abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
So where in the above statements did I say LIE or LYING?

Kindly please point it to me before I proceed.

"But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous."

"based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available"

"transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation"

Those are the lies I was referring to.

I just posted a huge list of transition forms. It is not based on assumption, speculation or interpretation. That's how religion & the bible works. It is based on study and comparison to other fossils. We've found thousands of them. Read down the list and if you'd like to argue that one doesn't qualify, please post it here and explain why. Generalizations will not be accepted. Specific scientific data only, please.

edit on 8-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Lies? Really?

If so, show me then from your "huge list of transition forms" a clear evidence of this?

Surely if you're so convinced that there's a clear evidence of a fish transforming into amphibians, from amphibian into reptile, etc, then I'm all ears.

For instance, show CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE evidence of fish fins gradually changing IN STAGES into amphibian legs with feet and toes, or gills into lungs?

Or a clear evidence of reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing IN STAGES into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

I assure you though you will fail - because the fossil evidence is just not there - unless of course you assume that they are.

So are you up for it?

BTW - NO ASSUMING PLEASE - else you've confirmed my point and will turn out you're the one lying?

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together. Colossians 1:17





How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out. Job 36:26




You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever. Psalm 16:11

reply to post by radix

I notice you still haven't presented any article mentioning genetic boundaries against speciation, how's that coming?

I'll keep short as I can - cuz this subject is very extensive if you fully get into it.

OK - since you're not totally aware of this fact let me then present to you a short ver - why the genetic boundary or the genetic barrier or species barrier and the repair gene and sterility prevents "species" from changing into another form/ type of "species".

Take the "Human DNA Repair Genes" for instance. It's a known fact that the gene are pre-programmed to repair any damage in the cell.

Notice:

The human genome, like other genomes, encodes information to protect its own integrity (1). DNA repair enzymes continuously monitor chromosomes to correct damaged nucleotide residues generated by exposure to carcinogens and cytotoxic compounds. The damage is partly a consequence of environmental agents such as ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun, inhaled cigarette smoke, or incompletely defined dietary factors. However, a large proportion of DNA alterations are caused unavoidably by endogenous weak mutagens including water, reactive oxygen species, and metabolites that can act as alkylating agents. Very slow turnover of DNA consequently occurs even in cells that do not proliferate. Genome instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair. ...

uline - mine

www.sciencemag.org...
(repair genes:sciencepark.mdanderson.org...)

Now unless you have a way of suspending or cancelling this gene from the genome - your much touted mutation will be rendered useless.

No mutation ...no evolution.

But let's think like an evolutionists and just assume that for some reason such gene was not present in the "organic soup" of life. Can/will evolution still occur without it?

Not so, unless of course it can overcome Inviability:

where:

Hybrid inviability is a post-zygotic barrier, which reduces a hybrid's capacity to mature into a healthy, fit adult.[1] The relatively low health of these hybrids relative to pure-breed individuals prevents gene flow between species. Thus, hybrid inviability acts as an isolating mechanism, limiting hybridization and allowing for the differentiation of species. The barrier of hybrid inviability occurs after mating species overcome pre-zygotic barriers (behavioral, mechanical, etc.) to produce a zygote. The barrier emerges from the cumulative effect of parental genes; these conflicting genes interfere with the embryo's development and prevents its maturation. Most often, the hybrid embryo dies before birth. However, sometimes, the offspring develops fully with mixed traits, forming a frail, often infertile adult.[2] This hybrid displays reduced fitness, marked by decreased rates of survival and reproduction relative to the parent species. The offspring fails to compete with purebred individuals, limiting genes flow between species.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

A classic example of this is the experiment done on the common house fly / fruit fly - Drosophila melanogaster.

Of which it was found that:

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” -- Dobzhansky - Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

www.genetics.org...

Now even if Inviability is/was overcome - another hurdle is in the way of "progress":

Sterility = Infertility

Back to the fruit fly:

Introgression of Drosophila simulans Nuclear Pore Protein 160 in Drosophila melanogaster Alone Does Not Cause Inviability but Does Cause Female Sterility

www.genetics.org...

In other words even in the most intensive breeding experiments scientist cannot push beyond the genetic boundary. When they go too far, they reach the boundary of sterility.

Case in point - the mule, produced by mating a donkey and a horse which is ordinarily sterile.


But let's again assume that somehow evolution found a way to circumvent the repair gene, Inviability, sterility / infertility problem - would the change in the gene (by mutation) be strong enough to overcome the gene barriers on its own?

Not with the help of someone - someone with the knowledge of the gene structure.

But who was there when "abiogenesis / evolution" took placed?

No one says the evolutionists. So how did it happen?

If hybrid species have trouble with sterility/inviability/inferility how can evolution produce a totally new species from a dissimilar species - i.e. fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile..?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
So where in the above statements did I say LIE or LYING?

