Cells and life

[KD5NRH]

And OTOH, Jupiter and Earth's magnetosphere produce "dawn whistlers" which are sometimes evocative of bird or whalesong...  but are devoid of any higher purpose and meaning.

Campaign speeches reminiscent of whale songs?

[mellestad]

On General Relativity and Special Relativity:  The caveat is that they are still theories because while *so far* every experiment on them has proven correct, not every experiment has been run on them.  The problem is, we don't know what we don't know about them yet.  They can't be called Laws, or proven facts, yet, because they haven't been tested to completion (the fact that we don't know all the questions yet just goes to show how much we don't know).  So far, every experiment proves out, but what happens if, "Whoops!  That wasn't supposed to happen!" happens?  Do we throw out the entire theory?  No, absolutely not.  But do we readjust the theory if the "whoops" is repeatable, independently verifiable, and ultimately measurable?  Absolutely!

Plate tectonics is still just a theory too.  Most complex theories will never make it to 'law' status because there are too many moving parts.

A physicists will admit straight up that special relativity has problems, like the mentioned quantum effects.  However, special relativity is a 'fact' because it has been shown to be true by emperical testing.  Even if it were abandonded for a more complete theory down the line, the claims it makes are still fact.  So a theory can still be fact, before it is law.

This relates to evolution for the same reasons.  When people say evolution is 'just a theory' all it is showing is that the word theory means something different in science than common usage.


Edit:  Heck, laws aren't even 'True'.  The reason we need special relativity in the first place is that Newton's laws of gravity are wrong when it comes to certain aspects of physics.  Does that mean gravity isn't real?  Of course not.  We still discuss them as laws even though they fail in certain circumstances.

[Balog]

Mellestad: I'll say my piece then let you have the last word, this is essentially a religious debate (even if one side doesn't like to admit their status) and those never end well.

If you define evolution as diversity within a kind then you are correct, that is an absolute proven fact.

If you use the (common definition) of one kind leading to another then you are factually incorrect.

Irreducible complexity has not been refuted or answered, no matter how many websites you link to that claim to have done so. I could link to creationist websites that claim to prove the exact opposite. Neither is testable or provable.

Abiogenesis is the bedrock upon which evolution is built, and attempting to split them is disingenuous at best.

When religious folks admit they do not have all the answers, they are sneered at for their faith. When materialists admit they do not have the answers (But science will get there eventually!) no one blinks. An odd double standard.

Regolith: the Archaeopteryx was a creature with traits of multiple kinds of animals. So is the platypus. Neither proves transitional anything.

[mellestad]

Mellestad: I'll say my piece then let you have the last word, this is essentially a religious debate (even if one side doesn't like to admit their status) and those never end well.

If you define evolution as diversity within a kind then you are correct, that is an absolute proven fact.

If you use the (common definition) of one kind leading to another then you are factually incorrect.

Irreducible complexity has not been refuted or answered, no matter how many websites you link to that claim to have done so. I could link to creationist websites that claim to prove the exact opposite. Neither is testable or provable.

Abiogenesis is the bedrock upon which evolution is built, and attempting to split them is disingenuous at best.

When religious folks admit they do not have all the answers, they are sneered at for their faith. When materialists admit they do not have the answers (But science will get there eventually!) no one blinks. An odd double standard.

Regolith: the Archaeopteryx was a creature with traits of multiple kinds of animals. So is the platypus. Neither proves transitional anything.

By saying your viewpoint is religious, yuo are essentially giving up.  I am not, and I can show evidence.  I'm sorry you are not willing to continue debate.

I'm also sorry you think an endless series of gaps arguments is sufficient to deny evolution.  Under those terms, there is literally nothing that can convince you, because for every example of plausible reducible complexity you'll simply pull another out.  Explain the eye, ok.  Now explain the liver.  ok.  Now explain flagellum.  ok.  etc. etc.

Abiogenesis is seperate from evolution.  Evolution can be demonstrated regardless of the ultimate cause of life.  There are a great many theistic evolutionists.

