No time for Evolution?

originally posted by: neoholographic
The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

Says the guy that compared evolution to a game of poker and doesn't understand the difference between natural processes and things that are affected by those processes.

a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden
Your biases are peaking out

It's a human condition.

originally posted by: Noinden
The "tale" you are talking about really is humanity adding to a theory. Biological evolution is as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

Humanity adding to a theory? Who else would add to it

And correct, you've just defined evolution, or at least one version I've come across in this thread.

originally posted by: Noinden
HOWEVER it does not matter how the first ancestor came to be a living thing.

Once again, your OPINION (bias) is noted (as a convenient out of course).

originally posted by: Noinden
Please tell me you don't think that the genetic clans (7 daughters of Eve etc) are more than interpolations?

I don't believe I think that. I've never even done a DNA scan to know

originally posted by: Noinden
Adding in "the heart and soul of evolution" is in essence anthropomorphizing something that is just happening. It does not have a heart and soul, it is a mechanism in nature. Is their a "heart and soul" in Kinetics, thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetisim etc? Or perchance they are just things that happen in nature.

Okay I didn't realize people would take that term literally. When I referred to the genetic code (DNA) as the "heart and soul" of evolution I meant it as a metaphor. It's a term used to mean the central core, or the most important or essential part of something. IOW, DNA is the most essential, most central, most important part of evolution. Without it evolution in the biological sense doesn't happen. Is that less anthropomorphizing for you?

originally posted by: Noinden
SO using the "it is a convenient out", then evolution should tie all the other theories, and hypotheses of science into itself as well, and itself into all of them?

No the other way around. One or more of the other fundamental natural sciences, like physics and chemistry, should be the underpinnings of biology and how life originated and evolved.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
Of course you need self replication for evolution, which justifies my point. Evolution cannot happen until there are replicating systems.

I made a small edit to your quote

Now a question - is DNA biological?

Food for thought – scientists can't really agree on a proper definition of life, so I wonder how it can stated with such veracity and feeling that the origins of it must be kept completely separated from the evolution of it. The number one subject underlying all of biology – LIFE – lacks a concrete definition. Talk about an identity crisis.

originally posted by: Barcs
Your quarrel about having 200m years less time means nothing and your statement above in no way negates the points I made.

Speak for yourself – it means nothing to you Barcs, and that's okay. And I wasn't trying to negate you, that's your schtick. I was simply stating the most basic necessities for evolution to occur.

If the data from this discovery pans out, it does actually mean something – that life was already in existence some 200+mm years prior to the previously established earliest forms of life. This could imply that the evolutionary process that lead to these newly discovered earliest life forms occurred at a much faster rate than we initially thought. Either that, or the process of life's origins began much earlier. I hope that makes more sense. I tried to keep it simple.

originally posted by: Barcs
Can you explain how this [definition of NS] applies to abiogenesis? This is why I said it depends how you use the term. Some people refer to natural selection as simple environmental pressures or influence. There's no question the environment influenced abiogenesis, but claiming NS doesn't really jive with me because there was nothing to select for prior to replication.

I wasn't saying anything in the hopes that they'd "jive" with you. Regardless, there are some who think the Darwinian principles are evident and can be applied. Another question: is RNA biological?

Just read the experiments
1967 An extracellular Darwinian experiment with a self-duplicating nucleic acid molecule. [pdf]
Evolution of an Enzyme from a Noncatalytic Nucleic Acid Sequence
Niche partitioning in the coevolution of 2 distinct RNA enzymes

originally posted by: Barcs
*Facepalm* It's NOT one process..

Depends on who you ask I guess. Life is a process, not a thing. There are efforts being made to discuss uniting the two into one overarching physicochemical process. I know nobody ever reads links around here, but just in case you'd be curious to explore a new perspective : Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter

originally posted by: Barcs
Maybe I should nitpick your use of LUCA here because it's not the first life. It's the most recent common ancestor to life on earth today. I already gave you my beliefs on this topic. Personally I don't care, it doesn't matter how the first life got here, in the context of evolution.

Not all scientists think that. And unfortunately you're just parroting unoriginal and outdated commonly held beliefs. LUCA is known to be the earliest form of life from which all other life descends. "Most recent" in this regard could mean up to 4 billion years ago. I'm not interested in playing nitpick games, and if you don't care about this topic then please feel free to ignore my posts. I prefer more progressive thinking and dialogue anyway.

originally posted by: Photoneffect
It's the heart and soul of evolution yet it doesn't matter how it came into existence. That doesn't sound very scientific at all.

reply originally posted by: Barcs
Anybody that claims abiogenesis is the heart and soul of evolution is clueless on the fundamental differences between the 2 things. Your statement above is what doesn't sound scientific at all.

