: "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd." He wrote a book entitled; "Life Itself."

Here are some resources anyone can check out:

1. Tom Bethell Replies, "American Spectator," Feb. 2001

2. "Talking About Evolution with Richard Dawkins," PBS: Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Oct. 18, 2001.

3. David Berlinski, "A Scientific Scandal," Commentary, April 1, 2003; David Berlinski, A Scientific Scandal?," David Berlinski & Critics; Controversy; letter to the editor, Commentary, July 1, 2003.

4. Tom Bethell, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" (Washington, D.C.; Regney, 2005), p. 210

5. Stephen C. Meyer, "Not by Chance: From Bacterial Propulsion Systems to Human DNA, Evidence of Intelligent Design is Everywhere," National Post (Canada), Dec. 1, 2005.

The burden is and always has been on the evolutionist to "prove" that God does not exist, not the other way around.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 02:14 PM by shihulud

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Are you a scientist? You say "we" a lot.

You did not answer the eye question!

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Taken from here

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA realized that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. He said: "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd." He wrote a book entitled; "Life Itself."

Crick was an agnostic/atheist who decided that life originated through directed panspermia - he abhorred the idea of a god creator.

Found an article on Discover that might show how life started on Earth Here.

Quite interesting!

The burden is and always has been on the evolutionist to "prove" that God does not exist, not the other way around.

In that case you prove to me that Beer Elves don't exist and are not the creators of all gods - especially yours?

G

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 06:24 PM by MatrixProphet

Crick was an agnostic/atheist who decided that life originated through directed panspermia - he abhorred the idea of a god creator.

Does this discount his quote? Well, so what, if he wants to make something romantic out of God, so be it! If he wants to believe that life began in space and spread to Earth by a steady stream of microscopic infectious agents delivered to Earth on comets, that is his prerogative. Perhaps this is the only way he can swallow the concept of God and or his pride.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 08:55 PM by Evil Genius

To get some great insite into your questions regarding evolution, check out this article at National Geographic Magazine called A Fin is a Limb is a Wing.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

These same types of questions plagued Darwin himself and are now only beginning to get answered through DNA research. It really is amazing, check it out if you get the chance.

To figure out how life began, you have to speculate at this point, but there seems to be some new discoveries which could help point us in the right direction. Here's an article from Livescience which might shed some light on the subject.

www.livescience.com...

Regardless, if we ever do figure out the trigger that jumpstarted life, I don't feel it proves or disproves anything with respect to belief in God. If you believe then it just shows how He did it and if you don't then it just show how it "just happened." Each person has to answer that question for themselves.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 09:15 PM by mrwupy

Originally posted by TheRedneck

In order for life to have developed without benefit of intelligent design, it would have to have started with the simplest forms of life and advanced toward more complex creatures. That means that, at some time, the 'dominant' form of life would have been single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba. At some future point, multi-celled organisms had to develop from the single-celled ones. How could this have occurred?

The simple truth is we don't know.

You take a cup and put some dirt in it and then plant a seed and water the seed and give it sunlight and soon a plant will sprout up from the dirt and begin to grow.

No one knows why that happens.

We do not yet understand the spark that brings forth life.

That's why we have Gods, religions and beliefs that we are willing to die for. We need those things to explain what we do not yet understand.

In time we will understand though, and when we do we'll still believe in a creator of all things and understand our place a little better in the universe.

Eventually we'll leave the nest and God will watch us go out on our own and feel the empty nest syndrome of all parents as their children make their own way among all the infinite has to offer.

I'm looking forward to it.

reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 11:49 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Well, first, you have to toss away the schoolbook notion of "this species came from this other species" - i.e., "Humans come from chimps." The reality is that the two species share a common ancestor.

(I reference this so you'll know which post I am replying to.)

Walking Fox, I must say, that was an impressive post. I am used to seeing posts from you like this one, which frankly made me think of you as uneducated. I see I may be wrong.

Let me make sure I understand this:
Step 1 - Colony life. I would think of this as a disadvantage, at least to the colony members not along the edges of the colony. Food and oxygen would have to be supplied to them by some means (you mentioned osmosis) to sustain life. But would that lead to a better chance of genetic survival? I will admit to the examples you used, but I still wonder if this is a progressive movement, since those organisms at the edge of the colony are now providing nourishment for those in the center, with no benefit I can fathom right now. I'll think on it, though.

Step 2 - Cohesion. This one I can see happening fairly easily through mutation, but it again raises the question of how this would be any sort of improvement for the organism... more weight to carry around, with what benefit? I am assuming that we haven't fast-forwarded to specialized cells yet, or would that be step 1.5? I know that some jellyfish are actually colonies of different single-celled organisms, each specializing in a certain function.

Great insight, thanks.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:04 AM by TheRedneck

reply to post by MatrixProphet

You did not answer the eye question!

Believe it or not, MP, I am a believer of one particular branch of creationism. I see evolution as true in the micro scale (species evolving to adapt to their environment), but unlikely in the macro (species forming entirely new species on a long and convoluted path to us). I asked this question since I had some new (to me) information presented to me.

