Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Oncedeceived]

My position as an Old Earth Creationist is determined by a recognition of evolutionary processes that occurred in the past as well as in the present. I appreciate the scientific community and its benefits to all living things. I am neither anti-scientific neither am I anti-evolutionary in mindset. My worldview is determined by the knowledge that God exists and that He is the Christian God. That He did created the universe and all living organisms therein. I do not wish to discuss how I know that God exists in this thread. I do not wish to discuss why I believe He is the Christian God in this thread either. I would like to stay within the scientific areas of discussion. I just wanted to be sure that everyone was aware of my worldview.

I have no problem with the ToE as defined:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

When asked :
For example, if we rephrase it to: "do you think the cladogram breaks down somewhere when looked at it from a purely scientific viewpoint and if so, where? Do you agree that the best scientific conclusion from the cladogram is descent with modification and if not, why not?
My view is that we are looking at the world with many limitations. Although, we can see the evidence of evolutionary processes at work and can determine many facets of this process there are very significant periods when critical transitions occurred and we must hypothesize the reason behind them.

I think that the best way to show this is to take it step by step and give examples of this conclusion.

Although the first living organism is not included per se in ToE and is under the heading of abiogenesis. I feel this is important. The study of evolution does not concern itself to this so I will eliminate that from my explanations of contentions.

I will use the tree of life as a direction to focus my views and give examples to my conclusions on ToE in relationship to my worldview.

• The three major lineages of the tree.

The relationships between these: Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea are not definite.

The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. This is crucial to molecular evolution.

• Not only are the relationships between the three lineages uncertain but in the Eubacteria lineage itself. I would also add that the flagellum in this taxa has its own set of explanatory problems.
• Chordate body development is another area where I feel scientific answers are not in evidence.
• Comparative genetics have fostered some questions for me as well.

These are the ones that come to mind when I think about examples of scientific “breaks” in the criteria of classification.

 

[Lilandra]

My position as an Old Earth Creationist is determined by a recognition of evolutionary processes that occurred in the past as well as in the present. I appreciate the scientific community and its benefits to all living things. I am neither anti-scientific neither am I anti-evolutionary in mindset. My worldview is determined by the knowledge that God exists and that He is the Christian God. That He did created the universe and all living organisms therein. I do not wish to discuss how I know that God exists in this thread. I do not wish to discuss why I believe He is the Christian God in this thread either. I would like to stay within the scientific areas of discussion. I just wanted to be sure that everyone was aware of my worldview.

Before I say anything, I appreciate the effort you put in this post. Personally, I have no intention of arguing the Christian God, the Bible, or the concept of God in general.

Unless, these concepts are brought up as a competing explanation for the origin of all species. Another case, would be insertion in any "gaps" in explaining biodiversity.

I want to address the rest of your post seperately. I may ask for clarification first. I don't want to misunderstand your points.

 

[Lilandra]

I will use the tree of life as a direction to focus my views and give examples to my conclusions on ToE in relationship to my worldview.

• The three major lineages of the tree.

The relationships between these: Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea are not definite.

The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. This is crucial to molecular evolution.

• Not only are the relationships between the three lineages uncertain but in the Eubacteria lineage itself. I would also add that the flagellum in this taxa has its own set of explanatory problems.
• Chordate body development is another area where I feel scientific answers are not in evidence.
• Comparative genetics have fostered some questions for me as well.

These are the ones that come to mind when I think about examples of scientific “breaks” in the criteria of classification.

First question, is your contention that the process of evolution is inadequate to explain the uncertainity of the specific lineages you have outlined?

or

Is it that fossil evidence doesn't adequately explain the specific lineages?

Second question: If the process of evolution (as you defined earlier) doesn't explain some important developments, do you have an alternative explanation for example for the flagellum or the body plans of chordates?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Before I say anything, I appreciate the effort you put in this post. Personally, I have no intention of arguing the Christian God, the Bible, or the concept of God in general.

Thanks.

Okay.

Unless, these concepts are brought up as a competing explanation for the origin of all species. Another case, would be insertion in any "gaps" in explaining biodiversity.

I want to address the rest of your post seperately. I may ask for clarification first. I don't want to misunderstand your points.

Okay.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First question, is your contention that the process of evolution is inadequate to explain the uncertainity of the specific lineages you have outlined?

