Intelligent Design

DerelictJunction · Dec 1, 2014

Oncedeceived said:
When I said earliest life forms I meant those in the late precambrian and Cambrian timelines. The Cynabacteria while being complex in their own right are followed by those life forms that have the complexity I was referring to. Up until the time of the late precambrian and Cambrian only "simple" life forms. At the earliest moment when life is present in the fossil evidence, it has a large amount of complexity already.

I don't think that bacteria were the simplest or earliest life forms. The life forms you refer to show up at least 2.5 billion years after the first life. Since, there has been a dramatic amount of evolution from the pre-Cambrian to now, in only 542 million years, I would think that 5 times that number of years might be able to build those complex molecular machines within the multiple quadrillion generations of one-celled organisms that existed in the oceans of Earth. This is especially true since trillions of those one-celled organisms existed at any one time during that 2.5 billion years.

Lots of chances to improve those chemical molecular machines.

Loudmouth · Dec 1, 2014

justlookinla said:
Where's the reality that humanity, and pine trees, are simply the product of a series of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago?

No one is making any such claim. Yet again, you are inventing a theory that no scientist is proposing or accepts. You are erecting a strawman to flail against to make yourself look more important.

justlookinla · Dec 1, 2014

Loudmouth said:
No one is making any such claim. Yet again, you are inventing a theory that no scientist is proposing or accepts. You are erecting a strawman to flail against to make yourself look more important.

No scientist makes the claim that a human and a pine tree share the first life form from long long ago? From what did humans and pine trees evolve then, if not from a common life form, according to scientists.

Loudmouth · Dec 1, 2014

justlookinla said:
No scientist makes the claim that a human and a pine tree share the first life form from long long ago?

Keep going. What else did you say?

justlookinla · Dec 1, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Keep going. What else did you say?

And that they're the result of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago.

Loudmouth · Dec 1, 2014

justlookinla said:
And that they're the result of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago.

That's the part that no scientist agrees with.

justlookinla · Dec 1, 2014

justlookinla said:
And that they're the result of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago.

Loudmouth said:
That's the part that no scientist agrees with.

UC - Berkley doesn't agree with you.

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak tree"

"
All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variationthat is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."

"Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organisms DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiologyall aspects of its life. So a change in an organisms DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not try to supply what the organism needs. In this respect, mutations are randomwhether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Evolution 101

EternalDragon · Dec 1, 2014

Loudmouth said:
That's the part that no scientist agrees with.

Oh, it gets even worse than that. The first ancestor to life was just
simple as far as biological content. Evolution has to also struggle
through an uphill battle of somehow adding more and more complex
features and body plans where there were none before. Sort of the
same idea as "something doesn't come from nothing."

Research has shown much more loss of biological traits over time,
not gains.

PsychoSarah · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Oh, it gets even worse than that. The first ancestor to life was just
simple as far as biological content. Evolution has to also struggle
through an uphill battle of somehow adding more and more complex
features and body plans where there were none before. Sort of the
same idea as "something doesn't come from nothing."

Research has shown much more loss of biological traits over time,
not gains.

Even if that was 100% true, exactly why would it be an issue for evolution?

DogmaHunter · Dec 2, 2014

justlookinla said:
UC - Berkley doesn't agree with you.

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak tree"

"
All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variationthat is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."

"Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organisms DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiologyall aspects of its life. So a change in an organisms DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not try to supply what the organism needs. In this respect, mutations are randomwhether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Evolution 101

If you can't see the difference between what you quoted from the berkeley site and your broken record, then I don't know what to tell you.

DogmaHunter · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Oh, it gets even worse than that. The first ancestor to life was just simple as far as biological content. Evolution has to also struggle through an uphill battle of somehow adding more and more complex features and body plans where there were none before.

That is exactly what evolution explains, Einstein... How simple biological things become more complex over generations. That IS what the theory is: it details a mechanism that does exactly that.

EternalDragon · Dec 2, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
That is exactly what evolution explains, Einstein... How simple biological things become more complex over generations. That IS what the theory is: it details a mechanism that does exactly that.

I know what it explains. Having it happen is quite another story.

DerelictJunction · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Oh, it gets even worse than that. The first ancestor to life was just
simple as far as biological content. Evolution has to also struggle
through an uphill battle of somehow adding more and more complex
features and body plans where there were none before. Sort of the
same idea as "something doesn't come from nothing."

I am trying to follow your logic but got lost in the comparison you are making.

You say that adding complexity to the genome is like getting something from nothing. However, I don't see how they are alike.

The genome is made up of chemicals. In order for the earliest simple one-celled life forms to reproduce, they had to build the RNA/DNA and proteins for an second life form and then split into two life forms that were clones or almost clones of the first life form.