I am curious as to what evidence you would accept for proof of 'macro' evolution if you don't accept DNA, transitional fossils or actual examples of speciation.

[sanglant]

Campaign speeches reminiscent of whale songs?

Teddy's back from the dead?

[Balog]

Ok, two things I forgot.

I was merely pointing out that your argument is essentially religious in nature, and the mods have asked that we refrain from religious debates as they essentially unproductive. Disagreeing with your conclusions != being ignorant or your arguments.

I feel sorry for you too, so that's something we can agree on I suppose.

[Regolith]

Regolith: the Archaeopteryx was a creature with traits of multiple kinds of animals. So is the platypus. Neither proves transitional anything.

Under that standard, no transitional fossil will prove to you transition from one species to another.  Because that is what a transitional fossil species is: it has traits of the old order that it evolved from, while having newer traits that conform to the species it eventually evolves into.  We also have examples of this transitory state in living creatures.  Snakes, for instance, have bones that look remarkably like leg bones; they are just tiny, shriveled and don't stick out of the body.  There is no reason for them to be there; their only explanation is that snakes evolved from lizards, and they haven't completely gotten rid of their unneeded appendages yet.  

Whales also exhibit this feature.  Their ancestors used to be land dwellers, and as they became aquatic their legs became less and less useful. We the have transitory fossils of prehistoric whales whose legs eventually get smaller and smaller until they no longer stick out of their body (except for their front legs which became flippers).

Speciation is just a stack of multiple micro-evolutionary steps.  Eventually, as the species changes, it becomes different enough from its relatives/past iterations that it can be declared a new species.  

As for saying it's never been observed...some would argue that we've already speciated domesticated dogs.  There is, after all, a bigger difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane than there is between a wolf and a coyote.  Then there's domesticated sheep, which have been bread so extensively they can no longer reproduce with the animal they were originally bread from.  They have essentially become their own new species.

[mellestad]

Ok, two things I forgot.

I was merely pointing out that your argument is essentially religious in nature, and the mods have asked that we refrain from religious debates as they essentially unproductive. Disagreeing with your conclusions != being ignorant or your arguments.

I feel sorry for you too, so that's something we can agree on I suppose.

Making a falsifiable theory based on emperical results != religion or faith.

Science: "We believe in X because of of Y and our ideas have been emperically verified by doing A, B, C, D, etc. and our belief would be falsified if a contradictory theory arises that has greater explanatory power."

Evolution sucessfully explains so much about he fossil record, DNA and the diversity and growth of life that an alternate theory is going to need some pretty impressive problem solving ability to be convincing.




Also, even if the argument was religious, debate is fine as long as it is civil.  This debate has been civil, no-one is going to lock it unless people get rude.  If you are actually concerned about thread lock, I would be more than happy to continue the discussion via PM. 

[Balog]

Evolution is inextricably tied into abiogenesis. While they are separate theories, the foundation of evolutionary theory is simple life leading to more complex, whereas the Creation account of all religions I am aware of hold this as false. There are theistic evolutionists, and some are serious scientists. There are serious scientists who believe in eugenics and 9/11 as an "inside job" too. Still silly.

Evolution (as one kind into another, not diversity within a kind) has not been demonstrated or observed. Since we disagree about whether that constitutes evolution as a force that can lead from single cell creatures to all life we'll just have to disagree.

I could go on, but this is even less productive than arguing politics on the internet (which I don't do anymore either) so whatever untrue or misleading statements you may care to make in this thread will have to go unrefuted, at least by me.

As for continuing via PM, I'll pass. Partly because I don't debate via PM in general, partly because you're troll and I don't care to give you more attention, and mostly because I greatly dislike you and have no wish to have any more contact than is unavoidable.

[mellestad]

Evolution is inextricably tied into abiogenesis. While they are separate theories, the foundation of evolutionary theory is simple life leading to more complex, whereas the Creation account of all religions I am aware of hold this as false. There are theistic evolutionists, and some are serious scientists. There are serious scientists who believe in eugenics and 9/11 as an "inside job" too. Still silly.

