Progression: Neanderthal to CroMagnon, etc.

stevevw said:

I am probably saying where is the fin come from in the first place. When there was no instructions in the genetic code to make a fin how did that happen.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Another thing I find hard to understand is evolution describes how say humans evolved from chimps and gradually adapted began walking as this was more beneficial for survival, evolved bigger brains as this helped them survive by becoming smarter to make tools ect, until we have modern humans today. Part of evolutionary theory explains how we learnt to live together and get along as this was better for survival which all supporters of evolution accept as part of the theroy. Then from this came socialisation and then religious thought which all supporters accpt as it goes hand in hand with the physical evolution of the brain for example and is an important part of the theory in supporting why the physical evolution happened.

So according to evolution theory God is just a creation of our thinking processes which is derived from socialisation and giving meaning to life through theories like terror theory which helps humans with self-esteem and face the fear of death to help them maintain stable thinking and survive. So if we accept the theory of evolution as far as why our brains evolved and how experts explain that the first signs of religious thought was seen in neandathals for example in burying their dead and having ceremonies should not we also accpet the explanation for God according to that same theory as well.

Click to expand...

Erasmus7 said:

Good day.

I have a query, this time regarding the supposed evolution from proto-ape form through to Neanderthal and other various homo types and discoveries, to CroMagnon and then to man today.

As I have indicated before, I am an Evangelical Christian, and this is part of an ongoing quest of mine for some years to attempt to find closure on the evolution-creation question.

As regards my query: I am struck by the argument of the evolution camp based on the gradation from proto-ape type (40 million years ago?), to Neanderthal, to CroMagnon and then to us today.

Now I am aware of creationist counter-arguments concerning the somewhat fractured remains of the supposed Neanderthals and others, ie, that complete skeletons are rare and that it is difficult to build any framework or postulate how Neanderthals, etc, may have evolved from a prior form and then evolved to the CroMagnons, etc.

I am not looking at this question, ie of the quality of existing remains, in this thread. Rather I am looking at a general overview from probability. In other words, even if the argument concerning limited use of fractured skeletal remains is sound, it does seem to me that an evolutionist argument can be constructed simply on logical progression, ie a probability argument that there does seem to be an upward development and advance in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, up through the different ‘homos’ to us today.

1. For one thing, what were the Neanderthals? What are the diffferent views among creationists as to their relation to adam and adamic man? If they preceded Adam, how do we interpret them in the light of the Bible?

I am aware that some have said that they were actually quite intelligent and not as ‘dense’ as some have made out. However, to the best of my knowledge, they seem to have sat around in caves for 400 000 years with a limited stone technology, doing little other than hunting and existing. Even cave art only comes later with the CroMagnons. So the Neanderthals did not even have a decent level of creativity or abstract thought. So what on earth were they? How do they fit into a biblical pattern of creation?

2. The CroMagnons started about 35 000 years ago – if scientific dating methods are accurate. They seem, very suddenly, to have emerged and almost immediately to have advanced significantly beyond the sloth-like pace of the Neanderthals. They had cave drawings, evidence of art, burial, and more sophisticated dwellings.

Of course, the fact that they appeared so suddenly, and with such advances, may be seen as an argument for sudden creation. The question still remains, however, as to how to view them in the light of scripture, not to mention a creationist scientific interpretation.

A convenient way of dealing with such like is to say that they were some form of creation or being, whether properly called human or not (in the biblical definition of ‘human’, that is.) One might make an argument about Neanderthals not being human, but it is a bit more difficult with CroMagnons.

Going back to the dating question, it might help if Neanderthal remains were found with remains of so-called older animals, such as dinosaurs, therapsids, etc. Such would help the creationist cause significantly. To the best of my knowledge, however, such has not been discovered, at least not in any significant quantity. I believe I read that the dinosaur footprint claim (in New Mexico?) has been debunked.

3. Then there are we moderns. The evolutionary theory is that when the ice age receded some 10 000 years ago, we adapted a different, more sedentary existence, as we no longer had to fight against extreme cold and could start farming the earth.

Now even if one dismisses evidence of skeletal progression from, eg, Neanderthals to CroMagnons, it does seem, given the above general pattern, that there is some kind of progression upwards from proto-ape to Neanderthal to CroMagnon, then to us.