Kindly please point it to me before I proceed.

"But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous."

"based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available"

"transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation"

Those are the lies I was referring to.

I just posted a huge list of transition forms. It is not based on assumption, speculation or interpretation. That's how religion & the bible works. It is based on study and comparison to other fossils. We've found thousands of them. Read down the list and if you'd like to argue that one doesn't qualify, please post it here and explain why. Generalizations will not be accepted. Specific scientific data only, please.

edit on 8-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

btw - do you know why there's no such thing as "transitional forms"?

Answer - the "species" simply were NOT in transition!

Even Darwin was aware of this facts.

Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

-- The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory by Charles Darwin

Now if you assume they are - like Darwin did - then they are.

... just an assumption and that's all you've got.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
So where in the above statements did I say LIE or LYING?

Kindly please point it to me before I proceed.

"But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous."

"based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available"

"transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation"

Those are the lies I was referring to.

I just posted a huge list of transition forms. It is not based on assumption, speculation or interpretation. That's how religion & the bible works. It is based on study and comparison to other fossils. We've found thousands of them. Read down the list and if you'd like to argue that one doesn't qualify, please post it here and explain why. Generalizations will not be accepted. Specific scientific data only, please.

edit on 8-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

btw - do you know why there's no such thing as "transitional forms"?

Answer - the "species" simply were NOT in transition!

Even Darwin was aware of this facts.

Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

-- The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory by Charles Darwin

Now if you assume they are - like Darwin did - then they are.

... just an assumption and that's all you've got.

The problem with this is that no pre-Cambrian fossils had been found in Darwin's day--yet he was sure they'd be discovered. And they were.

Stop reading Dawson--there's so such thing as a missing link. They are transitional fossils, just as everyone in this thread has been saying. Or did you expect to find a fossil that has half a wing or half an eye, or an Island of Dr. Moreau?

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

The claim was that abiogenesis is impossible because we've only observed life coming from other life. This is an invalid argument because it misrepresents the hypothesis of abiogenesis. What we have observed is the organisms we see around us today coming from other life. No-one has suggested that a modern cell containing hundreds or even thousands of different proteins could spontaneously be assembled from simple organic molecules.

So far so good.

Originally posted by radix
What has been suggested in e.g. the "RNA world" hypothesis is that the first self-replicating "protocell" consisted of nothing more than a self-replicating molecule (RNA or a chemical equivalent) inside a lipid membrane. This would be enough to start an evolutionary process. Claiming this protocell could not possibly have formed from simple organic molecules by appealing to observations exclusively made with modern, complex cells is a logical fallacy.

And claiming that such a protocell is the same as life seems to be a big jump in logic too. Scientists can't even figure out whether viruses are considered alive or not. What is the minimal requirement for something to be justified as life? This also assumes that evolution will increase specified information so that everything becomes more advanced over time, while basically everything else in nature deteriorates over time. But when different science branches rarely communicate with each other, that's how it goes. According to information science, physical reality alone is incapable of generating formal functional information, which is what DNA (and RNA, and all languages) are made of.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

Maybe you should look into biocentrism.

Interesting hypothesis, how would you go about testing it?

That's assuming that science has somehow tested materialism, determinism, reductionism and so on. Those are all philosophical and/or metaphysical assumptions that drive modern science. None of them have been tested. It's easy to take those things for granted while being overly skeptic of a different perspective that only opens more possibilities for scientific investigation.

Originally posted by radix
No, but edmc^2 - who you seem to be defending - did. So what exactly is your position?

My position is that abiogenesis is often being proposed as already being a fact while it's nothing more than a hypothesis. Not saying you did it, but that's how it goes, and that's not rational.

Originally posted by radix
I'm defending the right to pose a hypothesis. When the hypothesis is claimed to be impossible I'm asking for evidence to back up this claim. Why would you have a problem with that?

If you put it that way, I don't have a problem with that. Hypotheses should be considered and if possible tested without bias.

Originally posted by radix
Nonsense. My skepticism simply compels me to ask for evidence supporting the god claim. None have been presented.

Same could be said for abiogenesis.

Originally posted by radix
Kindly point out where I've applied a double standard.

See one quote above.

Originally posted by radix
edmc^2 claims to have proof that abiogenesis is impossible, you yourself stated that this is impossible to prove. These would seem to be mutually exclusive statements, would they not?

Sure.. Your point?

Originally posted by radix
I'm pretty sure you meant "life from other life". Again, I'm asking edmc^2 to support his claim that abiogenesis is impossible with some evidence. Why would you have a problem with that? Is edmc^2 somehow exempt from having to justify his claims?

Yeah I meant life from other life. Mistakes happen lol. Anyway, I haven't gone through all his evidence so I don't know if it makes sense or not. But see the first part of this post.