Evolution (as one kind into another, not diversity within a kind) has not been demonstrated or observed. Since we disagree about whether that constitutes evolution as a force that can lead from single cell creatures to all life we'll just have to disagree.

I could go on, but this is even less productive than arguing politics on the internet (which I don't do anymore either) so whatever untrue or misleading statements you may care to make in this thread will have to go unrefuted, at least by me.

As for continuing via PM, I'll pass. Partly because I don't debate via PM in general, partly because you're troll and I don't care to give you more attention, and mostly because I greatly dislike you and have no wish to have any more contact than is unavoidable.

Evolution is not tied to abiogenesis.  I don't know what else to tell you.  Plenty of theists, even scientists even, rationalize the two very well.  (And they are not all crazy, despite your claim)  They do so because evolution *is* observed, even through speciation.  The reason theistic natural scientists do this so often is that the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming if you allow yourself to investigate modern lines of evidence without bias.  You say you need to see transformation between kinds, but cannot refute examples of speciation, or the vast evidence of the fossil record or DNA analysis.

You are correct though, if you are a strict literalist then there is no room for evolution.  At some point, you have to ask yourself if you value truth more, or your specific belief.  Evolution does not disprove God, gods or creation, but it does force a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm sorry you were not able to keep things civil, this is a good debate for those willing to be involved.  I don't dislike you or think you are a bad person, I just think you would benefit from some information about what you are debating against. 

I've been where you are now, I was raised as a young earth creationist.  I was taught to use the arguments you've attempted to use against me.  I believed evolution was silly and insane.  Then there came a point where I actually studied the thing, and discovered it wasn't what I thought it was, and all the arguments I had didn't even throw up stumbling blocks.  With evolution, the diversity of life and its behavior actually make sense, whereas without it I literally had to rely on magic.

I'm still willing to mail you a book or two on the subject if you are ever interested in learning some more.  If you decide to pick up debate again, I will go over any point you wish to bring up.

[MechAg94]

How can Archaeopteryx be considered transitional when birds existed at the same time?  Sounds like a stand alone species. 

[mellestad]

How can Archaeopteryx be considered transitional when birds existed at the same time?  Sounds like a stand alone species. 

Species evolve in branches, not in a single linear line.  All it means is that a species diverged from the main line, speciated, then slowly evolved bird-like features.  The original population of non-birdlike critters could exist at the same time, or even outlast the divergent line.

[Balog]

So you claim I'm being uncivil, then say if I'd just grow up and think clearly I'd obviously agree with you. I can't imagine why anyone would think you're a troll.

[mellestad]

So you claim I'm being uncivil, then say if I'd just grow up and think clearly I'd obviously agree with you. I can't imagine why anyone would think you're a troll.

balog, you have not even been responding to the content of my posts, you've just been attacking my character.  If you aren't going to add to the discussion, just stop please, I don't want this thread locked.  I'm not going to get down in the mud with you.

[MechAg94]

Species evolve in branches, not in a single linear line.  All it means is that a species diverged from the main line, speciated, then slowly evolved bird-like features.  The original population of non-birdlike critters could exist at the same time, or even outlast the divergent line.

So you are saying it is not a transitional fossil at all.  The only way it is transitional is if you imagine some original population of pre-bird critters that it is supposed to represent.  That is just a hypothesis with no proof. 

[mellestad]

So you are saying it is not a transitional fossil at all.  The only way it is transitional is if you imagine some original population of pre-bird critters that it is supposed to represent.  That is just a hypothesis with no proof. 

It is transitional from what came before to what came after.  We call it 'transitional' because we have found fossils of the pre-population and the post-population.  Again, evolution does not require a linear line where one species is wiped out so another can continue, it is all about divergence.  We can show there is a line because we can identify a chain of critters that advance in age, both through dating methods and the geological column.

For example, a population of non-birdlike critters gets seperated physically.  The two populations diverge and and follow seperate paths due to seperate environmental pressures, then you have a branch in the tree.