If you believe this, then please give me some examples of how abiognesis mechanisms can carry over to evolution without equivocation or appeals to the unknown

"It's" was referring to the genetic code, not abiogensis.

If you wish, you can read my explanation to Noinden for the deeper meaning of the now unfortunate use of the metaphor "heart and soul".

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
...However, the idea that the mechanism of evolution needs to be INTRINSICALLY ENCODED ON LIFE rather than HAPPENS TO LIFE is false. "How to evolve" is not a specific instruction written in an organism's DNA

You make some fair points, even though they're based off a misinterpretation of what I wrote, which is my fault not yours. When I said that the genetic code is the heart and soul of evolution I was being sloppy with my words. What I meant to say and should have said for the sake of simplicity is that evolution does not happen without DNA.

In case you haven't noticed, it's blasphemous to even suggest that DNA, a biomolecule that can replicate, was the result of evolutionary processes intended solely for biological systems. Darwin set this line of thinking in motion, but I can't blame him for our inability to evolve (yes, it's a pun) our thinking beyond this compartmentalized view of life. He at least had an excuse.

a reply to: neoholographic

And once again we see the disappearing act. This is SOP (standard operating procedure) for Creationists. It's part of the strategy. When the going gets tough and you can't come up with evidence for your position, you conveniently fade into the ether.

But alas, they wait a while and then show up again - with the same positions, the same arguments that have no evidence, the same old hackneyed diatribes that never change.

I don't have to name names - you know who you are - and so do we.

a reply to: Phantom423

What???

First off, you haven't said anything of substance or refuted anything that has been said. You just give these meaningless diatribes that end with the same nonsense.

I don't have time to debate blind Darwinist 24 hours a day. It's the weekend and I do have a life outside of posting on a thread.

Again, the fact that evolution is incomplete without the Origin of Life has been well established by me, others and every paper on the origin of life that also speaks about evolution because the two are connected.

So, when you say something that has any kind of substance, I will respond. Until then, I'm off to the Mall to pick up a few things.

a reply to: neoholographic

You don't debate anything. You just use baseless opinion backed up by more opinion.

Where's your EVIDENCE?

a reply to: neoholographic

How would first life arising naturally vs. being created by your God of choice in act way affect the mechanisms of and our understanding of evolution?

You keep dodging this question because it shows your argument for what it is: a load of sweaty old bollocks.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

What???

First off, you haven't said anything of substance or refuted anything that has been said. You just give these meaningless diatribes that end with the same nonsense.

I don't have time to debate blind Darwinist 24 hours a day. It's the weekend and I do have a life outside of posting on a thread.

Again, the fact that evolution is incomplete without the Origin of Life has been well established by me, others and every paper on the origin of life that also speaks about evolution because the two are connected.

So, when you say something that has any kind of substance, I will respond. Until then, I'm off to the Mall to pick up a few things.

Of course, you don't have time. You don't have time to examine the citations because you know they kill your position.

Substance? The hogwash that you post has no validity in real science. You have yet to post a citation to support your position.

Ignore the evidence. Move on. You're irrelevant.

a reply to: Phantom423

by the way i noticed that a few recent contributions in the realm of evolutionary evidence have failed to make their way onto your "index"...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

by the way i noticed that a few recent contributions in the realm of evolutionary evidence have failed to make their way onto your "index"...

I know. I need to update the blog. There's actually alot of material to put in there. Just need the time.
Thanks for reminding me.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Food for thought – scientists can't really agree on a proper definition of life, so I wonder how it can stated with such veracity and feeling that the origins of it must be kept completely separated from the evolution of it. The number one subject underlying all of biology – LIFE – lacks a concrete definition. Talk about an identity crisis.

People argue with such veracity because folks continually make statements similar to "Evolution is just a guess because scientists can't explain the origin of life". That is patently false and they only use that argument because they think evolution automatically means materialism/atheism.

The comparison is essentially saying nothing, it is appealing to the unknown. When scientists DO have a better understanding of the origin of life, THEN one could logically look into the effects and ramifications it has on evolution. Speculating about it now doesn't really get us anywhere.

