Evolution's Missing Links

[Tarrick]

On the science of life front, you can replicate primordial Earth conditions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and create amino acids and other organic compounds in a very short amount of time. It's not much of a stretch to think of the compounds becoming more complex over time.


Perhaps it's possible, but it does kinda go against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a.k.a. The Law of Entropy.

Strike that. I don't like that response. A better response is that yes, even if life did somehow start from non life, with every added level of complexity, there is less and less probability that it could continue in a relatively seamless matter to produce the kind of animals that we see today.
Also, I ask this: If there are so many Link Creatures (half way through evolutionary) why are there non around today?

But I think this should be split off into a different topic too.




Edit: split from INTJs and Religion Thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Jon]

On the science of life front, you can replicate primordial Earth conditions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and create amino acids and other organic compounds in a very short amount of time. It's not much of a stretch to think of the compounds becoming more complex over time.


Perhaps it's possible, but it does kinda go against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a.k.a. The Law of Entropy.


That simplifies things too much. Since certain molecules react differently with each other under different temperatures and pressures, the system trying to reach thermodynamic equilibrium by exchanging heat from the core of the Earth to a sea of chemicals would incidentally create those organic compounds while trying to reach a form of equilibrium through entropy.

Besides, the law says that the total entropy of a system tends to increase over time. The average entropy does, but it doesn't mean everything has to, by thermodynamic law, head towards equilibrium and chaos. This is evidenced by the fact that you as an individual exist. Quoting Watchmen of all things, "And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive, meeting, siring this precise son, that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man, she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged." With each passing generation, the existence of your descendents as individuals becomes more and more improbable. The fact that one of billions of outcomes will occur is guaranteed doesn't change the fact that the odds of that person being the one are so impossibly small with more and more order required every generation for that single individual to emerge.

ed: Blargh.

There aren't link creatures because we kill them all. I say that as a blanket statement, but there are, in fact, many link creatures. Apes? Crocodiles and aligators? Coelocanths? On a smaller scale, Galapagos finches.

This stil has to do with explaining where an athiest comes from regarding INTJ and religion. At least it does, to me.

[Tarrick]

ed: Blargh.

There aren't link creatures because we kill them all. I say that as a blanket statement, but there are, in fact, many link creatures. Apes? Crocodiles and aligators? Coelocanths? On a smaller scale, Galapagos finches.

This stil has to do with explaining where an athiest comes from regarding INTJ and religion. At least it does, to me.

Okay, sure. I'll continue then. If we killed them all, where are the remains? I mean, saying "we killed them all" to me would suggest this is after the beginning of recorded history.

Also yes there are animals that appear to be hybrids, like the the Platypus. But I was referring more so to transitions of types of creatures that have very different types of mechanics. Like lizards and birds, and on a more specialized scale, normal mammals and marsupials.



This really is devolving into a nitpicking contest though. But oh well.

[Jon]

Okay, sure. I'll continue then. If we killed them all, where are the remains? I mean, saying "we killed them all" to me would suggest this is after the beginning of recorded history.

Also yes there are animals that appear to be hybrids, like the the Platypus. But I was referring more so to transitions of types of creatures that have very different types of mechanics. Like lizards and birds, and on a more specialized scale, normal mammals and marsupials.



This really is devolving into a nitpicking contest though. But oh well.


By "we killed them all", I mean that the creatures that live on Earth now killed off (either actively through hunting, or passively by stealing niches) all of the creatures that are currently extinct either globally or regionally. That is, to say, if those "link" creatures, as you put it, were unfit to survive. The remains of extinct animals are either fossilized or they're not. It's not like everything gets fossilized, and the fossil record is only incomplete because we haven't excavated every square inch of the Earth. Are the countless pre-sapiens sapiens human fossils not remains enough for evidence of link species being driven to extinction?

Also, I'm not talking about hybrids by appearance. I'm talking about animals that have undergone change from their parent species, which is what I meant by introducing the Galapagos finches. The was one ancestral finch (which is most likely still alive, if its original niche remains) which flew to the Galapagos islands and then divergently evolved over generations to fill various niches on the islands. The original finch is still a "link", and all of the new finch species and subspecies have (relatively) very different mechanics in how and what they eat.

You don't need to have a bird, lizard, and the full spectrum of everything inbetween. In fact, the outliers (birds and lizards) would be way more specialized and fit to survive in their own ways. The spectrum animals wouldn't be able to compete with the survival competence of the lizards and the birds, and they would be driven to extinction by not being able to compete.

It's not nitpicking, but it definitely is a new topic now.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the evidence could make the Y in your god equation greater than one, making chance more likely than a creator god.

[Guido]

I disagree with one of those points up there... I think. I'm a little lost with the X and Y stuff, but here's my rendition. It's hard to predict the odds of us being here, given the fact that we are here. It's possible that 'random events' occur that create many instances of many universes on some bizarrely high order of magnitude. Trying to predict X (the odds of us being here) given that X is true for this universe, is kind of hard to figure out. Since the only thing we know, is that X occurred once out of Y times where Y could be anywhere from 1 to infinity. Assuming random events do occur, then it would follow that after an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of these events must occur. Thus, life as we know it, is bound to happen infinitely many times over.