It doesn't always seem to happen that way though, something else could happen like a new critter is introduced to the environment that puts pressure on the whole population and slowly the entire genetic pool shifts, then you don't have any branching.


I think pages with transitional fossils have been linked here already (or in the other thread, since they are about the same thing now).  But anyway, the summary is that forms and features of similar critters follow a path that we can trace by dating samples.

The only reason we even call them 'transitional' fossils is that fossils in general are terribly rare, and so you have to dig through samples sperated by multiple layers of strata.  Say Montana has lots of fossil A in a particular strata (youngest), and lots of fossil B in another(older) and fossil C in another(oldest).  If the critters are similar and show some evolving traits, it might be a candidate for being a transitional fossil as long as you don't see anything go 'back in time'.  You wouldn't see fossil C in the same strata as A, for example, because it didn't exist when that strata was laid down.

Does that make sense at all?  I'm not always good at explaining things. 

[MechAg94]

I think you are explaining your point of view just fine, but when you get to the nuts of it, you or they are still guessing or making assumptions.  They do refine the ideas quite a bit to fit what they see, I'll give them that. 

[mellestad]

I think you are explaining your point of view just fine, but when you get to the nuts of it, you or they are still guessing or making assumptions.  They do refine the ideas quite a bit to fit what they see, I'll give them that. 

Well, infering based on evidence, which sounds way smarter.

The problem is the pace of mutation.  At the time scales we live on, the only 'massive' changes we can see in a lab are in bacteria and insects.  The problem is the argument is sort of rigged:

1.  Changes to short lived species is microevolution and so is invalid.

2.  Changes due to things like dogs and sheep aren't drastic enough (even between a wolf and a lap-poodle), and so are invalid.

3.  DNA evidence showing common genetics between all life isn't valid.

4.  Existing evidence of speciation between things like ring species isn't enough, so it is invalid.

5.  The fossil record is using inference, and so is invalid.

6.  Directly messing with genetics is man, not nature, and so is invalid.


It makes it tough to build a case for evolution when none of the given evidence is considered valid.  Nowadays when I talk to people about this they usually say something like, "we need to see transition between kinds", but when I ask for specifics I don't get them.  To me, if an animal can't breed with another animal, it stands to reason it is a different kind, right?  So then why isn't speciation accepted in ring species or other cases?

I dunno.

We can stop now if you'd like though.

[geronimotwo]

in my limited understanding of evolution i had always thought the creatures needs had brought about the physical changes.  but when you get down to the grit, isn't it the dna that forces a creature to be what it is?   so, to change the body would be to first alter the dna, which would be done at the micro level.  with what is set forth in the opening article, it almost raises the question of not whether the dna is shaping the cell structure, but if the cell is smart enough to alter its own creatures blueprint to better adapt and survive? 

[mellestad]

in my limited understanding of evolution i had always thought the creatures needs had brought about the physical changes.  but when you get down to the grit, isn't it the dna that forces a creature to be what it is?   so, to change the body would be to first alter the dna, which would be done at the micro level.  with what is set forth in the opening article, it almost raises the question of not whether the dna is shaping the cell structure, but if the cell is smart enough to alter its own creatures blueprint to better adapt and survive? 

Well, the article doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, that whole discussion is a derail.

So the mechanism behind evolution is mutation of DNA, but that mutation is random.  Say you've got a species of birds that is on an island, totally isolated from any other population.  The only food on this island is nuts, and they are pretty hard to break open.  Every birth brings with it a chance of mutation, most neutral or harmful.  However, every now and then something useful comes up, say a mutation that causes more calcium to be diverted into beak construction as an embryo.  In this mutation, the bird in question gets a beak that is a bit stronger than the others, and it has an easier time breaking open nuts to get at the meat inside.  Over many generations this particular mutation causes the birds genetic line to be a bit more 'fit', even if not much.  If the birds are say, even 1% more efficient they might have 1% more babies, and slowly the mutation spreads to the entire gene pool on the island.  Fast forward a couple million years and you've gone from birds with little pointy beaks to birds with strong crushing beaks like a parrot.  This is essentially what Darwin origninally observed, only at the time the exact mechanism was unknown since DNA was not discovered yet.