If the single celled organism could get the chemicals from the environment to build the genome of that offspring, what keeps that organism from getting the chemicals to add to that genome by "accidentally" copying a string of the RNA/DNA for example?

Looks like something (copy of string of DNA) from something (chemicals in the environment).

Research has shown much more loss of biological traits over time,
not gains.

You are going to have to produce evidence for this before I can possibly agree with it.

PsychoSarah · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
I know what it explains. Having it happen is quite another story.

I would take your concerns more seriously if you had non apologist sources to back them. I don't trust sources that gain from presenting a one sided view and have nothing preventing them from presenting misinformation and strait up lies. And I said they have nothing stopping them from lying, not necessarily that all they do is lie.

Loudmouth · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Oh, it gets even worse than that. The first ancestor to life was just
simple as far as biological content. Evolution has to also struggle
through an uphill battle of somehow adding more and more complex
features and body plans where there were none before. Sort of the
same idea as "something doesn't come from nothing."

Research has shown much more loss of biological traits over time,
not gains.

That's not it, either. The underlined bit is the farthest in error.

Loudmouth · Dec 2, 2014

justlookinla said:
UC - Berkley doesn't agree with you.

Yes they do.

"
All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation—that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."

Notice that they include natural selection over multiple generations. You had mutations alone in a single generation.

DogmaHunter · Dec 2, 2014

EternalDragon said:
I know what it explains. Having it happen is quite another story.

We see it happen everyday. Just because you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it...

EternalDragon · Dec 2, 2014

DerelictJunction said:
I am trying to follow your logic but got lost in the comparison you are making.

You say that adding complexity to the genome is like getting something from nothing. However, I don't see how they are alike.

The genome is made up of chemicals. In order for the earliest simple one-celled life forms to reproduce, they had to build the RNA/DNA and proteins for an second life form and then split into two life forms that were clones or almost clones of the first life form.

If the single celled organism could get the chemicals from the environment to build the genome of that offspring, what keeps that organism from getting the chemicals to add to that genome by "accidentally" copying a string of the RNA/DNA for example?

Looks like something (copy of string of DNA) from something (chemicals in the environment).

You are going to have to produce evidence for this before I can possibly agree with it.

You first.

DerelictJunction · Dec 3, 2014

EternalDragon said:
You first.

Me first, what?

Let's recap. In response to your claim that adding complexity to an organism was like getting something from nothing, I wrote:

DerelictJunction said:
I am trying to follow your logic but got lost in the comparison you are making.

You say that adding complexity to the genome is like getting something from nothing. However, I don't see how they are alike.

The genome is made up of chemicals. In order for the earliest simple one-celled life forms to reproduce, they had to build the RNA/DNA and proteins for an second life form and then split into two life forms that were clones or almost clones of the first life form.

If the single celled organism could get the chemicals from the environment to build the genome of that offspring, what keeps that organism from getting the chemicals to add to that genome by "accidentally" copying a string of the RNA/DNA for example?

Looks like something (copy of string of DNA) from something (chemicals in the environment).

Do you disagree with my logic? If so, can you show me where it is incorrect and why?

You also posted:

EternalDragon said:
Research has shown much more loss of biological traits over time, not gains.

My reply

DerelictJunction said:
You are going to have to produce evidence for this before I can possibly agree with it.

So, does your "you first" mean that I'm supposed to produce evidence to support your statement? I don't know if your statement is true or false. However, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is not a good faith debate tactic. You claimed that "research" shows much more loss of biological traits. Please provide us with links to that research.

Additionally, it doesn't matter if there has been more reduction in complexity than gain in recent (last 65 million years or so) time. All we need in order to show that an increase in complexity is not impossible, is to provide one example of an increase in complexity, which I will provide once you provide evidence to support your claim.

You first.

EternalDragon · Dec 3, 2014

DerelictJunction said:
Me first, what?

Let's recap. In response to your claim that adding complexity to an organism was like getting something from nothing, I wrote:
Do you disagree with my logic? If so, can you show me where it is incorrect and why?

You also posted:

My reply

So, does your "you first" mean that I'm supposed to produce evidence to support your statement? I don't know if your statement is true or false. However, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is not a good faith debate tactic. You claimed that "research" shows much more loss of biological traits. Please provide us with links to that research.

Additionally, it doesn't matter if there has been more reduction in complexity than gain in recent (last 65 million years or so) time. All we need in order to show that an increase in complexity is not impossible, is to provide one example of an increase in complexity, which I will provide once you provide evidence to support your claim.

You first.

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

Intelligent Design

DerelictJunction

Guest

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Counselor

Chaotic Neutral

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Counselor

DerelictJunction

Guest

Chaotic Neutral

Contributor

Contributor

Code Monkey

Counselor

DerelictJunction

Guest

Counselor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency