Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul1 min ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He doesn't want to know now (which is curious, because he deployed it to try and poke holes in evolution theory and the chosen thread title drew us in with the news (news to me, anyway) that Darwin had doubts about his own theory) but, for anyone who is still curious:-
Fossils of soft-bodied organisms do exist and new ones are being found. I cannot prove it with a named example but the last Richard Attenborough series about fossils put forward the idea that the 'Cambrian explosion' was a case
of soft bodied creatures all evolving chitinous 'armour' at around the same time (convergent evolution, across many phyla). The segmented bodies, the eyes, eye stalks and everything else were already there but they didn't form easy-to-find fossils, the way trilobites do. It was not a 'sudden' evolution of complex eyes among trilobites.
I tead the back-story of Anomalocaris the other day, which was fascinating. Previously, fragmented examples had been classified as three very different creatures. They kept being found close together and slicing better examples proved it was all one, slightly outlandish, creature.
Additionally, Earth's history is long enough that it may have been exposed to intense gamma radiation from a relatively nearby supernova. Likely result is a mass extinction event. This frees up ecological niches and surviving species get busy mutating and taking turns winning each niche. Genetic damage, incurred in the exposure may result in one species branching into dozens of subspecies. If any of these fit a niche better than their ancestor, its genes will accumulate changes for better adaptation and, eventually they cannot interbreed; the definition of speciation.
The same principles apply at the pre-biotic stage. You are either a food molecule, in the primordial soup, or you are a self replication mechanism which needs to 'eat' other molecules to keep replicating. You might not have a cell membrane yet but you have millenia to aort that out. Anything which speeds up chemical reactions will help (catalysts, mineral matrix, high temperature and pressure etc). Once polypeptides acquire enzymic qualities, lower temperature and pressure environments can be colonised.
The 'irreducible complexity' no doubt revolves around the fact that modern DNA needs a bunch of proteins to uncoil it, unzip it, read it, repair it, duplicate it, move it during cell division and so on. But DNA is required to build these proteins, leading to a 'chicken and egg' type puzzle.
The irreducible complexity purveyors evidently refuse to acknowledge that we are looking at the pinnacle of DNA operation and that life origins are the one-cylinder Benz to the F1 Merc of today.
Finding 'nearly life' on Mars would be very exciting, at this juncture. Or on a comet, for that matter (can't wait for November!)
Fossils of soft-bodied organisms do exist and new ones are being found. I cannot prove it with a named example but the last Richard Attenborough series about fossils put forward the idea that the 'Cambrian explosion' was a case
of soft bodied creatures all evolving chitinous 'armour' at around the same time (convergent evolution, across many phyla). The segmented bodies, the eyes, eye stalks and everything else were already there but they didn't form easy-to-find fossils, the way trilobites do. It was not a 'sudden' evolution of complex eyes among trilobites.
I tead the back-story of Anomalocaris the other day, which was fascinating. Previously, fragmented examples had been classified as three very different creatures. They kept being found close together and slicing better examples proved it was all one, slightly outlandish, creature.
Additionally, Earth's history is long enough that it may have been exposed to intense gamma radiation from a relatively nearby supernova. Likely result is a mass extinction event. This frees up ecological niches and surviving species get busy mutating and taking turns winning each niche. Genetic damage, incurred in the exposure may result in one species branching into dozens of subspecies. If any of these fit a niche better than their ancestor, its genes will accumulate changes for better adaptation and, eventually they cannot interbreed; the definition of speciation.
The same principles apply at the pre-biotic stage. You are either a food molecule, in the primordial soup, or you are a self replication mechanism which needs to 'eat' other molecules to keep replicating. You might not have a cell membrane yet but you have millenia to aort that out. Anything which speeds up chemical reactions will help (catalysts, mineral matrix, high temperature and pressure etc). Once polypeptides acquire enzymic qualities, lower temperature and pressure environments can be colonised.
The 'irreducible complexity' no doubt revolves around the fact that modern DNA needs a bunch of proteins to uncoil it, unzip it, read it, repair it, duplicate it, move it during cell division and so on. But DNA is required to build these proteins, leading to a 'chicken and egg' type puzzle.
The irreducible complexity purveyors evidently refuse to acknowledge that we are looking at the pinnacle of DNA operation and that life origins are the one-cylinder Benz to the F1 Merc of today.
Finding 'nearly life' on Mars would be very exciting, at this juncture. Or on a comet, for that matter (can't wait for November!)