When I see arguments that are similar to 'life is unique and cool that it can't be chance' (not to belittle your argument of course :o) my counter to that has always been 'how could life not have happened?'

I think this belongs here too :o so I'll just quote it. So as my questions asks: how could life not have happened?

[Tarrick]

That is, to say, if those "link" creatures, as you put it, were unfit to survive.

And that there is my problem with it. They were unfit to survive. If they were unfit to survive, how did they make it through the millions of years or however long it takes to successfully change into a new species, let alone a new genus/family/order, etc.


Yes, Guido your question is indeed a good one. Like Sherlock Holmes "said": Eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

[Jon]

And that there is my problem with it. They were unfit to survive. If they were unfit to survive, how did they make it through the millions of years or however long it takes to successfully change into a new species, let alone a new genus/family/order, etc.

They weren't originally unfit to survive. When they were the only things around, they were the most fit. As the species diversified, the new versions were more fit to survive than their ancestors, so the ancestral species died out when in direct competition with its descendants.

[Tarrick]

They weren't originally unfit to survive. When they were the only things around, they were the most fit. As the species diversified, the new versions were more fit to survive than their ancestors, so the ancestral species died out when in direct competition with its descendants.


Perhaps. However, what about the creatures that "stopped" evolving long before the others did. Like the Crocodiles and Alligators? How did any Link species in their area survive if they survive through hundreds of generations to their next step?

And also, something that I've always wonder about, is what about BIG leaps that needed to be completed very few generations. Like sexual reproduction as oppose to asexual reproduction? It had to switch over fast and without too many flaws. How did gender suddenly and successfully start?

[StJimmy]

From wikipedia: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

**********The most primitive organisms known to undergo meiosis and to reproduce sexually are protists (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria.

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[23]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[23]

A theory states that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids. [25]

A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26] ************

if you look at a timeline, it took something like almost a billion years after the appearance of eukaryotic cells for them to develop into multi-celled sexually reproducing organisms. of course all of this stuff is wide open to debate, hope i helped. wikipedia isn't always the most reliable of information sources, but it's always a decent start.

[Tarrick]

That's very interesting. I've heard of some of those theories, but not all.

However, I still am wondering how gender specific organs, like the uterus, appeared (and the probability that they functioned correctly when they first because necessary for use) and also the genetic memory, or instinct, of how to use them carried over.

[Jon]

That's very interesting. I've heard of some of those theories, but not all.

However, I still am wondering how gender specific organs, like the uterus, appeared (and the probability that they functioned correctly when they first because necessary for use) and also the genetic memory, or instinct, of how to use them carried over.

This is the answer to pretty much evolution question you've asked so far: Everything happened slowly over billions of years, generations, and divergent species in order to reach optimal fitness. Most of the conclusions from that wikipedia article can be applied to other, more complex organs.

Without environmental pressure to evolve, a gene pool won't select for greater fitness. Alligators and crocodiles haven't needed to compete, so possibly advantageous genes haven't been heavily selected for.

[The Rose]

some quotes from an article:

"Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water. But amino acids are not alive, and no one has ever generated life in a test tube."

"For a long time it was believed that life arose in the primeval soup. But that idea has been largely abandoned and most evolutionists now believe life originated in the rocks and minerals of the early earth."

"Biochemistry is too complicated to replicate from generation to generation without a reliable mechanism to pass on genetic information. In all known lifeforms, that mechanism depends on the double-stranded molecule DNA and its close relative, the single-stranded RNA, or ribonucleic acid. But there's a catch: You need DNA to make proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA. Which came first?"

"...understanding the chemical beginnings of life poses major challenges. How could the first self-replicating and energy-supplying molecules have been assembled from simpler materials that were undoubtedly (sic) available on the early protocontinents? Most scientists abhor spontaneous generation, much less the wave of a magic wand from God or the inheritance of living organisms from outer space.
...The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jon]

some quotes from an article:

"Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water. But amino acids are not alive, and no one has ever generated life in a test tube."

"For a long time it was believed that life arose in the primeval soup. But that idea has been largely abandoned and most evolutionists now believe life originated in the rocks and minerals of the early earth."

"Biochemistry is too complicated to replicate from generation to generation without a reliable mechanism to pass on genetic information. In all known lifeforms, that mechanism depends on the double-stranded molecule DNA and its close relative, the single-stranded RNA, or ribonucleic acid. But there's a catch: You need DNA to make proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA. Which came first?"

