Multiple Origins & Evolution

[J_B_]

Yes. From the scientific standpoint, correlation is confirmation, because science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I appreciate the distinction you're making. With that said, there is a difference between observing evolution, such as in bacteria, and having positive confirmation that one descended from the other vs. deducing it from circumstantial evidence.

As such, I would instead say a single origin has not been falsified rather than saying it's been confirmed.

 

[ottawak]

I appreciate the distinction you're making. With that said, there is a difference between observing evolution, such as in bacteria, and having positive confirmation that one descended from the other vs. deducing it from circumstantial evidence.

As such, I would instead say a single origin has not been falsified rather than saying it's been confirmed.

I would say it was confirmed until falsified like all other scientific theories. Confirmed does not mean proven true, it just means that all the evidence so far is consistent with it.

 

[J_B_]

I would say it was confirmed until falsified like all other scientific theories. Confirmed does not mean proven true, it just means that all the evidence so far is consistent with it.

OK. Maybe it's just semantics from here on. I would still prefer different language, but we seem to be saying roughly the same thing.

 

[ottawak]

OK. Maybe it's just semantics from here on. I would still prefer different language, but we seem to be saying roughly the same thing.

Right. And I think that bugs some creationists, that we would dismiss the absolute truth of a literal Genesis in favor of the contingent conclusions of science.

 

[J_B_]

Right. And I think that bugs some creationists, that we would dismiss the absolute truth of a literal Genesis in favor of the contingent conclusions of science.

I imagine there is much we disagree on, so don't pop the champagne corks just yet.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Thanks.

Sure thing.

Sure, what you mentioned is consistent with evolutionary theory. But if other possibilities exist, it seems better to me to remain agnostic on the issue.

This is a bit backwards. Evolutionary theory is what explains these observations, so they are consistent in the same way that saying the sky is blue is consistent with the explanation that there is an atmosphere around the Earth compose of water, oxygen, nitrogen and a host of other chemicals and compounds that scatters the light allowing mostly light in the blue spectrum to reach the ground. I mean you could acknowledge that other possibilities exist and that the sky is actually orange but we only see blue for any number of reasons you want to present, but you would need to present evidence that's the case in order to be justified in presenting that as a possibility that needs to be incorporated into the explanation and taken into consideration.

This comment, however, leads me to believe there is still a misunderstanding. Whether yours or mine, I'm not sure. So let me lay something out.

Given life in our form exists, it's self-evident conditions were in favor of producing that form of life. For example, as I mentioned in my previous thread, conditions obviously favored the ~20 amino acids used by all known life. Maybe life using different amino acids originated at the same time, but we don't know because there's no evidence of it.

Sure, I acknowledged that possibility.

Given that favorability to our form of life, it seems possible multiple populations of our form could have originated, not just one population of our form. Had that occurred, what makes you think you could distinguish them?

Multiple populations of "our form" of life did develop. There are over 20 Homo species evidenced in the fossil record. If you include Hominidae, there are multiple hundreds. But there is no evidence that they are fundamentally different from us biologically.

There may be instances where biologists feel they can rule out multiple origins. For example, maybe common ERVs among a group of species is evidence of common origin. But do we really have such conclusive evidence for ALL species? My impression is no.

Sure, no, we don't have conclusive evidence for ALL species. But we have NO evidence of a single species that does not share our fundamental biology. When we find some we will update the Theory of Evolution to include it. If that means multiple origins then so be it. But until that happens we aren't justified in just saying that's a possibility that needs to be accounted for in the ToE.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, what you mentioned is consistent with evolutionary theory. But if other possibilities exist, it seems better to me to remain agnostic on the issue.

Interesting & nicely balanced sub-conversation there.
In objective terms, there needs to be some way of distinguishing between "what's possible" and "what exists" in what you're saying there. Eg: not all possibilities can be said to exist when they violate already evidenced Physical Laws. The Physical Laws (and any predictions based on them) are our guard-rails when it comes to matters of objective (hypothetical) existence.

Given life in our form exists, it's self-evident conditions were in favor of producing that form of life. For example, as I mentioned in my previous thread, conditions obviously favored the ~20 amino acids used by all known life. Maybe life using different amino acids originated at the same time, but we don't know because there's no evidence of it.

We also don't know that combinations of other than our ~20 aminos could justify usage of the term 'life' also, (ie: as in that underlined sentence above). For example, we don't know what such combinations would produce in terms of life's measurable functions of movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition.

 

[J_B_]

... you would need to present evidence that's the case in order to be justified in presenting that as a possibility ...

That's not what agnostic means. It means I'm not committed to any of the possibilities.

Sure, no, we don't have conclusive evidence for ALL species. But we have NO evidence of a single species that does not share our fundamental biology. When we find some we will update the Theory of Evolution to include it. If that means multiple origins then so be it. But until that happens we aren't justified in just saying that's a possibility that needs to be accounted for in the ToE.