Good post Hypo, and thanks for offering an alternative. I like (if i read you correctly) the idea that life could have first existed and been almost entirely destroyed along with it's evidence by some cataclysmic, cosmic event, then re-started by the survivors, which could account for the 'sudden' Cambrian explosion, though it still doesn't account for the actual origin in the first place.
Also (at the risk of moving Jim's goalposts), how can one account for 'The will to life', - the cause of the undeniable drive forward behind all living organisms, which we can witness and give names to, like selfish genes, but that only deals with the how[i and not the [i]why]
Also (at the risk of moving Jim's goalposts), how can one account for 'The will to life', - the cause of the undeniable drive forward behind all living organisms, which we can witness and give names to, like selfish genes, but that only deals with the how[i and not the [i]why]
./......bloody upstart, not being a biologist and having views on the universe, who the hell did he think he was?/
I don't think biologists have much to say about nuclear physics or relativity or most artists have anything significant to say about biochemistry. I can't recall that Einstein contributed much to the theory of evolution either.
I don't think biologists have much to say about nuclear physics or relativity or most artists have anything significant to say about biochemistry. I can't recall that Einstein contributed much to the theory of evolution either.
Addressing the point about how DNA produces new information:-
I am not aware of the exact mechanism but there is a type of mutation which can best be described as a copy and paste(n) operation where, by accident, (n+x) copies are produced.
Apparently, segmented worm species gained progressively more segments because the gene(s) coding for "make a segment" were contiguous and lent themselves to accidental duplication and insertion.
On occasion, an entire chromosome gets duplicated. If you consider extra DNA as being more 'surface area' with which to suffer damage from ionising radiation (cosmic ray sets off alpha particles within range) or chemical teratogens then you can begin to see how increased bulk increases the opportunity for point mutations, in the genome as a whole. The redundant duplicate can accept mutations without it being fatal to the cell. Hundreds of mutations down the line (many generations) and maybe a novel protein with -useful- activity may emerge. "New information" through incremental modification of what used to be called 'junk DNA'.
The modern take is that much of what we thought was junk (human DNA in particular) may turn out to be valid genes, just 'dormant' or no known gene product or because supressor proteins are attached to them. For example, it is quicker to evolve suppression ("off switch") on genes for a tail than it is to de-evolve tail genes by means of mutation or deletion events.
I can only imagine that the first self-replicating molecules would have been highly error prone. If you accumulate enough typing errors, you (might) end up with a new word. Likewise, try multiple permutations of amino acids and you (might) end up with a set of enzymes that correct errors and enhance the survival of the whole genome.
I am not aware of the exact mechanism but there is a type of mutation which can best be described as a copy and paste(n) operation where, by accident, (n+x) copies are produced.
Apparently, segmented worm species gained progressively more segments because the gene(s) coding for "make a segment" were contiguous and lent themselves to accidental duplication and insertion.
On occasion, an entire chromosome gets duplicated. If you consider extra DNA as being more 'surface area' with which to suffer damage from ionising radiation (cosmic ray sets off alpha particles within range) or chemical teratogens then you can begin to see how increased bulk increases the opportunity for point mutations, in the genome as a whole. The redundant duplicate can accept mutations without it being fatal to the cell. Hundreds of mutations down the line (many generations) and maybe a novel protein with -useful- activity may emerge. "New information" through incremental modification of what used to be called 'junk DNA'.
The modern take is that much of what we thought was junk (human DNA in particular) may turn out to be valid genes, just 'dormant' or no known gene product or because supressor proteins are attached to them. For example, it is quicker to evolve suppression ("off switch") on genes for a tail than it is to de-evolve tail genes by means of mutation or deletion events.
I can only imagine that the first self-replicating molecules would have been highly error prone. If you accumulate enough typing errors, you (might) end up with a new word. Likewise, try multiple permutations of amino acids and you (might) end up with a set of enzymes that correct errors and enhance the survival of the whole genome.
Hypo; Do you think these first 'self-replicating molecules' had some inherent force or 'need' to replicate, an attribute so strong that it could lead to a formation of complex organ such as an eye, and indeed consciousness?
I have found the quote from Darwin; "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
So he is not claiming to start at the square one of your proposal.
As to // If you accumulate enough typing errors, you (might) end up with a new word.// Typing a new word is not a problem, you just close your eyes and twiddle on the keyboard and you will have a new word, the question is, does it have any meaning?