"...understanding the chemical beginnings of life poses major challenges. How could the first self-replicating and energy-supplying molecules have been assembled from simpler materials that were undoubtedly (sic) available on the early protocontinents? Most scientists abhor spontaneous generation, much less the wave of a magic wand from God or the inheritance of living organisms from outer space.
...The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That article was really offensive. I really didn't care for its infantilizing language and complete lack of a counter-argument save for Bible quotes and quoting (as well as insulting with the sic in there) scientists out of context. Rose, you're not going to convince me of anything with an article written so derisively. There's nothing "irrational" about questioning anything, contrary to what your article might lead you to believe.

No, amino acids are not alive, but will you accept the natural creation of life if scientists actually manage to create life on their own in labratories? Would that just make them replacement gods in your eyes? I don't get it. How is building one of the complex key components for life not significant?

Regarding your second quote, it's thought that the heat from the Earth's core heated the rocks and facilitated chemical bonding. There was still a mineral sea, but it splashed against said rocks. Also, you will fault scientists for being wrong? If they abandoned one theory for something that works better... how is that possibly a bad thing? Everyone is wrong sometimes. Just because they're wrong once doesn't mean they're always wrong, regardless of what that site would like you to believe.

On the third quote. I'm sorry, but what? That's just incorrect science. More likely, though, it's a quote removed from context. Yes, you need DNA to synthesize proteins. You need DNA to synthesize specific proteins as requested by the DNA. You do not need DNA to synthesize proteins randomly. Proteins are just complex strings of amino acids. The same amino acids that can reproduced in the labratory. It's interesting to note that there are also, currently, DNA sequencing machines. You can literally type in nucleotide base pairs and the machine will generate strings of DNA.

The chemical steps that made up life do remain under intense speculation, but so does the existence of god.

[Tarrick]

It would appear we are at a impasse, where neither side can prove that they are right.

And so all we can do is believe in our side for our own reasons.

[Jon]

It would appear we are at a impasse, where neither side can prove that they are right.

And so all we can do is believe in our side for our own reasons.

I would be happy to read creationist science articles as long as they're not insulting. I really have to stress the science part, though. Rose listed it as one of her specialities, so I'm sure she has plenty more links in her arsenal.

ed: The one part in that article that I actually found interesting was about the liberal creationists who likened the origin of matter from off of rocks to the Biblical passage about men coming from dust.

[StJimmy]

that article reads like propaganda. the idea that the author was a phd is somewhat unsettling. i stopped reading immediately when he states "To try to explain the origin of life without acknowledging God is entirely irrational"

i'm not trying to be insulting, but come on, just because "the evolutionists can't explain it!!!" means it must be god?

[Tarrick]

It would appear we are at a impasse, where neither side can prove that they are right.

And so all we can do is believe in our side for our own reasons.

I would be happy to read creationist science articles as long as they're not insulting. I really have to stress the science part, though. Rose listed it as one of her specialities, so I'm sure she has plenty more links in her arsenal.

ed: The one part in that article that I actually found interesting was about the liberal creationists who likened the origin of matter from off of rocks to the Biblical passage about men coming from dust.

I don't know how the universe was made. All I've ever said is that I think its much more unbelievable for it to have happened without some sort of Creator.




Edit: Split some of the replies to this to a new topic, see next post

[Jezebel]

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

[The Rose]

It would appear we are at a impasse, where neither side can prove that they are right.

And so all we can do is believe in our side for our own reasons.

I would be happy to read creationist science articles as long as they're not insulting. I really have to stress the science part, though. Rose listed it as one of her specialities, so I'm sure she has plenty more links in her arsenal.

ed: The one part in that article that I actually found interesting was about the liberal creationists who likened the origin of matter from off of rocks to the Biblical passage about men coming from dust.I'm apologize to have offended you.
I will keep my beliefs to myself.

[The Rose]

It would appear we are at a impasse, where neither side can prove that they are right.

And so all we can do is believe in our side for our own reasons.I agree with you.
That's what usually happens.

[wedekit]

I would not be surprised by the existence of a supreme creator, but I'm still on my own personal quest of finding out if I believe it is the Biblical God or not.

Either way... I guess I could always throw a quote my Philosophy teacher throw out at us one day in class:

Imagine taking apart a clock and releasing all the parts into space. How long do you think it would take for it to come together as a clock again?

The world we have is very complex and on a delicate balance. Some things are too convenient. How is there enough trees to provide everyone with oxygen? Or how it just so happens to rain (taking water from the ocean and bringing it to the plants) so these plants can stay alive. Or how we have two distinct genders with distinct differences when we had to have evolved from an asexual organism at some point? Why do we laugh when we're tickled? Why are we able to think about the past and the future?

Notably, Asa Gray made large contributions to Evolution and Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang Theory. They are both Catholic priests...

I'm still neutral on the topic.

[Tarrick]

Oh the Big Bang Theory is probably correct in my opinion. I refer to the theory behind the theory: That it happened spontaneously.

But we should try and stay on topic I suppose.

[blueback]

Imagine taking apart a clock and releasing all the parts into space. How long do you think it would take for it to come together as a clock again?