I feel that the ToE does not have an explanation for the uncertainty.

Is it that fossil evidence doesn't adequately explain the specific lineages?

There is no fossil evidence for molecular systems.

Second question: If the process of evolution (as you defined earlier) doesn't explain some important developments, do you have an alternative explanation for example for the flagellum or the body plans of chordates?

If the scientists that specialize in this area are unable to resolve the issue I doubt that I would be able to.

 

[Lilandra]

I feel that the ToE does not have an explanation for the uncertainty.

Hold that thought. I will address it.

There is no fossil evidence for molecular systems.

This is a paper from 1999...

Microfossils

1), stromatolites (2), and sedimentary carbon isotope ratios (3) all indicate that microbial organisms inhabited the oceans in Archean times [>2500 million years ago (Ma)]. But these lines of evidence are not very informative about what these microbes were or how they lived. Potentially, a better insight into primordial biological diversity can be obtained from molecular fossils derived from cellular and membrane lipids ("biomarkers").

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/archean_molecular_fossils_and_th.htm

If the scientists that specialize in this area are unable to resolve the issue I doubt that I would be able to.

Granted. There are gaps in scientific knowledge. However, do you acknowledge that maybe some of the "uncertainties" you brought up may in fact have been addressed by science, but you are unaware of the research?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'll look this over and comment tomorrow. We are watching the Pirates of the Carribean Dead man's chest now.

 

[Tomk80]

Hold that thought. I will address it.


This is a paper from 1999...

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/archean_molecular_fossils_and_th.htm

But what Oncedeceived seems to be aiming at are molecular systems like the flagellum. Sure, bacteria and such have left imprints, but as far as I am aware those imprints are never so good as to identify the molecular structure of flagella of past micro-organisms. Stromatolites definitely don't do much to elaborate on such systems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But what Oncedeceived seems to be aiming at are molecular systems like the flagellum. Sure, bacteria and such have left imprints, but as far as I am aware those imprints are never so good as to identify the molecular structure of flagella of past micro-organisms. Stromatolites definitely don't do much to elaborate on such systems.

Correct.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hold that thought. I will address it.

Okay.

Granted. There are gaps in scientific knowledge. However, do you acknowledge that maybe some of the "uncertainties" you brought up may in fact have been addressed by science, but you are unaware of the research?

That is always a possibility, if you have such information you can present it and I'll be better informed. I have at such time not found any such information.

 

[Lilandra]

But what Oncedeceived seems to be aiming at are molecular systems like the flagellum. Sure, bacteria and such have left imprints, but as far as I am aware those imprints are never so good as to identify the molecular structure of flagella of past micro-organisms. Stromatolites definitely don't do much to elaborate on such systems.

What?

Honestly, I am not sure what she is looking for. With the flagellum in particular, what would satisfy such a request?

Fossilized transitional micro-organisms with flagellums in various stages of development?

That is a Herculean request to satisfy. Intelligent Design posits the same sort of impossible to have evolved argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What?

Honestly, I am not sure what she is looking for. With the flagellum in particular, what would satisfy such a request?

I assume that you were giving the link to the paper in response to my comment that there were no fossils for molecular systems. I was not requesting anything.

That is a Herculean request to satisfy. Intelligent Design posits the same sort of impossible to have evolved argument.

You are misunderstanding the issue I think.

 

[Lilandra]

I assume that you were giving the link to the paper in response to my comment that there were no fossils for molecular systems. I was not requesting anything.

I was posting about molecular fossils.

I think Tom was saying that you were referring to developments like the flagellum.

Perhaps in reference to this statement.

Not only are the relationships between the three lineages uncertain but in the Eubacteria lineage itself. I would also add that the flagellum in this taxa has its own set of explanatory problems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was posting about molecular fossils.

I think Tom was saying that you were referring to developments like the flagellum.

Perhaps in reference to this statement.

I was thinking that there are no fossils that would show the flagellum or other molecular systems.



Quote by Lily:

Is it that fossil evidence doesn't adequately explain the specific lineages?

response from Oncedeceived:

There is no fossil evidence for molecular systems.

 

[Lilandra]

I was thinking that there are no fossils that would show the flagellum or other molecular systems.

I was bringing up the fossil record in regards to your points about the "relationships among the major lineages of life".