I had considered asking one of several questions which give me concern over the viability of macro-evolution, but settled on this one. I rejected the concept of the eye because I can easily see a possible evolutionary process for it:

Skin cells become light-sensitive. Advantage: using solar energy (for warmth, etc.)

Existing nerve cells mutate to inform the organism of light/dark conditions. Advantage: sensory superiority.

Light-sensitive cells increase sensitivity to form a primitive 'retina'. Advantage: sensory.

Clear cells cover the retina. Advantage: protection.

And so on...

A better example of a problem could lie with sexual reproduction versus cellular mitosis, the development of limbs, the development of a backbone, etc. But regardless of the actual concern addressed, if there is a viable explanation, it would behoove everyone to take a closer look at it. As I just posted on another thread, true science cannot disprove a true faith. Should there be a conflict, one must be wrong.

I have faith in my faith.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:13 AM by TheRedneck

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Evolutionary theory discusses life systems and how organisms develop. Life comes before evolution begins, and therefore evolutionary theory cannot cover the point of origin. Looking to evolution for the origin of life is like looking at meteorology to find out how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form H2O.

Ah, this goes to the heart of why I question 'accepted science' so intently. When I studied evolution, it did indeed address the origin of life, in great detail. As I remember, it was said to have started from pools of simple proteins formed by a geologically active earth. These proteins, given millions, billions, trillions of years (

) eventually formed chains which eventually led to RNA, which led to DNA, etc. Some scientists believed random lightning strikes could have aided the process by ionizing existing chains and thus allowing them to bond with other chains.

Now I realize that it has been a few years since I sat in a college lecture hall, but has this outlook changed? If not, then your statement is obviously false; evolution does attempt to address the creation of life. If so, then science is still changing its foundation of the theory. And a shaky foundation is a little tough for me to trust without a lot of evidence.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:29 AM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Walking Fox, I must say, that was an impressive post. I am used to seeing posts from you like this one, which frankly made me think of you as uneducated. I see I may be wrong.

In my defense, there is absolutely nothing in that post that is not backed up by the Bible. I simply ditch scripture-speak and put it into more... poetic terms. But if you wanna talk about myu post there, maybe you could do so there so I can respond more thoroughly.

Let me make sure I understand this:
Step 1 - Colony life. I would think of this as a disadvantage, at least to the colony members not along the edges of the colony. Food and oxygen would have to be supplied to them by some means (you mentioned osmosis) to sustain life. But would that lead to a better chance of genetic survival? I will admit to the examples you used, but I still wonder if this is a progressive movement, since those organisms at the edge of the colony are now providing nourishment for those in the center, with no benefit I can fathom right now. I'll think on it, though.

Not everything that's successful is actually of benefit to the organism in question, and not every benefit outweighs the negatives. Nor is every adaptation to a particular environmental challenge easy to guess.

Take for example, the spotted hyena. it has some very interesting adaptations to fit its niche, adaptations which also lead to a high infant mortality rate and deadly fights between unrelated packs. Yet the species is still one of the most successful predators in Africa, both in terms of kill ratio, and range.

Step 2 - Cohesion. This one I can see happening fairly easily through mutation, but it again raises the question of how this would be any sort of improvement for the organism... more weight to carry around, with what benefit? I am assuming that we haven't fast-forwarded to specialized cells yet, or would that be step 1.5? I know that some jellyfish are actually colonies of different single-celled organisms, each specializing in a certain function.

Great insight, thanks.

TheRedneck

Weight is next to meaningless when you're a microscopic thing that lives entirely in water.

However, there's a pretty clean answer to both colony life and cohesion.

Many simple forms of life that are currently alive, including colony species, are passive feeders. They absorb nutrient from sunlight or chemicals in the water, rather than by devouring other organisms. A large mat of single-celled organisms absorbs more sunlight than a single cell.

Also, making the assumption of "predatory" single-celled life in the primeval soup, having more mass would have been a wonderful means of defense.

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:32 AM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by TheRedneck

I think you're confusing evolution with the greater field of biology to which evolution belongs. Botany doesn't try to explain cyanobacteria, and evolution doesn't try to explain pre-life.The general field of biology covers all four, hhowever.

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Neiby

I have nothing to add to this discussion at the moment other than to say I would appreciate it if people could stay on-topic as the OP requested. Do not turn this into the usual Creationism vs. Evolution thread. The OP asked a serious question and is asking for real answers.

Oh, quickly, I do have one thing to say. The theory of evolution does not have anything to do with how life began. Abiogenesis is a separate thing.

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:48 AM by Neiby

I was looking for something else just now and ran across this paper that discusses the transition from single cell to multicellular life. The science is fairly advanced, but it's still interesting to read.

Evolution of Individuality during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life

At first glance, that sort of information appears to be exactly what you were asking for, but like I said, this paper is pretty advanced. It definitely shows the level of thought and science behind the idea.

reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 12:55 AM by Neiby

Here's another pertinent article on the subject. This is from Nature.com. Very interesting stuff. I hope this is the type of information you were asking for.

Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Multicellularity

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^