The world we have is very complex and on a delicate balance. Some things are too convenient. How is there enough trees to provide everyone with oxygen? Or how it just so happens to rain (taking water from the ocean and bringing it to the plants) so these plants can stay alive. Or how we have two distinct genders with distinct differences when we had to have evolved from an asexual organism at some point? Why do we laugh when we're tickled? Why are we able to think about the past and the future?


The clock metaphor is absurd. It exists out of context. What is the metaphor supposed to be shedding light on? It is just close enough to sort of maybe being applicable to the evolution debate that it will sidetrack an inexpereienced debator. However, it is just a red herring. There is no reason to even talk about it because it is always off topic.

There are enough trees to provide oxygen because it couldn't be any other way. Plants and animals both existed, but plants were simpler and more successful. They produce oxygen. As they filled up the atmosphere of the Earth (over many years) with their own wastes they began choking themselves out. Animals, however, produce carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere filled up with oxygen they proliferated and produced a lot of carbon dioxide, which the plants then "inhaled." What we have had ever since is a reciprocal relationship in which animals and plants feed off of each other's waste products. Everything was in balance before humans showed up and started producing waaay more carbon dioxide than anything had before.

The rain keeps plants alive because the water cycle is an unavoidable side effect of having a lot of water on a planet that spins. As different areas heat up and cool down the water changes state and moves around. If the water never moved around enough to support worldwide plant life there never would have been worldwide plant life. However, it does.

Organisms with two genders are more successful, at least in terms of achieving and maintaining complexity. Everything that reproduces asexually is tiny and simple. I imagine it has something to do with specialization.

Tickle induced laughter is probalby a short-circuit in the brain. We can't tickle ourselves. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with either survival or replication, but neither does the hair on the back of my fingers (it's still there, though). While tickling laughter doesn't aid us in any way, neither does it impede us. Which means there is no pressure to select against it and it is therefore irrelevant.

We can think about the past and future because the capacity to do so is a huge survival advantage. Q.E.D.

Basically, I think you're getting to enamored of the idea that the must be "more" to the world. I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying that you shouldn't ignore perfectly good scientific explanations when they exist. Science has cast light into pretty much all of the dark corners in the world, there aren't many mysteries left. At least none that can be investigated by normal people. At this point you have to be an overspecialized genius to figure anything new out.fixed broken quote tags

[Psyborg]

While the Biology books all appear very much correct, there is something to be said about the difference between chaos and order. Even Chaos Theory seems to indicate that there is order in perceived chaos. Thus I give you a computer technician's view of DNA and evolution.

In a nutshell:

DNA: Made up of a quaternary programming structure in blocks of three which leads to coding for specific structures under specific circumstances. This looks to be a programming language. What's more, it's a base programming language that alters under different chemical circumstances. What's more beyond that, there appears to be built-in codes both for random mutation (perceived as "error") and forced mutation (integrons, for example).

Let's take this one step further.

Chemistry, on the whole, is rather ordered. In order for any one product to be made, a pretty specific reaction must occur. What's more, any reaction in a mix of possible reactions can be the effect of a previous reaction and/or the cause of another reaction, yet even this can be predicted to some degree of certainty if a person knows all of the variables. I'm not claiming it would be easy, but it would be possible.

Physics... We won't even go into that. Suffice it to say, we're getting to the point whereas the entire history of the universe will eventually lead to a not-so-simple, likely not base-10 derived equation.

What I'm trying to say is this: IF the Big Bang happened more or less as currently thought, IF the chemistry of the universe was developed in the way we currently think, and IF this chemistry eventually led to organic molecules which eventually led to more and more complex molecular reactions to the point of creating what we now know as life, is it remotely possible that this could all be explained physically and chemically in equations?

In other words, what if this was all pre-programmed and is all just one giant lab experiment?

Now, back to reality...

[Tarrick]

We can think about the past and future because the capacity to do so is a huge survival advantage. Q.E.D.

I hate to break it to you, but saying that is like saying that birds can fly because it's what they do. Being able to do something has nothing, nothing to do with needing something, or "it would be nice". Saying that we can think about the past because it's good for us is a completely flawed argument. Cause and Effect. Remember that order.

[blueback]

We can think about the past and future because the capacity to do so is a huge survival advantage. *Q.E.D.

I hate to break it to you, but saying that is like saying that birds can fly because it's what they do. Being able to do something has nothing, nothing to do with needing something, or "it would be nice". Saying that we can think about the past because it's good for us is a completely flawed argument. Cause and Effect. Remember that order.



Well, it's no more flawed than the logic that led to asking the question in the first place. I based my response on the question, not on the question I think should have been asked.

Asking the question "Why can we think about the past and future?" is based on the assumption there must be a reason. After all, if you don't think there is an answer to the question you don't bother to ask it.

So, lets say there is a reason why we can think about the past and the future. If there is a reason then there must have been a self-directed individual who chose the reason. Rocks can't reason; neither can gravity; only something with the capacity for rational thought can make reasons. That means there is a Creator or, possibly, a Director. Which means that the question was only asked to lend implied support for the idea that the human mind is the product of a rational process, not chance.