My question doesn't regard life that differs from our fundamental biology, but rather life that shares our fundamental biology. I merely mentioned other forms in framing my question.

Further, I'm not saying such things need to be accounted for in ToE. Rather, it seems biologists wouldn't see the need to incorporate them for ToE to remain valid.

Multiple populations of "our form" of life did develop. There are over 20 Homo species evidenced in the fossil record. If you include Hominidae, there are multiple hundreds. But there is no evidence that they are fundamentally different from us biologically.

Sorry to keep pressing, but I think you're still not understanding what I'm getting at. Let me give an example. This is just a cartoon to make my point. I'm not claiming it's perfectly articulated biology.

Suppose, at the beginning of life, that conditions for our form were perfect near the San Carlos volcano in equatorial Guinea, and protolife A is formed. From that eventually comes bacteria A, and so on and so forth until eventually we get Atheris hetfieldi, a species of African Bush Viper.

But, at roughly the same time that protolife A formed, conditions were also perfect near the Ceboruco volcano 7000 thousand miles away in Mexico. In that place, protolife B formed. From that eventually comes bacteria B, and so on and so forth until we eventually get Dasyprocta mexicana, the Mexican agouti.

Both share the same fundamental biology - the same ~20 amino acids, etc. - both underwent evolution, but they do not share a common ancestor ... at least for the purposes of this example.

Is there evidence that fits one origin vs. multiple? If so, how would biology rule out multiple origins? And if they can't, why would biologists care? The example doesn't reject evolution.

 

[J_B_]

In objective terms, there needs to be some way of distinguishing between "what's possible" and "what exists" in what you're saying there. Eg: not all possibilities can be said to exist when they violate already evidenced Physical Laws.

Sure, but I don't know that I've said anything that contradicts physical law.

 

[SelfSim]

Sorry to keep pressing, but I think you're still not understanding what I'm getting at. Let me give an example. This is just a cartoon to make my point. I'm not claiming it's perfectly articulated biology.

Suppose, at the beginning of life, that conditions for our form were perfect near the San Carlos volcano in equatorial Guinea, and protolife A is formed. From that eventually comes bacteria A, and so on and so forth until eventually we get Atheris hetfieldi, a species of African Bush Viper.

But, at roughly the same time that protolife A formed, conditions were also perfect near the Ceboruco volcano 7000 thousand miles away in Mexico. In that place, protolife B formed. From that eventually comes bacteria B, and so on and so forth until we eventually get Dasyprocta mexicana, the Mexican agouti.

Both share the same fundamental biology - the same ~20 amino acids, etc. - both underwent evolution, but they do not share a common ancestor ... at least for the purposes of this example.

Is there evidence that fits one origin vs. multiple? If so, how would biology rule out multiple origins? And if they can't, why would biologists care? The example doesn't reject evolution.

There was a thread last year here, which started out with a paper arguing for a rethink into multiple origins.
The OP, and one of my own posts here, contain summaries of what they were proposing .. (just to add a bit more depth on the topic .. hope it helps the conversation along).

 

[J_B_]

There was a thread last year here, which started out with a paper arguing for a rethink into multiple origins.
The OP, and one of my own posts here, contain summaries of what they were proposing .. (just to add a bit more depth on the topic .. hope it helps the conversation along).

Excellent! Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And if that's where the argument stopped that would be fine, except that creationists usually try and go on making Genesis 1 and 2 into literal history, which has scientific consequences. Science can test those claims at that point and we can look for what we would expect if those claims were true. An orchard model of diversity or a flood layer in geological data. We don't see corroborating evidence for those claims, so they are falsified and rejected.

What I see is evolutionists rejecting anything that threatens their worldview, often with insults and false dichotomy. What I mean by that is evolutionists tell me that even a Mensa level genius is too dumb to understand more than one concept at a time. David Berlinski? What would he know? Stephen Meyer? James Tour? I have a book in my collection that explains perfectly well the reasons why a world wide flood not only is possible, but actually happened. I have another book that explains how the Grand Canyon was formed, in one event, not over millions of years - a consequence of a world wide flood.

I don't expect agreement from evolutionists. It would be nice if they could accept that some people have logical and rational reasons for rejecting evolution. Berlinski is not a Christian. Tour is, so is Meyer as far as I know. They are not stupid or irrational people.

You see the same evidence as others. You come to different conclusions. That's all. You have that right, of course. I won't be advocating for the theory of evolution to be outlawed. Evolutionists won't extend that courtesy to creationists

"Falsification" is much overrated. When will OOL researchers admit defeat? Surely 70 years of failure demonstrates the futility of the concept of abiogenesis? Or is falsification only appropriate when it supports a particular world view?

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What I see is evolutionists rejecting anything that threatens their worldview, often with insults and false dichotomy.

Event the Christian/religious ones, which, just statistically speaking comprise the majority of scientists?