Originally posted by radix

And the pickle they are in is, that even if they manage to create life, it was still done by an intelligence, which are the scientists who were controlling all the conditions. So one still could not conclude that somehow it happened by accident. It would be no different than a chemical plant creating plastics if the conditions need to be so specific, which they seem to be. The only thing to conclude is that they found to proper conditions to generate life. Impossible to say that nature and/or life has no purpose and is a product of mere chance.

No pickle at all. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that the goal of abiogenesis research is to demonstrate exactly how life on earth came about. It's not - that would basically require a time machine that could take us back some 4 billion years or so. The best that can be achieved is a plausible chemical pathway (under plausible conditions) that can be experimentally verified. In other words, "proof of concept" that life can come from non-life by natural means under the tested conditions.

I don't see how this undermines what I just said.

reply to post by HappyBunny

The problem with this is that no pre-Cambrian fossils had been found in Darwin's day--yet he was sure they'd be discovered. And they were.

Stop reading Dawson--there's so such thing as a missing link. They are transitional fossils, just as everyone in this thread has been saying. Or did you expect to find a fossil that has half a wing or half an eye, or an Island of Dr. Moreau?

Dawson who?

"Or did you expect to find a fossil that has half a wing or half an eye, or an Island of Dr. Moreau? "

-- What no such thing?! Bummer, n I thought evolutionist are too gullible to believe such things. Maybe some.



In any case - so you do agree then that even today, more than 100 years later after Darwin, this so called "transitional fossils" are not really transitional forms because there was never such a thing as "transitional fossils", correct?

Unless of course you start imagining things.

or a proponent of "punctuated equilibrium".

Punctuated Equilibrium:

Charles Darwin understood that evolution was a slow and gradual process. By gradual, Darwin did not mean "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time until a new species was born. He did not assume that the pace of change was constant, however, and recognized that many species retained the same form for long periods. Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete. That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small. But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind.

www.pbs.org...

Are you a proponent of this radical idea?

The "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis?

That is -

the mechanisms underlying microevolution [small changes within the species] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution [big jumps across species boundaries]...- Science.

That is, one species remains for millions of years in the fossil record, suddenly disappears and a new species just as suddenly appears in the record.

If so - where's again clear evidence of this idea?

Answer is - there are none! because the hypothesis is a cop out. A way to hide from the facts.

By using this so called "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis, proponents of evolution theory like you can now hide from the truth. They have now an alibi to excuse themselves from providing the evidence of a gradual transitional forms.

Why, they can now say "there's so such thing as a missing link" because of "punctuated equilibrium".

If this so, does this mean then that Natural Selection is not a gradual process but a rapid random process?

Yet most evolution expert disagree -

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding.

en.wikipedia.org...

So where are you in this issue?

And rather than transitional forms - I expect your evidence to be fully completed forms.

Any change in the structure are simply variations within the "species".

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

The problem with this is that no pre-Cambrian fossils had been found in Darwin's day--yet he was sure they'd be discovered. And they were.

Stop reading Dawson--there's so such thing as a missing link. They are transitional fossils, just as everyone in this thread has been saying. Or did you expect to find a fossil that has half a wing or half an eye, or an Island of Dr. Moreau?

Dawson who?

"Or did you expect to find a fossil that has half a wing or half an eye, or an Island of Dr. Moreau? "

-- What no such thing?! Bummer, n I thought evolutionist are too gullible to believe such things. Maybe some.

You really aren't too bright, are you?

In any case - so you do agree then that even today, more than 100 years later after Darwin, this so called "transitional fossils" are not really transitional forms because there was never such a thing as "transitional fossils", correct?

Not correct. I believe it was Barcs who posted a long list of them for you. It's no one's fault but yours if you choose to remain in ignorance.

Are you a proponent of this radical idea?

Radical?

reply to post by HappyBunny


-- What no such thing?! Bummer, n I thought evolutionist are too gullible to believe such things. Maybe some.

You really aren't too bright, are you?

hehehe...just having too much fun here.

SO what is it gonna be?

Do you support the "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis?

reply to post by edmc^2

Like I said - the 100 million+ year old evidence you've presented are purely based on assumptions and speculations. Why you don't see it - I don't know.

If you're going to throw out the entire science of paleontology, you're going to have to do a lot better than parroting the words "assumptions and speculation". You need something substantial - you know, like some actual substance.

Heck there's so many instances of this.

for example:

Current knowledge and new assumptions on the evolutionary history of the African lungfish, Protopterus, based on a review of its fossil record

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

..even evolutionists themselves admit this to be a fact! - that your fossil evidence of evolutionary change are just assumptions:

Why is it that you keep posting quotes that never support your claims? It's just odd. I could only read the abstract of this article but even so, it's clear that the authors aren't trying to sneak anything by you by simply assuming something out of thin air. They're not just arbitrarily making an assumption but are referring to supporting evidence from "ecology, distribution and phylogeny of modern Protopterus, in the context of the environmental changes that affected Africa over the last 100 Ma." In other words, they're proposing a hypothesis, while presenting the supporting evidence for evaluation. They're clearly separating between what is known and what is assumed (hint: it's in the title!).