To your point, that is interesting, sort of a chicken and the egg thing right?  Cells in the body probably aren't 'concious', but you can certainly see where a mutation to human DNA could impact a specific cell type or behavior.  In fact, I imagine that is a big part of it.  I'm not a cellular biologist though so I'm not sure exactly how it plays out.

The thing that gives me some awe is how complex the overall system seems to be.  It is pretty impressive that the same basic DNA systems can make a single bacteria all the way to something as complex as a human.

[geronimotwo]

Let's take a look at some of the evidence for ingenuity and intelligence in cells that is missing from the curriculum. Take the red algae Rhodophyta, in which many species carry out remarkable repairs to damaged cells. Cut a filament of Antithamnion cells so the cell is cut across and the cytoplasm escapes into the surrounding aquatic medium. All that remains are two fragments of empty, disrupted cell wall lying adjacent to, but separate from, each other. Within 24 hours, however, the adjacent cells have made good the damage, the empty cell space has been restored to full activity, and the cell walls meticulously realigned and seamlessly repaired.

my question came from the above revelation.  here is a cell cut in half that is able "fix" itself.  how would a simple being be able to do such?  this action would first require observation on the part of the cell that its other half is nearby.  then the ability to move towards itself while cut in half, and perform self surgery.  this would imply that there are smaller parts pushing it around and seamlessly repairing itself.  what we have thought of as mere simple cells may now be considered a complex sentient being.  what if the these cells are able to also recognize that their host bird would do better if it had a thicker beak, and were able to tweak the dna to improve such?  wouldn't dna manipulation be much simpler as a tiny cell sized creature, rather than by a human?

[mellestad]

my question came from the above revelation.  here is a cell cut in half that is able "fix" itself.  how would a simple being be able to do such?  this action would first require observation on the part of the cell that its other half is nearby.  then the ability to move towards itself while cut in half, and perform self surgery.  this would imply that there are smaller parts pushing it around and seamlessly repairing itself.  what we have thought of as mere simple cells may now be considered a complex sentient being.  what if the these cells are able to also recognize that their host bird would do better if it had a thicker beak, and were able to tweak the dna to improve such?  wouldn't dna manipulation be much simpler as a tiny cell sized creature, rather than by a human?

Hmm.  Again, I'm not a cell biologist, so I'm not sure about the mechanisms involved.

Sentience is interesting because where we define the line between life and non-life it totally arbitrary.  I suppose if you defined it correctly, sure, the cells might be sentient.

I would be surprised if there was any awareness of the overall system though...that would probably require an actual brain to generate the needed intelligence.

[geronimotwo]

yea, well, i'm not going on tour trying to promote this theory either!  just one of the many quircky ideas that flash into my head randomly, or so it seems. 

come to think of it, isn't there an organism that invades an ant and manipulates the host for the duration of its life?

[mellestad]

yea, well, i'm not going on tour trying to promote this theory either!  just one of the many quircky ideas that flash into my head randomly, or so it seems. 

come to think of it, isn't there an organism that invades an ant and manipulates the host for the duration of its life?

Yes.  There is more than one parasite that can control a host.

[mellestad]

Hopefully someone is still reading this.

One question I've always wanted to ask:  If you don't buy evolution, how do you explain why we never find modern animals in old strata?

In the fossil record, you tend to find a given critter beginning at a certain time and perhaps moving forward, but you never find it moving backwards.  Why aren't there fossilized remains of common animals like rabbits, mice, wolves, deer, etc. in older layers?

If everything happened at once, wouldn't fossils be randomly distributed?  Or at the very least, wouldn't modern animals be mixed with ancient animals?  (This point applies to lots of stuff, like never seeing humans or human tools in older layers along with dinosaurs, etc.)

Edit:  By modern animals I mean mammals, specifically.  There are some fish, reptiles and plants that have survived from 'prehistoric' to modern times.