What I mean by that is evolutionists tell me that even a Mensa level genius is too dumb to understand more than one concept at a time. David Berlinski? What would he know? Stephen Meyer? James Tour? I have a book in my collection that explains perfectly well the reasons why a world wide flood not only is possible, but actually happened. I have another book that explains how the Grand Canyon was formed, in one event, not over millions of years - a consequence of a world wide flood.

I don't expect agreement from evolutionists. It would be nice if they could accept that some people have logical and rational reasons for rejecting evolution. Berlinski is not a Christian. Tour is, so is Meyer as far as I know. They are not stupid or irrational people.

Smart people can be wrong for various reasons. Some honest, some not.

You see the same evidence as others. You come to different conclusions. That's all. You have that right, of course. I won't be advocating for the theory of evolution to be outlawed. Evolutionists won't extend that courtesy to creationists

That's the issue, though. You guys had the conclusion before you ever looked at any evidence. Anything that goes against that conclusion is twisted to fit or rejected. Go read the statement of faith at any creationist site.

"Falsification" is much overrated. When will OOL researchers admit defeat? Surely 70 years of failure demonstrates the futility of the concept of abiogenesis? Or is falsification only appropriate when it supports a particular world view?

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth

If there is no method, even in principle, to determine whether a scientific idea is correct or not, it's meaningless. That's all falsification is. It's convenient that creationists would reject that principle since their creator is by definition and quite deliberately unfalsifiable.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If I go to an art gallery, I will usually see something that a person has produced. Some that I've seen looks more like an explosion in a paint shop, but no one seriously doubts that a person created the work. I've been to the national gallery in London. Some of the old masters are amazing.

I look at a peacock spider or tulip, a leopard or an elephant. The idea that such creatures, or any creatures, came about by accident is, to me, absurd. I believed this long before I read the Bible. A number of artists painted pictures of horses. No one doubts that. Yet the one who admires a van Dyck painting can seriously believe that the subject matter was just an accident of time and chance.

God is invisible to human eyes. Tell me, if you were all powerful, all knowing and present everywhere at the same time, how would you reveal yourself? Just suppose that there is a God, and He wants people to know, how does He go about it?

It is a very simple matter to prove that something is alive. You don't need a Harvard University or Max Planck Society level research facility to tell you. The question is really where did life itself come from? OOL research demonstrates that it does not "just happen".

Billions of people are more intelligent than I am. Countless are better educated, more experienced and more talented. I'm a very ordinary person. However, I met Jesus a bit over 50 years ago. I know He is real, I know that God is real. My spiritual eyes were opened 50 years ago. I see God, but not with natural sight. God speaks directly to me from time to time. He answers my requests, even for something as simple as a car park. I was once a depressed, suicidal drunk, with a failing liver and no reason to live. Jesus saved me when all seemed hopeless. I literally owe Him my life.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I look at a peacock spider or tulip, a leopard or an elephant. The idea that such creatures, or any creatures, came about by accident is, to me, absurd.

Nobody believes it was an accident. You know this, you have been told it many times yet you persist in asserting that evolution is "an accident." Willful dishonesty is not a convincing argument.

God is invisible to human eyes. Tell me, if you were all powerful, all knowing and present everywhere at the same time, how would you reveal yourself? Just suppose that there is a God, and He wants people to know, how does He go about it?

Just a thought - he gives humans the ability to recognise and understand the physical evidence he left behind.

It is a very simple matter to prove that something is alive.

Lol. Good luck with that.

OOL research demonstrates that it does not "just happen".

What does that mean? Anyway, it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

 

[ottawak]

If I go to an art gallery, I will usually see something that a person has produced. Some that I've seen looks more like an explosion in a paint shop, but no one seriously doubts that a person created the work. I've been to the national gallery in London. Some of the old masters are amazing.

I look at a peacock spider or tulip, a leopard or an elephant. The idea that such creatures, or any creatures, came about by accident is, to me, absurd. I believed this long before I read the Bible. A number of artists painted pictures of horses. No one doubts that. Yet the one who admires a van Dyck painting can seriously believe that the subject matter was just an accident of time and chance.

God is invisible to human eyes. Tell me, if you were all powerful, all knowing and present everywhere at the same time, how would you reveal yourself? Just suppose that there is a God, and He wants people to know, how does He go about it?

It is a very simple matter to prove that something is alive. You don't need a Harvard University or Max Planck Society level research facility to tell you. The question is really where did life itself come from? OOL research demonstrates that it does not "just happen".

Billions of people are more intelligent than I am. Countless are better educated, more experienced and more talented. I'm a very ordinary person. However, I met Jesus a bit over 50 years ago. I know He is real, I know that God is real. My spiritual eyes were opened 50 years ago. I see God, but not with natural sight. God speaks directly to me from time to time. He answers my requests, even for something as simple as a car park. I was once a depressed, suicidal drunk, with a failing liver and no reason to live. Jesus saved me when all seemed hopeless. I literally owe Him my life.

We all do. But somewhere along the line you've been pranked. A naturalistic abiogenesis does not rule out God's active causal involvement. There's nothing about abiogenesis which denies God.