That is, from relatively intelligent Neanderthals with basic cave existence, for c400 000 years, then to CroMagnons with their slightly more advanced lifestyle and intelligence, plus evidence of creativity and abstract thought, to us today, there does seem to be a logical forward-motion progression, which it is difficult to dismiss as coincidence.

I would be interested to know creationist ways of looking at and reading this pattern.

1. From a Bible perspective it is tricky enough. How does one relate Neanderthal and CroMagnon to Adam, if at all?
   
   
2. From a Creationist scientific perspective, how are these explained? Were they different pre-creations, with Adam being created 10 000 years ago after CroMagnons? Or has science misfired with dating, and Neanderthals and CroMagnons are part of Adamic creation perhaps 10 000 years ago?

I would really appreciate comment and feedback to the above somewhat lengthy post.

Thanks and regards,
Erasmus

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

@stevevw

Here is a simple question for those who doubt succession of life through common decent.

Is it coincidence that fish like tetrapods came after fish? Or that reptiles came after amphibians? Is it coincidence that whales came after ambulocetus or that...birds came after feathered theropods? Birds could be anywhere in the Proterozoic or Cenozoic, but why in the Mesozoic right around the time of bird like theropods? Is it coincidence to you? Australopithecus could have been anywhere in 4.5 billion year old rock, but by coincidence it existed right before us. Coincidence?

Click to expand...

mindlight said:

We read rocks differently. I think only small marine creatures survived in tact in the deepest fine grained sedimentary rock cause larger ones were shredded and broken by the severity of the flood waters. So the unique patterns of fossils in the rocks has more to do with the unanalogous ways the flood waters welled up , sheered sideways and stripmined the old world out of existence than to do with a billion year old dating schema. Most species were created as they are and coexisted in the old world and the new.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

Take a look at my post above. Post #24.

You miss the point of the fossil succession, when you assume that each individual fossil ought to be the precise and direct, blood line ancestor of each other fossil in a succession.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

One last thing worth saying,

Of life on earth, 99.99% of life has gone extinct through time. When we look at fossils, typically we wouldn't consider something like, tiktaalik or archaeopteryx or sahelanthropus to be our absolute direct blood line ancestors. They are representatives that generalize how certain life existed at their respective times. Sahelanthropus is a generalizing species that shares both ape and human traits. Is it our direct ancestor? It's unlikely. Unlikely because more than just our ancestors lived. 99% more, and few fossilized, less than 99% fossilized. Cousins, second cousins, third cousins, other families etc. These are more likely those captured in the fossil succession just due to their sheer number, versus our direct parents.

Sahelanthropus is just a representative, a snapshot generalization of what was going on. Australopithecus was more human like. Was it our direct ancestor? Perhaps a specific species of it was. Was aferensis? Again I wouldn't necessarily say that it was. But it is at least an offshoot of life that is more human like, that existed closer to us in time (a cousin, second cousin, third cousin etc.).

Homo erectus. Are the homo species direct ancestors? Now we are getting close. Related cousins to our ancestors at the least? Absolutely.

But jump back in time. Tiktaalik, a direct parent/ancestor? I doubt it, highly unlikely. A representative depicting when life transitioned to land? A cousin, second cousin, third cousin etc.? Absolutely. Realistically, tiktaalik (or a following generation) likely went extinct and isn't our ancestor. But, nevertheless, tiktaalik has traits that depict that episode of life, at that time, the devonian age of fish, in which they transitioned to land. Just like all the other devonian transitionals.

And that's what the fossil succession is about. Anyone can nitpick at specifics of fine tuning the succession (maybe this species here, maybe that species there). But nobody can challenge clarity in the fact that the succession is there (the commonly stated "bunny in the cambrian" is non existent). Hence why people can deliberate over Lucy's jaw bone (closer to a gorilla or chimpanzee or human?), while still recognizing the clear reality that Lucy wasn't from the Silurian or devonian age of fish, or from cambrian, or any other paleozoic, mesozoic or cenozoic time, aside from a time right before us. Lucy wasn't a gorilla or chimpanzee or human, rather Lucy is a representative of our own lineage, which is shared with other apes, hence the shared traits.

Lucy doesn't have scales or flippers, or wings. Lucy is almost human but not fully. Which is why Lucy is called a transitional and rests in a gradation that spans millions of years. Lucy is just a snapshot of a larger transition, regardless of the fine tuned specific position in the lineage where Lucy is found.