However, that logic is circular. It's like going back in time and having sex with your mom to produce yourself. If the only rational mind we know to be in existence was created by a previously existing rational mind, then that rational mind must have been created by a rational mind that existed even earlier. . .and so on. Which means that either time is circular, or at some point the first rational mind appeared spontaneously. If time is circular we could recreate ourselves and events actually can occur exactly the same way twice, which seems to violate the laws of the universe as we understand them now. If there was a first rational mind then there's no reason we couldn't be it.

Okay, that was all about why I answered the question the way I did.

Actually, being able to do something has a lot to do with needing it. Things that evolved, and had to survive at every step along the way, only added functionality gradually. Humans aren't cell phones which only have to work when they're booted up for the first time. We were never on a drawing board.

If we NEEDED the ability to collect oxygen to survive then we wouldn't be here having this conversation if we didn't have lungs. In the same way, if we NEEDED the ability to remember where we hid stashes of food to survive we wouldn't be here if we'd starved to death trying to remember. What I said has nothing to do with what you claim I said. The ability to think about the past and future is a function that has no obvious trade-offs. It is simply an upgrade. Flight, on the other hand, requires huge trade-offs. Most living things don't fly, birds do, which means flight is not a requirement for survival or replication. Also, birds are no more successful than any creature of camparable weight so flight is simply a different possibility, not an advantage.

Not all living things can think about the past and the future. They have a rudimentary genetic memory in the form of traits that are most successful in the average situation, but no ability to remember what just happened or imagine what could. Which means the ability to remember and imagine are not necessary for survival. However, the more complex an organism gets, the more energy it is capable of processing, the larger an effect it can have on its environment, the better its abilty to remember and imagine. Which means the capacity to think about the past and future is an advantage, not just another option.

Capability to remember and imagine = unnecessary for survival or reproduction, but an advantage none the less.

[Tarrick]

Asking the question "Why can we think about the past and future?" is based on the assumption there must be a reason. After all, if you don't think there is an answer to the question you don't bother to ask it.


I prefer to ask this question: "We can, so there is a how. So whydid the how happen? There may be a dozen different reasons for anything to happen on purpose, or none at all. However, there is a Cause and Effect to everything. We can see because light is produced by the sun (or a other light source) and bounces off of an object and then enters our eyes where then it is translated into an image that we can "see."

Now try and use that logic with past and future. Here an example of "Past": We have the ability to retain things that we have observed. That's how we remember. The why would be that our brains, when exposed to stimuli, record it. At the same time, related things may become associated with it, linking them to it. When we view something that is a trigger for the memory, we may recall it, more or less imperfectly.

Now then, how did we get the ability to retain information like that? What was the cause? Short answer for some is "Evolution." Others short answer is "Design".


Now then, let's play a game. For evolution, draw a circle in the middle of a piece of paper, about 2 inches in diameter. This is your stock organism. Then draw a line a the bottom, or top, of the page. This is your destination of a successful evolution. You will also need some dice. Now, you see evolution is a result of cumulative "good" mutations. However, mutations are not planned, they are random. So, roll your dice (let's say two) and whenever you roll 12 you get to draw a line. Then roll again, and if you roll a 12 again, you can draw a half inch line towards that goal. Every time you roll something different on the second turn, you draw a random line in a different direction. If you draw a length of a line to any edge but the edge with your determined line, your critter dies because of too many flaws.

And this gives you way way better odds then normal.

So you see, I've come to the conclusion that either life would not have come very far before it died out again, or it wouldn't have changed very much.

[iamnotspock]

I don't know how you got this far without reading Dawkins. Read The Selfish Gene. And read the Blind Watchmaker. He specifically dismantles the clock metaphor. And the notion of intentional design.

As for the argument that entropy denies evolution, and that there ought to be more missing links, here is an elegant philosophical rebuttal:

Entropy requires that the disorder of the entire system increase. So, supposing the order of some species shall increase, such as the rise of humans from apes, then that of another shall decrease, such as the disappearance of missing links. Were the entire system to become more orderly, preserving the missing links while evolving humans, then that might violate the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, a lack of missing links is evidence of entropy at play in evolution, and evolution itself preserves entropy.

Perhaps it is no surprise that the more advaned we become, the more chaos and destruction we spread?

[iamnotspock]

Also, if I may respond to your game scenario. If you simple multiply random probabilities, which is what you are doing with dice, then you get to very tiny probabilities. However, while any given mutation may be random, like a roll of the dice, the organism itself has a NON-RANDOM chance of survival b/c it benefits from all of the evolution-selected CUMULATIVE RANDOM CHANGES.

For example, the predator with slightly better vision reliably gets the prey more often than chance predicts, and the prey with slightly better camoflauge reliably escapes more often than chance predicts. This constrasts with the next roll of your dice, which will always have the same random probabilities unaltered by any previous rolls.

Thus, the fallacy of the game metaphor is to imply that evolution is a random walk -- an accumulation of chance events. In fact it is a recursive (self-modifying) process of non-random events. It is actually no more remarkable to find evolved species than it is to find organized layers of pebbles on a beach. Through mere wave action, the pebbles are sorted by mass. And through mere selection pressure, the genes are sorted by survival ability.

[blueback]

Asking the question "Why can we think about the past and future?" is based on the assumption there must be a reason. *After all, if you don't think there is an answer to the question you don't bother to ask it.


there is a Cause and Effect to everything. We can see because light is produced by the sun (or a other light source) and bounces off of an object and then enters our eyes where then it is translated into an image that we can "see."

Now then, how did we get the ability to retain information like that? What was the cause? Short answer for some is "Evolution." Others short answer is "Design".

Now then, let's play a game. For evolution, draw a circle in the middle of a piece of paper, about 2 inches in diameter. This is your stock organism. Then draw a line a the bottom, or top, of the page. This is your destination of a successful evolution. *You will also need some dice. Now, you see evolution is a result of cumulative "good" mutations. However, mutations are not planned, they are random. So, roll your dice (let's say two) and whenever you roll 12 you get to draw a line. Then roll again, and if you roll a 12 again, you can draw a half inch line towards that goal. Every time you roll something different on the second turn, you draw a random line in a different direction. If you draw a length of a line to any edge but the edge with your determined line, your critter dies because of too many flaws.


One thing at at time:

Well, everything has a cause except God. So, are you saying that God is the cause of everything, and therefore doesn't have a cause, or are you saying that EVERYTHING has a cause?

The light analogy is accurate in and of itself, but it doesn't apply to a situation involving concious direction. The light doesn't travel from the sun to our eyes because someone wants it to, it just travels. That's what light does. It would still travel even if we weren't around to see it. Yes, I realize that there is some debate as to whether or not something is actually happening if no one observes it, but the discussion is pretty much bunk because as soon as we do observe it everything looks just like it should. Things don't turn out differently simply because we weren't watching them.

"For every problem, there is one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken. Why do you lump evolution and design into the same sentence like they are both equally valid? By any standard except personal preference evolution wins, hands down. Evidence? Evolution wins. Logical? Evolution. Number of experts who agree? Evolution. Prestige of experts who agree? Evolution.

I like your game, it is clever. Having never seen it before I had to play it. I didn't actually have dice, but I think I played according to the rules of probability. However, as a rebuttal to the ability for organisms to spontaneously increase in complexity, if such complexity aids survival, it is flawed.

You see, of course, that you are only playing out the life of one organism. The chances of any one organism making an evolutionary leap all on its own are staggeringly small. If you want to play your game in such a way that it actually represents reality, get a billion of your friends to play it at the same time. I gurantee that some of them will hit all 12's. So there will be a population of slightly more complex organisms which will make copies of themselves and start the process all over again. Remember that an organism doesn't have to evolve to survive. There are plenty of examples of animals that haven't evolved in millions of years. I'm sure you can find a few just by googling them.

[thegnat]

To do a chemical rebuttal of "more ordered life goes against the second law of thermodynamics" claim in this thread.
I'm not sure how much chemical background everyone has on entropy and everything. So if I'm saying things that are review to you don't take it as an insult to your intelligence. I'm taking a chem thermodynamics and kinetics class right now actually and we just talked about entropy so I got all the nitty-gritty details *evil laugh*

Yes, entropy implies more disorder and the universe generally likes more disorder to happen in a system and reactions generally like to go towards the more disordered product.

Well, ok, let's just say
case 1:
the reaction is getting more *disordered* and the surroundings are getting more ordered *however* the value of the disorder is greater than the value of the order in the surroundings thus making the universe more disordered over all.

case 2:
The reaction is getting more *ordered* and the surroundings are getting more *disordered*, however the value of the disorder of the surroundings is greater than the value of the ordering of the reaction, so again the universe increases its entropy yet again.

reactions can happen that are non-spontaneous if they are given a lot of energy. Like a bolt of lightning.

My main point here is that reactions that are thermodynamically unfavorable can happen under the right conditions. way way way back at the beginning of the earth's life it is possible these conditions were there.

And they can be kinetically controlled too.

[Tarrick]

True. But can't you also say that under favorable conditions and a lot of luck, you can through a bucket of parts out a window and have them assemble into a working device midflight?

Very improbable to the point of impossible. But in the end, what is impossible?

[GOD]

Well,

The planet could have been seeded by external factors (such as asteroids/meteorites).

Obviously, life could arise by itself on the planet.

But just remember "Its the coconuts that float across oceans and seed small islands"... maybe this is story for planet Earth.... which then poses the huge issue of where did the seeds come from...

[thegnat]

True. But can't you also say that under favorable conditions and a lot of luck, you can through a bucket of parts out a window and have them assemble into a working device midflight?

Very improbable to the point of impossible. But in the end, what is impossible?

Yeah, it is very improbable.