There are molecular fossils that can be examined to sort out evolutionary relationships even at the molecular level. Although they are not detailed enough to precisely figure out systems like the flagellum's development. The fossils are partly relevant to your contention about the relationships among Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea.

Also, the fossil record can be examined to understand the development of Chordate body plans.

• • The three major lineages of the tree.

  The relationships between these: Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea are not definite.
  
  The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. This is crucial to molecular evolution.
  
  
  

  • Not only are the relationships between the three lineages uncertain but in the Eubacteria lineage itself. I would also add that the flagellum in this taxa has its own set of explanatory problems.
  • Chordate body development is another area where I feel scientific answers are not in evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was bringing up the fossil record in regards to your points about the "relationships among the major lineages of life".

Where does this fossil record show the relionships among the lineages?

There are molecular fossils that can be examined to sort out evolutionary relationships even at the molecular level. Although they are not detailed enough to precisely figure out systems like the flagellum's development. The fossils are partly relevant to your contention about the relationships among Eubacteria, Eukaryotes and Archaea.

I am sorry but I don't see that in the information you provided, perhaps I missed it?

Also, the fossil record can be examined to understand the development of Chordate body plans.

Really, please present it.

 

[Lilandra]

Where does this fossil record show the relionships among the lineages?

How about a new thread about microbiotic evolution? That way some biologists can chime in.

I will try to frame it with as much as I understand about the topic. We can go from there. It won't be as personal either. So we can just discuss science. When the discussion is finished there. We can move to chordate body plan development.

Both are broad topics, it easier for me to discuss one then the other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How about a new thread about microbiotic evolution? That way some biologists can chime in.

Why do you want a new thread? Are we finished then with "the Challenge"?

I will try to frame it with as much as I understand about the topic. We can go from there. It won't be as personal either. So we can just discuss science. When the discussion is finished there. We can move to chordate body plan development.

You have my head spinning here. First I want to keep my position out and just discuss evolution due to the fact that you were under the assumption that I didn't understand it. You said that I needed to bring my position into it to discuss it properly and when I do you want to skip back to holding the conversation just to Science.

As far as having Biologists chiming in, what do you mean exactly?

Both are broad topics, it easier for me to discuss one then the other.

They are broad topics and I agree that separating the two makes sense, but microbiology encompasses a great deal of topics so specifically what are we discussing?

 

[Lilandra]

Why do you want a new thread? Are we finished then with "the Challenge"?

i am more intersted in a scientific discussion on the merits of the ToE than in proving that I am more knowledgeable than another poster.

If you want to stay in that sort of discussion, that is fine with me.

You have my head spinning here. First I want to keep my position out and just discuss evolution due to the fact that you were under the assumption that I didn't understand it. You said that I needed to bring my position into it to discuss it properly and when I do you want to skip back to holding the conversation just to Science.

Yes, I do want your position out on evolution. A discussion of evolution is going to be scientific by necessity.

It is the same discussion to me.

As far as having Biologists chiming in, what do you mean exactly?

I just think the discussion could be more enlightening with other contributions. No sinister motives necessary.

They are broad topics and I agree that separating the two makes sense, but microbiology encompasses a great deal of topics so specifically what are we discussing?

The lineages of ancient microscopic life. The contention you brought up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i am more intersted in a scientific discussion on the merits of the ToE than in proving that I am more knowledgeable than another poster.

Hey, you were the one that assumed that I was held no knowledge of ToE, or at least that I couldn't considering that I was a Creationist.

If you want to stay in that sort of discussion, that is fine with me.

It was your challenge, it is up to you.

Yes, I do want your position out on evolution. A discussion of evolution is going to be scientific by necessity.

That is rather ironic considering that you said that a discussion of evolution would have to relate to my position. Regardless, I feel comfortable either way.

It is the same discussion to me.

Okay.

I just think the discussion could be more enlightening with other contributions. No sinister motives necessary.

I didn't feel you were being sinister, I just wanted to know what page we are on. If you are still in the mode of my knowledge vs. yours then I feel bringing in other people is an advantage for you. If you concede that I am as knowlegeable about ToE as you (or at least have a correct and working understanding of it) then we can go into a discussion that includes anyone you wish.

The lineages of ancient microscopic life. The contention you brought up.

Okay.