This is completely in line with the scientific method - which seems to be an absolute mystery to you.

notice again:

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." -- Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.

OK, so here's a scientist warning against making unjustified assumptions. Sounds like pretty sound advice to me. How on earth does this in any way, shape or form support any of your ridiculous claims? Do you even bother to read your own quotes?

As for:

...a talking snake a talking donkey a woman giving birth at the ripe old age of 90 people living to....

mod warning - off topic.

Are you the mod? I used some biblical nonsense to demonstrate your double standards when it comes to evaluating evidence for vs against your own position. Not that they really needed a demonstration from me - they're pretty spectacular.

But you say:

To say that the fossil evidence is incomplete is an embarrassingly obvious truism. The fossil record will remain incomplete until every possible fossil that can conceivably exist has been found.

Nope, not " embarrassingly obvious truism" but just stating and establishing the facts and also to make you agree that the fossil record IS incomplete.

But now that you agree, how can you then conclusively say that we have "transitional fossil" evidence, if the "evidence" itself is incomplete?

Know what I mean?

The thing about truisms is that everyone agrees with them - which makes them rather pointless to bring into an argument. Everyone acknowledges that the fossil record is not complete but again - so what? A puzzle missing a few pieces is still going to give you a pretty clear idea of the full image. The point is that all the fossils we've found fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification and totally refute the creationist scenario. The fossil record is also confirmed by anatomical, biochemical and - not least - DNA data. Denial of reality will not make the evidence disappear.

reply to post by edmc^2

Sure billions. But billions of what? Billions of incomplete fossils. That's what - which makes your platform weak and unsubstantiated. Furthermore the fact remains that you're forming your conclusions based on INCOMPLETE DATA!

And forming a conclusion based on incomplete data leads to tada...

ASSUMPTION and SPECULATION -thereby pinning your "evidence / belief" on shaky foundation -or more like on - Blind Faith!

Wow. Now you're claiming that all fossils found are incomplete? Seriously? Bizarre hyperbole aside, even if not a single complete fossil of a certain species had been found, how difficult do you think it would be for a trained paleontologist to fill in the blanks by studying different individuals of the same species? These people study bones for a living!

as an example:

"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?

....But there's a big gap in the fossil record from this time period, Richmond noted. Researchers are unsure when and where the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans split from the other group of primates that includes lemurs. "[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree," Richmond said, "but it's not the only branching point." At least one aspect of Ida is unquestionably unique: her incredible preservation, unheard of in specimens from the Eocene era, when early primates underwent a period of rapid evolution. (Explore a prehistoric time line.) "From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there," Richmond explained. "So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology." In Ida's case, scientists were able to examine fossil evidence of fur and soft tissue and even picked through the remains of her last meal: fruits, seeds, and leaves. What's more, the newly described "missing link" was found in Germany's Messel Pit. Ida's European origins are intriguing, Richmond said, because they could suggest—contrary to common assumptions—that the continent was an important area for primate evolution.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

In short, they are aware of the huge "gaps" so they have to assume a "conclusion" to be revised later on based on a new assumption.

Oh, look. edmc^2 posts a quote and gets it all backwards. I'm shocked. Again, assumptions are never accepted as fact - that's why they're called assumptions. They're just a work tool, a way to approach a problem. As new evidence comes to light, old assumptions are re-evaluated (as in this case) and sometimes discarded. They're clearly not "assuming a conclusion". On the contrary, in the quotes you've posted scientists are very clear about what is known and what is speculation. Gareth V. Nelson would be proud.

I notice you still haven't presented any article mentioning genetic boundaries against speciation, how's that coming?

Clue: Repair Gene, Gene Barrier and Stirility!

Ah, those magic words.

I'll keep short as I can - cuz this subject is very extensive if you fully get into it.

OK - since you're not totally aware of this fact let me then present to you a short ver - why the genetic boundary or the genetic barrier or species barrier and the repair gene and sterility prevents "species" from changing into another form/ type of "species".

Take the "Human DNA Repair Genes" for instance. It's a known fact that the gene are pre-programmed to repair any damage in the cell.

Notice:

www.sciencemag.org...
(repair genes:sciencepark.mdanderson.org...)

What is it with you and these random quotes?! When I post a quote I try to make sure it's actually relevant to the point I'm trying to make - it just seems like a good idea. It also doesn't waste the time of other people having to wade through large amounts of text only to find out that the quote had nothing to do with what's being discussed. This article is a general outline of DNA repair systems, which ends up with some speculation on possible clinical applications in cancer research and aging. Not a single word about any barrier against speciation. Please don't make me read another irrelevant article - just give me something which actually backs up what you're claiming.

reply to post by edmc^2

Now unless you have a way of suspending or cancelling this gene from the genome - your much touted mutation will be rendered useless.