Well that's kind of like saying that when you throw sodium in water, the exploding hydrogen and oxygen formed will form hydrogen peroxide in mid-air.

The product is of hydrogen and oxygen is so favorable and they're already in such a favorable state that it's practically impossible, let alone ridiculous to think that hydrogen peroxide would form.

However, let's take...hmm....not a combustion reaction, those are very favorable energetically usually....

The reaction that's stuck in my head is one we've been studying in inorganic lab....([Pt(terpy)Cl]Cl + RSH --> [Pt(terpy)SR] where the product is more stable than the reactant but by how much? you'd have to run the reverse reaction - see if any amount of chloride would knock off the thiolate (RS-))

Let's compare two reactions here. Reaction A is the sodium into water and it goes BOOM! (those are so fun)

Reaction B is another chemical reaction. Where the product of it is more stable than the reactant. So it's favorable.
But it's not *that* much more favorable. It's only favorable by oh 10 kJ of energy let's say. Thus you can put in 10 kJ of energy and get the reactant. It'll still happen. It's just not spontaneous.

Anyway my point is that Reaction A is *so much more favorable* that it's *irreversible*. And reaction B, although favorable, is still *reversible*.

It's the whole kind of equilibrium theory. One side of the equilibrium will be favored, yet it's still reversible.

what is impossible? who knows? maybe we haven't reached that point yet. Perhaps science can reverse what are now irreversible reactions in the future and we just haven't got to that point.

[Epicurus]

I think its quite much possible that life has never started and will never end either, I mean no one has been able to create life only merely spread or copy it, and if you assume that ''the everything'' is boundless and eternal then that is even more possible.
Now that doesn't have to much to do with the evolutionary theory but maybe the missing links set asside from it, the beginning.

[blueback]

I don't like the self-assembling-watch metaphor. It's like saying that if you cut an animal up into all its different pieces and throw them into a tornado the animal might reassemble itself. I mean, come on, no one would consider that a legitimate question for a moment. It's clearly as absurd as the one about a bucket full of mechanical parts reassembling into a machine.

However, it is easier to think about than billions of years of evolution, so I understand it's attractiveness.

Here's an example; we've all seen those rock formations where there are several rocks balanced on each other in an incredibly improbable way. No one looks at those and tells a geologist that God arranged them that way because you couldn't throw those boulders together and have them all balance like that. So why do people tell biologists that God must have thrown animals together rather than them being produced by gradual, steady change?

I mean, there are fossils left over with examples of previous evolutionary steps. Do you think they were all faked?

And another thing. . .if humans (and everything else) were designed by a perfect being why would we have so many flaws? Why would we have an appendix? Why would we have little muscles attached to your hair follicles but not enough hair to keep ourselves warm? Why would we get ingrown toenails? Why would we get cancer? Why would we have genetic birth defects? Why would we only be able to see visible light? Why would we have poor senses of smell? Why would we have a badly structured curve in our spine? Why would we have a tail bone? Why would infants be more attracted to beautiful faces? There are so many things about us that are useless, arbitrary, and/or obviously not the product of a coherent design.

[marcclarke]

I don't know how you got this far without reading Dawkins. Read The Selfish Gene. And read the Blind Watchmaker. He specifically dismantles the clock metaphor. And the notion of intentional design.

As for the argument that entropy denies evolution, and that there ought to be more missing links, here is an elegant philosophical rebuttal:

Entropy requires that the disorder of the entire system increase. So, supposing the order of some species shall increase, such as the rise of humans from apes, then that of another shall decrease, such as the disappearance of missing links. Were the entire system to become more orderly, preserving the missing links while evolving humans, then that might violate the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, a lack of missing links is evidence of entropy at play in evolution, and evolution itself preserves entropy.

Perhaps it is no surprise that the more advaned we become, the more chaos and destruction we spread?

If I may, that last sentence suggests to me that perhaps the original poster does not quite understand some of the implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The entropy of a closed system increases, taken system wide. However, the earth is an open system, with energy coming from the sun. There is no thermodynamic requirement that the entropy of an open system increase. Thus, there is no thermodynamic expectation that as humans advance (or don't advance, or devolve) that we spread chaos or destruction. By the Laws of Thermodynamics in an open system, we (humans) could just as well be neutral (in entropic terms) or even spread order (in entropic terms). I respectfully assert that we humans are, in general, spreading order and increasing the degree of order of the earth.

[Monte314]

Definition

"Missing Links": The non-existent fossil evidence for macro-evolution.

[thod]

This thread is a missing link. Whatever possessed someone to reopen such an old thread.

[marcclarke]

True. But can't you also say that under favorable conditions and a lot of luck, you can through a bucket of parts out a window and have them assemble into a working device midflight?

Very improbable to the point of impossible. But in the end, what is impossible?