The point is, you said that you do not see variation, yet there the variation is. What else would a proto whale look like, if not something simular to ambulocetus? What would a fish to amphibian transition look like, if not something like tiktaalik? What would a proto human look like, if not something like australopithecus? And...where would a fish to amphibian ancestor be found, if not in the devonian? Where would a proto human be found, if not, the late cenozoic? etc.

You nit pick, which...there is nothing wrong with critiquing, but the overriding premise behind the fossil succession is as clear as day and is undisputed.

You said you did not see variation, yet there it is, right before your eyes.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I would have thought I was referring to the species as a whole rather than any individual direct line of variation for transition. If you look ate the human race now as a species you will see some if not mosy of the variation in the shapes of ancestor skells for homo sapiansgoing back to neandathals. So modern human variation incorporates 3 or so species in the one species. That is what I mean in how people can mistake what they think is a transitional feature when it is a normal variation of the one species that has a very wife range of feature variation. It is only when someone takes the position that all variation can also be possible transition that you begin to specculate that
I appreciate what you are saying and agree for the most part but the devil is in the detail and I just don't accept things at face value. When looking at the evidence for Lucy I do not see a clear-cut case of it being transitional to humans. When someone says that Lucy walked I see that the evidence shows she didn't and that she was a knuckle-walker. There is normally only a couple of points in these fossils that are debated over so that is why it is highly contentious. But by just saying that because the evolution of life from a common ancestor is true does not mean we should just accept everything that is presented.

My beef is not so much that there are transitions and that life has evolved from one form to another but more about how the transitions happened. By accepting the Neo-Darwinian theory which is more reliant on random mutations presenting variation and natural selection selecting what is more beneficial for reproduction and survival it has a premise behind it that life is able to create itself. Natural selection becomes all-powerful in being able to turn fish into land creatures, reptiles into birds and monkeys into men. Not just anatomically but also genetically which seems to give it a great ability to construct the code of life when it appears that it is far more complex than a hit and miss process.

As I have mentioned I think there is much more to it and life is able to change through a code that has been there from the beginning and random mutation is not the source of variation but rather there is and was an abundant amount of genetic ability already there to tap into that gives life exactly what is needed at that time. Life does not rely on blind natural selection alone but rather works with what is already presented through other mechanisms.

This is important for transitions as it means the difference between the type of transition we should be looking for. If accepting the Neo-Darwinian theory then just about every variation is speculated as a possible transition. That's where I think many mistakes are made and why there is so much debate about transitions even among supporters of evolution. That's why I think it's important to include the other fields such as genomics, developmental biology, epigenetics, ecology and social science which are showing us these other ways for how life can change and gain genetic material and how it was designed to develop and adpat in certain ways.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

The genetic code of every living thing is indefinitely changing. Sometimes for worse as you said, but also, sometimes for better. Fact is, our genetics indefinitely change. It is what our genes do, they mutate. And this mutation and change in our coding, inevitably results in the change in our morphology.

You know this.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Yet it seems that the basic blueprint for life was around from the beginning too early to have time to slowly evolve from being gradually mutated and selected. All life has the same basic building blocks that were there from the beginning. That set the morphology of the basic body plans ie legs, eyes, wings, heads, etc of all creatures. New variation can be derived in development by switching on genes to gain changes to that basic pre-existing blueprint. In that sense mutations ans selection are only working at the edeges and tinkering with what is already there.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

You seem to be folding your hand with respect to the larger discussion of if mankind evolved from a common ancestor, along with other great apes.

If your concern isn't with common descent and evolution, but rather specifics on how evolution and common descent has occurred, then if you were to challenge darwinian evolution, I could only await your presentation of something more plausible than descent with modification via mutations and natural selection. Without presentation of an alternative, you appear to just be voicing an opinion that isn't based in anything (except your personal incredulity).

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

@stevevw

Here is a simple question for those who doubt succession of life through common decent.

Is it coincidence that fish like tetrapods came after fish? Or that reptiles came after amphibians? Is it coincidence that whales came after ambulocetus or that...birds came after feathered theropods? Birds could be anywhere in the Proterozoic or Cenozoic, but why in the Mesozoic right around the time of bird like theropods? Is it coincidence to you? Australopithecus could have been anywhere in 4.5 billion year old rock, but by coincidence it existed right before us. Coincidence?