No mutation ...no evolution.

So now you're saying there are no mutations? Like I said, I know about DNA repair systems and that they're pretty effective - but they're clearly not infallible. In fact, we're all born with on an average 60 new mutations:

Relevant article:

But let's think like an evolutionists and just assume that for some reason such gene was not present in the "organic soup" of life. Can/will evolution still occur without it?

Not so, unless of course it can overcome Inviability:

Oh dear. This is just getting worse. Not only is hybrid inviability not a barrier against speciation - it's an absolutely vital part of speciation! Species emerge through a splitting of a population and hybrid inviability is an important mechanism in ensuring that they ultimately stay separate species. Species can actually form through hybridization but that's a rare event, unsurprisingly. If species could hybridize willy-nilly, there would be no species!

btw - do you know why there's no such thing as "transitional forms"?

Answer - the "species" simply were NOT in transition!

Even Darwin was aware of this facts.

Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

...................[snip]


Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

-- The Origin of Species

Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory by Charles Darwin

I believe you've outdone yourself. This is even better than the fruit flies. Now you're quoting Darwin himself as evidence that he didn't believe species change over time. Pure genious!

Seriously, though, which would make the most sense here:

a) Charles Darwin spent decades of his life doing research in order to publish a theory he didn't believe in.

or

b) There's some seriously selective quoting going on.

Let's see what more Darwin wrote in the same chapter, shall we?

In the cases in which we know of no intermediate or transitional states, we should be very cautious in concluding that none could have existed, for the homologies of many organs and their intermediate states show that wonderful metamorphoses in function are at least possible. For instance, a swim-bladder has apparently been converted into an air-breathing lung. The same organ having performed simultaneously very different functions, and then having been specialised for one function; and two very distinct organs having performed at the same time the same function, the one having been perfected whilst aided by the other, must often have largely facilitated transitions.

We are far too ignorant, in almost every case, to be enabled to assert that any part or organ is so unimportant for the welfare of a species, that modifications in its structure could not have been slowly accumulated by means of natural selection. But we may confidently believe that many modifications, wholly due to the laws of growth, and at first in no way advantageous to a species, have been subsequently taken advantage of by the still further modified descendants of this species. We may, also, believe that a part formerly of high importance has often been retained (as the tail of an aquatic animal by its terrestrial descendants), though it has become of such small importance that it could not, in its present state, have been acquired by natural selection, a power which acts solely by the preservation of profitable variations in the struggle for life.

I would go with b)

Quote mining is never a good idea - it's just too easy to see through by simply going to the original text and you end up looking like a less than honest debater.

More than 150 years have passed since Darwin published his theory and he would be very gratified to learn that the fossil record has been greatly expanded and has consistently confirmed the model of gradual change through descent with modification. He would be even more pleased to hear that we've now elucidated the inner workings of heredity and that the DNA evidence has confirmed the evolutionary process down to the molecular level.

reply to post by radix

If you're going to throw out the entire science of paleontology, you're going to have to do a lot better than parroting the words "assumptions and speculation". You need something substantial - you know, like some actual substance.

Why is it that you keep posting quotes that never support your claims? It's just odd. I could only read the abstract of this article but even so, it's clear that the authors aren't trying to sneak anything by you by simply assuming something out of thin air. They're not just arbitrarily making an assumption but are referring to supporting evidence from "ecology, distribution and phylogeny of modern Protopterus, in the context of the environmental changes that affected Africa over the last 100 Ma." In other words, they're proposing a hypothesis, while presenting the supporting evidence for evaluation. They're clearly separating between what is known and what is assumed (hint: it's in the title!).

This is completely in line with the scientific method - which seems to be an absolute mystery to you.

On the contrary, no one is throwing the entire science of paleontology - I'm just stating the facts that evolution theory is based on assumptions and speculations.

And them quotes show what I'm saying. And like I said - if you think the assumptions and speculations supports the theory then so be it. No one is stopping from believing it.

Like you said:

OK, so here's a scientist warning against making unjustified assumptions. Sounds like pretty sound advice to me.

And like I said - based on assumptions - unjustified or not.

How on earth does this in any way, shape or form support any of your ridiculous claims? Do you even bother to read your own quotes?

Well, it becomes ridiculous when your making your unsupported assumptions as facts. Simple as that.

The thing about truisms is that everyone agrees with them - which makes them rather pointless to bring into an argument. Everyone acknowledges that the fossil record is not complete but again - so what? A puzzle missing a few pieces is still going to give you a pretty clear idea of the full image.

Just making sure you're aware "that the fossil record is not complete".