I fear that there may be a Logical Fallacy at work here, or perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Let us ask the question another way, using another metaphor, please.
Let us say that we want to climb a tall mountain. Do we climb the mountain by leaping in a single bound from the base of the mountain to its summit? Or do we climb the mountain one step at a time, step after step, sometimes taking the wrong route to the summit and having to retrace our steps and find another route?
In other words, do we assert that because we can not leap from the base of the mountain to the summit of the mountain in a single bound, that therefore the mountain can not be climbed? Do we then assert that because the mountain clearly can not be climbed, therefore some specific invisible supernatural entity must exist?

[EsoteriEccentri]

The linking creatures were out competed by the more evolved members of their species, which is why we see none now. However, there are some gaps in fossil records for certain species evolutions. Still, there could probably be reasons for this.

There is one thing that perplexes me, and that is that there are animals like the giraffe around. The giraffe has a number of special adaptions which allow it to have its long neck, which would all have had to developed at exactly the same time.
I suppose because the neck didn't suddenly shoot up at one time, as the neck grew the adaptions had a longer time to develop - but even so, when you read about them it does make you wonder.

Everything you're talking about is too complex for me, but as someone who believes in evolution I think that the first life on earth and the first strand of DNA is somehow even more interesting.

[blueback]

yeah, actually the giraffe thing is pretty straightforward. It started out as a normal grazer. Then, it realized that it could graze on the low hanging branches of trees, not just on grass. Since there weren't any other animals eating the leaves, it gained an advantage. The ones that could eat low hanging leaves were better fed, and had more children. Over time the ones with slightly longer necks were even better fed, and had even more children. they gradually selected longer and longer necks, with the various support functions growing in tandem.

Evolution isn't complex, it's just simple principles working over a REALLY long time-frame. Humans have a hard time with probability, but over a period of millions of years probability is a better way to understand change then anecdotes.

[Monte314]

yeah, actually the giraffe thing is pretty straightforward. It started out as a normal grazer. Then, it realized that it could graze on the low hanging branches of trees, not just on grass. Since there weren't any other animals eating the leaves, it gained an advantage. The ones that could eat low hanging leaves were better fed, and had more children. Over time the ones with slightly longer necks were even better fed, and had even more children. they gradually selected longer and longer necks, with the various support functions growing in tandem.

Evolution isn't complex, it's just simple principles working over a REALLY long time-frame. Humans have a hard time with probability, but over a period of millions of years probability is a better way to understand change then anecdotes.
This has nothing to do with either speciation or macro-evolution.

[Mozzes]

Evolution isn't complex, it's just simple principles working over a REALLY long time-frame. Humans have a hard time with probability, but over a period of millions of years probability is a better way to understand change then anecdotes.

Evolution is quite complex, actually, especially at the proteomic and genetic level - both of which are quite young (and incomplete) fields of study. It certainly doesn't help that for a long time it was arrogantly assumed that only genes were significant - an assumption that is proving incorrect and considering genes only represent 1-2% of the genome we're playing a bit of catch-up figuring out the purpose of the non-coding genetic information.

[thod]

we're playing a bit of catch-up figuring out the purpose of the non-coding genetic information.

This assumes it has a purpose. The more fundamental question is if has any purpose. For example a piece could have once coded for some protein. That ceased to offer any advantage or disadvantage. So over time it became corrupted by mutation and is now just noise. Other mechanisms such as radiation damage or viral insertion would have the same effect.

I would illustrate this by vitamin C production in Humans, only humans (and guinea pigs) cannot manufacture it. The mutation, which is the final stage of production, was back in our monkey days when we could get all we needed from our fruit diets. Thus it was not harmful, now we retain most of the precursor mechanisms for production. Over time these can mutate away since they mutations will have no effect. A future biologist examining this would see junk DNA.

[Mozzes]

I guess that is the important question.

Some evidence that has emerged so far suggests that certain non-coding parts do have some function because they are highly conserved across species. I've also read an article which showed that damaging a non-coding section of DNA in a cell affected the final conformation of some proteins suggesting that those sections may not affect the amino acid sequence of proteins but that they may play a role in determining the structure (and thus function) of the protein.

[AJB]

In other words, what if this was all pre-programmed and is all just one giant lab experiment?

Now, back to reality...

Psyborg, I like the way you think -- so much that I'm inclined use an emoticon :thumbsup:

[Beery Swine]

I fear that there may be a Logical Fallacy at work here, or perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Let us ask the question another way, using another metaphor, please.
Let us say that we want to climb a tall mountain. Do we climb the mountain by leaping in a single bound from the base of the mountain to its summit? Or do we climb the mountain one step at a time, step after step, sometimes taking the wrong route to the summit and having to retrace our steps and find another route?
In other words, do we assert that because we can not leap from the base of the mountain to the summit of the mountain in a single bound, that therefore the mountain can not be climbed? Do we then assert that because the mountain clearly can not be climbed, therefore some specific invisible supernatural entity must exist?

Have you read Climbing Mount Improbable? I haven't read the book, but its easy to imagine that those words are the gist of a passage from it. Sounds like it could easily be one of his clever analogies, much like The Blind Watchmaker.