Speak for yourself – it means nothing to you Barcs, and that's okay. And I wasn't trying to negate you, that's your schtick. I was simply stating the most basic necessities for evolution to occur.

Okay fair enough. To me, it looked like a counter point because you responded with it to 2 different paragraphs and was just stating the obvious without really answering my inquiry asking about the changes you were referring to.

If the data from this discovery pans out, it does actually mean something – that life was already in existence some 200+mm years prior to the previously established earliest forms of life. This could imply that the evolutionary process that lead to these newly discovered earliest life forms occurred at a much faster rate than we initially thought. Either that, or the process of life's origins began much earlier. I hope that makes more sense. I tried to keep it simple.

That does make more sense. I just didn't see what evolutionary processes needed to go faster to go from very first lifeform to this lifeform, so it does likely infer that the origin of life is pushed back, although it's still an unknown and always has been.

Anyways, all I'm saying here is that it's not a big deal and doesn't change much in the big picture. New discoveries bump back dates all the time because the dates are usually based on the earliest found fossil of that particular organism.

I wasn't saying anything in the hopes that they'd "jive" with you. Regardless, there are some who think the Darwinian principles are evident and can be applied. Another question: is RNA biological?

I wasn't inferring that you say anything in the hopes they jive with me. I was using a figure of speech to say that I disagree with natural selection as it applies to MES, to be applied to abiogenesis. That's why I typed the bit about depending how you use the term. I'm well aware that certain principles of natural selection can apply to abiogenesis, but it isn't organisms surviving and passing down favorable genes in populations as per MES. It is very cool stuff, however. Thanks for posting those papers. I spent a good amount of time checking them out.

originally posted by: Barcs
LUCA is known to be the earliest form of life from which all other life descends. "Most recent" in this regard could mean up to 4 billion years ago.

It could also mean 2 billion years ago. It could be just prior to the Cambrian explosion, it's a bit different than the first organism on earth.

I'm not interested in playing nitpick games, and if you don't care about this topic then please feel free to ignore my posts. I prefer more progressive thinking and dialogue anyway.

I thought if you could dish out the nitpicking you could surely take it. I didn't say that I don't care about the topic. I said I don't care how the first life got here in context of evolution being valid as it is observed today. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

"It's" was referring to the genetic code, not abiogensis.

You mentioned how it came into existence did you not? Is the origin of the first genetic code, NOT abiogenesis? I guess it's tough to say since there is no set agreed upon definition of life, I have always just considered life to be from replication on forward, so I could be off on that. I don't mind not knowing. Scientists will eventually figure it out and then define life accordingly.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.

REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.

If it's a lousy example, then think before you write.

If you can't understand something 5th Graders would get, it's not my fault.

Secondly, Natural Selection isn't Evolution. It's just one aspect of Evolution. It's a concept and it has less importance than DARWINISTS give it. It's important but DARWINIST act like it's a magic wand.

Here's more from Wiki:

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2]

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency).

en.wikipedia.org...

It's just something that acts on the phenotype after a trait reaches the environment. It simply says some traits will thrive and grow while others may die out and find it hard to survive. Again, nothing magical. Here's more:

In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

So Natural Selection could have been occuring in that comet, meteor or space dust if Panspermia is correct, and conditions at the Origin of Life could determine things like Directional Selection.

In population genetics, directional selection is a mode of natural selection in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to shift over time in the direction of that phenotype. Under directional selection, the advantageous allele increases as a consequence of differences in survival and reproduction among different phenotypes. The increases are independent of the dominance of the allele, and even if the allele is recessive, it will eventually become fixed.[1]

An example of directional selection is fossil records that show that the size of the black bears in Europe decreased during interglacial periods of the ice ages, but increased during each glacial period. Another example is the beak size in a population of finches. Throughout the wet years, small seeds were more common and there was such a large supply of the small seeds that the finches rarely ate large seeds. During the dry years, none of the seeds were in great abundance, but the birds usually ate more large seeds. The change in diet of the finches affected the depth of the birds’ beaks in the future generations.Their beaks range from large and tough to small and smooth.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

You don't know if something like Directional Selection is related to something that occurs because of the conditions present at the Origin of Life.

Sadly, you have belief not Science. So common sense is prohibited. Without the Origin of Life, Evolution is incomplete.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Evolution happens even if humans do not acknowledge it. It happens no matter how life started. Those are the only facts that matter. In science the understanding will always be flawed to some level.