That it's SO incomplete the so called "transitional fossils" don't exist. A piece of tooth here, a skull there, a bone fracture there - without even knowing the true circumstances of how the "fossil" got there in the first place.

So what?

So what? Well, like I said - it becomes ridiculous when your conclusion is based on incomplete data. It's like trying guess what the picture looks like with only 2 or three pieces of the puzzle.

Thus they become assumptions - not facts - just like the abioGenesis hypothesis and for the most part - evolution theory.

The point is that all the fossils we've found fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification and totally refute the creationist scenario. The fossil record is also confirmed by anatomical, biochemical and - not least - DNA data. Denial of reality will not make the evidence disappear.

The point is - you're contradicting yourself.

If the fossil record as you stated is incomplete - how can you confidently conclude then "that all the fossils we've found fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification"?

That's the reality.

Know what I mean?

reply to post by radix

Wow. Now you're claiming that all fossils found are incomplete? Seriously? Bizarre hyperbole aside, even if not a single complete fossil of a certain species had been found, how difficult do you think it would be for a trained paleontologist to fill in the blanks by studying different individuals of the same species? These people study bones for a living!

Concentrate here - stay focus.

It's the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD - that is so INCOMPLETE that they can't be relied on.

SO to be clear - we have COMPLETE fossils of species like dinosaurs and fish bones, etc but there are NO COMPLETE record/evidence of the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!!!

All we've got are just pieces of "stuff" assumed as "transitional fossils".

Oh, look. edmc^2 posts a quote and gets it all backwards. I'm shocked. Again, assumptions are never accepted as fact - that's why they're called assumptions. They're just a work tool, a way to approach a problem. As new evidence comes to light, old assumptions are re-evaluated (as in this case) and sometimes discarded. They're clearly not "assuming a conclusion". On the contrary, in the quotes you've posted scientists are very clear about what is known and what is speculation. Gareth V. Nelson would be proud.

Again, the quote is to show you that indeed many findings - especially when it deals with evolution theory are based on assumptions and speculations. What's so hard to understand about it?

What is it with you and these random quotes?! When I post a quote I try to make sure it's actually relevant to the point I'm trying to make - it just seems like a good idea. It also doesn't waste the time of other people having to wade through large amounts of text only to find out that the quote had nothing to do with what's being discussed. This article is a general outline of DNA repair systems, which ends up with some speculation on possible clinical applications in cancer research and aging. Not a single word about any barrier against speciation. Please don't make me read another irrelevant article - just give me something which actually backs up what you're claiming.

Just stating the facts that the genetic boundaries are real - and are NOT based on assumptions. The "quotes" are provided to show proof of their existence. Simple as that.

Now do these genetic barriers affect your evolution theory?

You bet ya - they do.

Just like the quotes - said - to paraphrase -

'The repair gene for instance are there to make sure the cells remain healthy. Any damaged cell from radiation or other deadly factors are prevented by these repair genes to continue and propagate. But if for some unknown reason - a mutant gene gets away - i.e. cancer cells, then the carrier will eventually die off.'

But your evolution theory doesn't even consider it - it just ignores it as if they don't exist. It counts mutation as a necessary good/evil, a must to continue the evolutionary change at any cost.

Simple as that.

reply to post by vasaga

And claiming that such a protocell is the same as life seems to be a big jump in logic too. Scientists can't even figure out whether viruses are considered alive or not. What is the minimal requirement for something to be justified as life? This also assumes that evolution will increase specified information so that everything becomes more advanced over time, while basically everything else in nature deteriorates over time. But when different science branches rarely communicate with each other, that's how it goes. According to information science, physical reality alone is incapable of generating formal functional information, which is what DNA (and RNA, and all languages) are made of.

I think this misses the point. One of the leading proponents of the "RNA World" hypotheis, Jack Szostak, has written a comment where he argues that trying to define life is not helping us to understand how life started. I don't think I've seen anyone make the claim that a protocell is alive but most everyone agrees that a bacterium is alive. So what's the crucial difference between a bacterium and a protocell? The DNA code? The protein synthesis apparatus? There are hypotheses on how these could have evolved and if they are supported by the ongoing abiogenesis research we are likely to find that between a protocell and a bacterium there is simply a gradual increase in chemical complexity with no obvious turning point between non-life and life.

As for evolution not being able to increase specified information I would again recommend Dennis Venema who's written the most concise and accessible refutation to this claim that I've found:

Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information

That's assuming that science has somehow tested materialism, determinism, reductionism and so on. Those are all philosophical and/or metaphysical assumptions that drive modern science. None of them have been tested. It's easy to take those things for granted while being overly skeptic of a different perspective that only opens more possibilities for scientific investigation.

I'm not assuming anything. I adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that life creates the universe rather than the other way round is, to me, pretty extraordinary. I was just inquiring how a proponent of the hypothesis would go about finding supporting evidence.