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

Also @stevevw

If it helps, the cambrian explosion, and diversification of life that preceded it, occurred at minimum, over the span of 20-30 million years. In geologic terms, it did occur relatively abruptly, but 20-30 million years is still a relatively long and/or significant amount of time, with respect to biological diversification. Ediacaran fossils go back some 600 million years, whereas the cambrian explosion is closer to 515. So you even have some 85 million years of increasing fossil diversification, prior to the cambrian explosion, then the 20 million prior was simply more exponential.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

This is got to do with how some scientists are challenging the Neo Darwinian theory with a new revised synthesis which I posted one paper earlier explaining this. There are a number of ideas which are believed to influence how life came about and changes. Though I understand the basic concept it is hard for me to do justice in trying to explain this myself and therefore I can link some papers to help understand as the support comes from a number of areas. The main paper is the one is linked in the previous post and sums up what I am saying as this.

Scientific developments in genomics, epigenetics, developmental biology, social science, and ecology are altering the prevailing, gene-centric view of evolution. They contend that organisms are not simply genetically programmed from birth to fit into a prior environment but instead can “co-construct and co-evolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.” The way evolutionary theory is represented at present is it localizes the central evolutionary processes at the genetic level thus downplaying the role of other mechanisms. Instead of genes being the focal point of evolution, organisms as a whole ought to take that place.

The support also comes from things like developmental evolution as explained in the previous post and also mentions other influences such as developmental bias which is best explained by the follwoing.

Developmental bias refers to “a bias on the production of variant phenotypes or a limitation on phenotypic variability caused by the structure, character, composition, or dynamics of the developmental system.”[2]Essentially, something within the development of the species constrains the possible set of expressed features, favoring some over others.

For instance, Laland et al. cite the phenomenon that nearly 1000 centipede species tend to have an odd number of legs despite the different environmental settings around the world and the unique evolutionary history. This can be explained by the development of the centipede and the way in which the physical development of the segments constrains the possible number of legs—thus leading to an odd number of legs in centipede species that evolved independently of each other. SET says phenotypic variation is a random process in its dependence upon underlying genetic mutations, therefore it must acknowledge the incredible coincidence of this kind of parallel evolution. However, Laland proposes phenotypic variation is not always random but rather mechanisms such as developmental bias help to privilege certain phenotypes.

There there is phenotypic plasticity.
Phenotypic plasticity is also changing the gene-centered view of evolution. Phenotypic plasticity refers to the way certain organisms can directly alter their morphology, physiology, and behavior in response to an environmental change. What is interesting about these changes is that they occur within the lifetime of the individual organism itself rather than lagging behind in evolutionary time.
As an example, certain grasshoppers, such as Schistocerca gregaria, change from docile, solitary creatures to the well-known, aggressive locusts when surrounded by many others of the same species. They even change color to denote this change in behavior. Laland et al. suggest these immediate phenotypic changes can help prime the genetic pump by helping to select organisms that have the advantageous phenotypic trait—paving the way for the subsequent underlying genes. As Laland et al. says “often it is the trait that comes first; genes that cement it follow, sometimes several generations later.”

Then there is Niche construction.
Niche construction avows that organisms do not simply passively adapt to their surrounding environment through the survival of the fittest but will actively alter that environment so that it is often more hospitable for them and their descendants or other species. Beavers and earthworms are two examples. Beavers will construct dams to create pools and wetlands that help the beaver population thrive, even for subsequent generations. Similarly, earthworms alter the chemistry of the surrounding soil making it more fit for other earthworms and plants. Much like the aforementioned mechanisms, niche construction helps bias the relative fitness of particular species.

The author Laland contends that SET (Standard evolutionary theory) treats the environment as merely a “background condition” rather than a central factor involved in the evolutionary process. EES (Extended Evolutionary Theory) takes into consideration the entire ecology of the system where the environment and organism live in a mutual relationship and where both are substantial players in the evolutionary process.