To insist something has to be part of something, with out proof, is ignorance. If there is no evidence, you can say NOTHING.

originally posted by: Noinden
To insist something has to be part of something, with out proof, is ignorance. If there is no evidence, you can say NOTHING.

Proof?
Of what?
The origin of life?

As a scientist I'm sure you're already aware that there's no such thing as a scientific proof.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Proof that the origin of life is important in the mechanism, and thus understanding of Evolution. There is zero proof that it is needed. Thus the current understanding does not need to be equated to the origin of life. Any more than the theory of evolution needs to take gravitation, electromagnetism, or any of the hypotheses of the origin of the universe or multivese into account. Making a theory more complex than it needs to be, is poor science. To insist that something be included, with out proof, because it "does not seem logical" is pseudo science. If it needs to be included, go forth and prove it.

In science there are probabilities, and there is not data to show that there needs to include anything you've implied.

a reply to: Barcs

One thing I forgot to mention:

"LUCA is known to be the earliest form of life from which all other life descends. "Most recent" in this regard could mean up to 4 billion years ago."

LUCA is known to be the MOST RECENT form of life (meaning most recent to today) that all life on earth today descends from, NOT the earliest life that all life descends from. That's actually quite a big difference there.

a reply to: Noinden

How can you prove that our understanding of evolution is adequate?

I guess if you're talking about evolution by natural selection, then sure, it's safe to say that the process is well understood in terms of how WE have defined and refined it. Then there's Common Descent. This is the pillar by which all of evolution rests. It states simply that all of life comes from one primordial ancestor. Okay that's nice. But now you say we're not permitted to discuss this ancestor's origins or the manner by which it evolved within the context of the very theory for which it defines. To me it comes off as - "We don't know or maybe can't know, so let's ignore it's potential impact to our understanding of evolution since we already know all we need to know." This is sound science?

To say we know enough doesn't seem accurate in light of reality. Is it really THAT unreasonable to consider the impact OOL (very likely a biochemical process) could have on our understanding (or lack thereof) of the underlying molecular mechanisms that drive the development and evolution of life? Is it reasonable to say that these molecular mechanisms are well understood, or that we've identified all of them? I'm not sure it's even reasonable to say that development is well understood; or the mechanisms governing gene regulation; or the function of non-coding regions in DNA; or what all the extra transcribed RNA is for. Can we even agree on how to define a gene? ENCODE has shown that scientists don't really know how a genotype maps to phenotype, or how a genome is shaped by external evolutionary forces. How does this not in some way spill over to our level of understanding about evolution?

All ENCODE and HGP have done really, is opened our eyes to just how much scientists don't know (or thought they knew). Ask any molecular biologist and they will tell you there's a lot that's still a mystery. The external forces of evolution (NS and GD), while almost always inferred to be the cause of everything we see, are in truth only adequate enough at explaining certain phenomena. Perhaps it's a convenient place holder to fill the gaps of misunderstanding. Hey, if you're okay with that line of thinking, and many are perfectly content with it, then that's your prerogative. I just don't agree with it.

From some papers I've read on OOL it seems that researchers have no qualms about applying Darwninan principles to the earliest biomolecules. Are they wrong for doing so? Maybe not, if the most rudimentary forms of heredity and variation could have begun with those earliest molecules. Underlying evolution is heredity and variation, and underlying all of biology is biochemistry – from life's origins until now. I asked someone if DNA and RNA are biological entities, but got no real answer. I also wonder about viruses - are they biological, and do they evolve?

Facts still remain, there's a lot we don't know, and I think there are many scientists who don't share your view on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're not inclined to take a political stance on it like many others seem to have the need to do. Other than ignorance, and a want to defend evolution against senseless and ignorant creationists' attacks (hey, I get it, I really do), I still haven't found a reasonable scientific reason why the two fields should remain so vehemently separated.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden

How can you prove that our understanding of evolution is adequate?

By making testable, accurate predictions. Of which evolution makes many.

Does that mean our understanding is 100% perfect? No. Scientific theories are models, and some are more useful than others. But evolution, as a model, had been proven to be very useful in helping us understand biodiversity on this planet (amongst other things).

originally posted by: Barcs
LUCA is known to be the MOST RECENT form of life (meaning most recent to today) that all life on earth today descends from, NOT the earliest life that all life descends from. That's actually quite a big difference there.

Remember LUCA is widely considered to predate the split of the 3 domains of life- bacteria, archaea, and eukaryota.