My position is that abiogenesis is often being proposed as already being a fact while it's nothing more than a hypothesis. Not saying you did it, but that's how it goes, and that's not rational.

So no alternative explanation, then?

If you put it that way, I don't have a problem with that. Hypotheses should be considered and if possible tested without bias.

Glad we agree.

Same could be said for abiogenesis.

Still breaking down wide open doors. Nobody's claiming abiogenesis is anything more than a hypothesis.

See one quote above.

Still don't see any double standard as no absolute claim has been made. How many times to we need to go over this?

Sure.. Your point?

You stated that "no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise" and I pointed out that this was in complete contradiction to what edmc^was claiming. You seemed to deny this and gave me some comment about the laws of thermodynamics (not sure how that was relevant). You seemed to be giving me conflicting answers so I asked for clarification. Do you or do you not think abiogenesis is possible?

I don't see how this undermines what I just said.

If abiogenesis researchers can demonstrate that e.g. RNA (or something like RNA) can self-replicate without the help of any enzymes, why would this somehow be invalidated by the fact that there were people around to see it happen? What basis would you have for the claim that it could not happen without an intelligence present?

reply to post by radix

So now you're saying there are no mutations? Like I said, I know about DNA repair systems and that they're pretty effective - but they're clearly not infallible. In fact, we're all born with on an average 60 new mutations:

Nope not "saying there are no mutations" - or else there are no cancer cells. What I'm saying though is there are no mutations - that changes a fish into an amphibian, no mutations from amphibian to reptile, to bird, to mammal.

To quote Darwin again:

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

But we do have variety WITHIN "species".

Simple as that.

Now if this is the result of mutation to you - so be it.

reply to post by edmc^2

On the contrary, no one is throwing the entire science of paleontology - I'm just stating the facts that evolution theory is based on assumptions and speculations.

Naughty - still confusing your claims with facts, what did I tell you about that?

That it's SO incomplete the so called "transitional fossils" don't exist. A piece of tooth here, a skull there, a bone fracture there - without even knowing the true circumstances of how the "fossil" got there in the first place.

Claiming that transitional fossils don't exist when they've been presented to you is simply disingenuous. Can you make a clear case for Westlothiana being an amphibian or a reptile? If so, based on what?

So what? Well, like I said - it becomes ridiculous when your conclusion is based on incomplete data. It's like trying guess what the picture looks like with only 2 or three pieces of the puzzle.

Again, you're being disingenuous. This isn't even close to an accurate description of the state of the fossil record.

Thus they become assumptions - not facts - just like the abioGenesis hypothesis and for the most part - evolution theory.

Wishing it doesn't make it true, you know that.

The point is - you're contradicting yourself.

If the fossil record as you stated is incomplete - how can you confidently conclude then "that all the fossils we've found fit with the model of gradual change through descent with modification"?

That's the reality.

Know what I mean?

The same way I can see that the available pieces of a puzzle contribute to the same image and are not coming from a different puzzle, know what I mean? The fact that you see a contradiction here is a bit of a mystery.

SO to be clear - we have COMPLETE fossils of species like dinosaurs and fish bones, etc but there are NO COMPLETE record/evidence of the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!!!

All we've got are just pieces of "stuff" assumed as "transitional fossils".

Again, the quote is to show you that indeed many findings - especially when it deals with evolution theory are based on assumptions and speculations. What's so hard to understand about it?

Repeating the same misinformation doesn't make it true. The magic words "assumptions and speculations" have no effect on the evidence, it's still there. You need to provide specifics - what specific evidence is based on pure "assumptions and speculations"?

Just stating the facts that the genetic boundaries are real - and are NOT based on assumptions. The "quotes" are provided to show proof of their existence. Simple as that.

Now do these genetic barriers affect your evolution theory?

You bet ya - they do.

Then surely you should be able to find some little article that backs this up? So far you've come up empty. Since you obviously don't understand even the basics of speciation I'm not getting my hopes up.

The repair gene for instance are there to make sure the cells remain healthy. Any damaged cell from radiation or other deadly factors are prevented by these repair genes to continue and propagate. But if for some unknown reason - a mutant gene gets away - i.e. cancer cells, then the carrier will eventually die off.'

You keep repeating this stuff as if it actually has anything to do with speciation. It doesn't - it's a complete red herring.

But your evolution theory doesn't even consider it - it just ignores it as if they don't exist. It counts mutation as a necessary good/evil, a must to continue the evolutionary change at any cost.

Simple as that.

It counts mutation as a fact - like everyone who actually knows anything about biology.

What I'm saying though is there are no mutations - that changes a fish into an amphibian, no mutations from amphibian to reptile, to bird, to mammal.

But we do have variety WITHIN "species".

Simple as that.