Finally, extra-genetic inheritance contributes to this tidal shift in the colloquial understanding of evolution. The most cited of these mechanisms is epigenetic markers, but it can also include the transmission of social behavior (i.e., social learning and cultural evolution) and even ecological inheritance (e.g., a beaver passing down his dam to subsequent generations). Epigenetics is the field that looks at “the heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence; a change in phenotype without a change in genotype[5]
An organism’s DNA does not unilaterally produce the specific organism, but rather these extra-genetic factors can suppress or reveal aspects of the genetic code, sometimes altering features of the organism. What is more, these epigenetic markers can be influenced by environmental and behavioral patterns and can be transmitted to progeny up to two to three generations. This means that our actions today can directly influence the phenotype of our children and grandchildren through these epigenetic markers.
The Changing Face of Evolutionary Theory?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Michael Lynches paper is dispelling the myths that natural selection is made to be all powerful by many biologists and capable of explaining all changes in organisms. He explains changes in organisms through genomics and population evolution and how the the emergence of complex life and the building of the structures for complex organisms come from non- adaptive influences and not adaptive evolution ie (natural selection).

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Abstract
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.

The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Here is another paper from Lynch along the same lines explaining how non-adaptive forces rather than natural selection are more responsible for the emergence and genetic networks.
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies. The widespread reliance on computational procedures that are devoid of population-genetic details to generate hypotheses for the evolution of network configurations seems to be unjustified.
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics

Koonin also explains how the modern synthesis of Neo Darwinism is being challenegd by various other mechanisms apart from Natural selection such as HGT which undermines the tree of life and makes the origins of life more like a forest of life where orgainsms share genetic material much more readily. Non-adaptive forces are more dominant that natural selection for increasing complexity.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Another paper which Lynch is involved with which talks about neutral evolution and how in the absence of any selective advantage genotypic modularity may increase through the formation of new subfunctions under near-neutral processes.

The origin of subfunctions and modular gene regulation.
Force A1, Cresko WA, Pickett FB, Proulx SR, Amemiya C, Lynch M.
The origin of subfunctions and modular gene regulation. - PubMed - NCBI

These paper supports the ideal about all life having similar basic control genes and how these were around very early before the Cambrian period. These genes can be switched on which allows life to gain new features from pre-existing genetic info rather than being mutated into existence.

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution

Recent advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology raise a number of questions about the origin of Animal Kingdom. These questions include:

(1) seemingly simultaneous appearance of diverse Metazoan phyla in Cambrian period,
(2) similarities of genomes among Metazoan phyla of diverse complexity,
(3) seemingly excessive complexity of genomes of lower taxons, and
(4) similar genetic switches of functionally similar but non-homologous developmental programs.

Here I propose an experimentally testable hypothesis of Universal Genome that addresses these questions. According to this model,

(a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period;
(b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs.

This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g. a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.6.15.4557#.VaEEzbUoTfc

There are basic natural laws where all life have a set of basic proteins that produce certain forms and are the result of natural laws like in physics rather than evolution by neo Darwinism. This supports the idea that life has predetermined codes that allow life to develop along certain trajectories and helpthem adapt to life on planat earth rather than being subject to blind adaptations that subject life to competing rather than cooperating with each other and the enviroment.

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law

Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form the celebrated "Laws of Form" - -was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.

The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. - PubMed - NCBI

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

The problem I see is that trying to fit the evidence to to adaptive evolution always has to come up with explanations that have to justify extraordinary situations whereas if there were other processes happening like there was some design guide where life was naturally able to change through existing mechanisms where they could switch on genes when needed makes more sense and fits the evidence better. At some point God had to have a hand in it. I dont believe that he just put some chemicals into some water and allowed nature to do the rest. There had to be some laws or codes in place that were built into organic life which is the same for all material life in having natural laws which gave it a more guided process. It still allows for evolution to do its work but as a fine tuner rather than a creator or the basic features of life. Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

I have no...beef...with any of the above listed info. I don't think any of this stands in opposition to common descent as a whole. Also, none of it really stands in opposition of natural selection, rather these appear to simply be discussions about a number of ways evolution can be manipulated by the environment or by animal behavior among other factors.

Sometimes I consider newtonian physics. Newtonian physics was never really disproven, rather it was simply expanded upon with general relativity. There, in my opinion, is no reason to believe that darwinian gradualism is the end all be all of how common descent of life and evolution occurred. And so, to return to my first statement, there is nothing here that particularly bothers me.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

The genetic code of every living thing is indefinitely changing. Sometimes for worse as you said, but also, sometimes for better. Fact is, our genetics indefinitely change. It is what our genes do, they mutate. And this mutation and change in our coding, inevitably results in the change in our morphology.

You know this.

Click to expand...