The mind boggles. You do realize that a mutation that changes a fish into an amphibian would be evidence against evolution (and put the entire science of genetics to shame)? I tried to explain how speciation works but I guess you missed that part. Hint: it's a population event - not the result of a mutation in a single individual.

Gotta go, will check in tomorrow

Concentrate here - stay focus.

It's the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD - that is so INCOMPLETE that they can't be relied on.

SO to be clear - we have COMPLETE fossils of species like dinosaurs and fish bones, etc but there are NO COMPLETE record/evidence of the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!!!

All we've got are just pieces of "stuff" assumed as "transitional fossils".

Liar Liar pants on fire!

en.wikipedia.org...

Are you going to address this or not? "durrr, it's all assumptions". Which one of those fossils is an assumption? Show me exactly where the faulty connections are. Evolution is OBVIOUS and that list is huge despite only containing a small amount of found fossils.

You are seriously dismissing all of it because we haven't found every single fossil ever?

Your argument is just like this guy:



You keep asking for more and more evidence, despite ignoring it completely. We have a LOT of evidence. It's not just a few odd fossils here and there. There are tons, especially when looking at human evolution. We find a new species of hominid every couple years now. It's so well documented its not even funny. Even the pope accepts evolution now. It's not just a guess, it's a fact based on overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by Barcs

Concentrate here - stay focus.

It's the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD - that is so INCOMPLETE that they can't be relied on.

SO to be clear - we have COMPLETE fossils of species like dinosaurs and fish bones, etc but there are NO COMPLETE record/evidence of the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!!!

All we've got are just pieces of "stuff" assumed as "transitional fossils".

Liar Liar pants on fire!

en.wikipedia.org...

Are you going to address this or not? "durrr, it's all assumptions". Which one of those fossils is an assumption? Show me exactly where the faulty connections are. Evolution is OBVIOUS and that list is huge despite only containing a small amount of found fossils.

You are seriously dismissing all of it because we haven't found every single fossil ever?

Your argument is just like this guy:

You keep asking for more and more evidence, despite ignoring it completely. We have a LOT of evidence. It's not just a few odd fossils here and there. There are tons, especially when looking at human evolution. We find a new species of hominid every couple years now. It's so well documented its not even funny. Even the pope accepts evolution now. It's not just a guess, it's a fact based on overwhelming evidence.

edit on 11-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Let him enjoy his ignorance, Barcs. As my dad used to say, if he had a brain he'd be dangerous. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Just let him revel in it if it makes him feel good.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

I think this misses the point. One of the leading proponents of the "RNA World" hypotheis, Jack Szostak, has written a comment where he argues that trying to define life is not helping us to understand how life started.

Leaving the goal of the hypothesis undefined is not exactly practical. How can you find a pathway to X by leaving X undefined?

Originally posted by radix
I don't think I've seen anyone make the claim that a protocell is alive but most everyone agrees that a bacterium is alive. So what's the crucial difference between a bacterium and a protocell? The DNA code? The protein synthesis apparatus? There are hypotheses on how these could have evolved and if they are supported by the ongoing abiogenesis research we are likely to find that between a protocell and a bacterium there is simply a gradual increase in chemical complexity with no obvious turning point between non-life and life.

Yeah.. The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that life is nothing more than the sum of its parts. That's borderline composition fallacy.

Originally posted by radix
As for evolution not being able to increase specified information I would again recommend Dennis Venema who's written the most concise and accessible refutation to this claim that I've found:

Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information

I'll be sure to look into that. We'll see.

Originally posted by radix
I'm not assuming anything. I adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that life creates the universe rather than the other way round is, to me, pretty extraordinary. I was just inquiring how a proponent of the hypothesis would go about finding supporting evidence.

Well, there's already evidence for it. It's just a shift in perspective while still supporting the evidence we already have. It's basically a theory of everything where a bunch of things suddenly fall into place that were huge problems before. I wouldn't know how to test it, but maybe there can be some mathematical proofs.

Originally posted by radix
So no alternative explanation, then?

For what exactly? For how life started? I have no reason to support a single perspective because none of them have enough evidence and thus are unsatisfying.

Originally posted by radix
You stated that "no one can prove that inorganic matter does not allow life to arise" and I pointed out that this was in complete contradiction to what edmc^was claiming. You seemed to deny this and gave me some comment about the laws of thermodynamics (not sure how that was relevant). You seemed to be giving me conflicting answers so I asked for clarification. Do you or do you not think abiogenesis is possible?

Theoretically abiogenesis is not impossible. From a practical standpoint, I think it's highly improbable.

Originally posted by radix
If abiogenesis researchers can demonstrate that e.g. RNA (or something like RNA) can self-replicate without the help of any enzymes, why would this somehow be invalidated by the fact that there were people around to see it happen? What basis would you have for the claim that it could not happen without an intelligence present?

What do you mean see it happen? People would make it happen.