By the way, My used copy if Michael Behe's 'Darwins Black Box' has arrived by today's post via the services of Amazon, flipping through it I see one or two pencilled-in question marks in it's margins, so the previous owner may well have been an AB biochemist; no names, no pack drill.
I have found the quote from Darwin; "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
So he is not claiming to start at the square one of your proposal.
As to // If you accumulate enough typing errors, you (might) end up with a new word.// Typing a new word is not a problem, you just close your eyes and twiddle on the keyboard and you will have a new word, the question is, does it have any meaning?
By the way, My used copy if Michael Behe's 'Darwins Black Box' has arrived by today's post via the services of Amazon, flipping through it I see one or two pencilled-in question marks in it's margins, so the previous owner may well have been an AB biochemist; no names, no pack drill.
Evolution doesn't seem to be the result of an organism's 'need' for a mutation it is rather that when a mutation occurs at a time and under circumstances that confer an advantage that results in that organism surviving long enough to survive and replicate just a little more than it's fellows who lack that mutation then that mutation will be incorporated into the gene pool. Evolution is dispassionate and impartial and immune to 'need'.
@Khandro
//Hypo; Do you think these first 'self-replicating molecules' had some inherent force or 'need' to replicate, //
No, I don't. These chemicals could just as easily remained locked up in mineral crystal or as salts in solution. Carbon, is nearly unique in its abilty to form long-chain molecules (silicon can form analogous chains but only up to ~10 units long, last I heard). Incorporate nitrogen, oxygen and other elements and you have millions of compounds to choose from, in the 'soup'.
For reasons I cannot claim to understand, there is all manner of 'emergent behaviour' resulting from the myriad possible A:B interactions. A complex molecule which sequesters a smaller molecule containing potential energy in its bonds is able to do things by transducing that energy - turning sugars into fats, say. If lipid concentration is large enough, they coalesce into a bilayer and form vesicles quite readily. Agitation such as wave action would speed that up. Once you have something approximating to a cell membrane, useful molecules can be concentrated and reaction rates speed up.
There is no 'drive' or 'will' here, it is just a spontaniously fabricated micro-environment speeding up reactions would would happen anyway, albeit at a crawl when diluted in an ocean.
//an attribute so strong that it could lead to a formation of complex organ such as an eye, and indeed consciousness? //
Phototaxis is an oddity to me. It is useful to a photosynthetic creature at the top of the water column, to orient itself towards light and swim to the surface. Perhaps carnivorous organisms had to follow suit, in order to pursue them? If life began in the dark depths then, logically, eyes are late on the scene. (Note: deep sea fish, with eyes, presumably evolved from shallow water ones).
Then again, land plants clearly descend from something lacking eyes. Sea surface creatures certainy blur the lines between plants and animals.
//Typing a new word is not a problem, you just close your eyes and twiddle on the keyboard and you will have a new word, the question is, does it have any meaning? //
It may take many iterations of twiddling before a recogniseable word appears. (I appear to be referencing the infinite monkeys thing)
In the case of DNA, the cell will determine whether the altered sequence leads to a valid gene product and the environment determines whether it enhances survival and multiplication.
Indeed, DNA responds to chemical concentrations in the cell and can activate production of an enzyme to dispose of a glut of one substance or rectify the dearth of another. When the job is done, the enzyme needs to be digested back into amino acids, within the cell, to be recycled into the next required item. Everything is geared towards efficiency.
The reason we share about 46% of our DNA with a banana is because most of the code is all about the nitty-gritty of cell metabolism.
//By the way, My used copy if Michael Behe's 'Darwins Black Box' has arrived… so the previous owner may well have been an AB biochemist; no names, no pack drill. //
Not me, guv. You will soon be more widely read than me, in the subject!
//Hypo; Do you think these first 'self-replicating molecules' had some inherent force or 'need' to replicate, //
No, I don't. These chemicals could just as easily remained locked up in mineral crystal or as salts in solution. Carbon, is nearly unique in its abilty to form long-chain molecules (silicon can form analogous chains but only up to ~10 units long, last I heard). Incorporate nitrogen, oxygen and other elements and you have millions of compounds to choose from, in the 'soup'.
For reasons I cannot claim to understand, there is all manner of 'emergent behaviour' resulting from the myriad possible A:B interactions. A complex molecule which sequesters a smaller molecule containing potential energy in its bonds is able to do things by transducing that energy - turning sugars into fats, say. If lipid concentration is large enough, they coalesce into a bilayer and form vesicles quite readily. Agitation such as wave action would speed that up. Once you have something approximating to a cell membrane, useful molecules can be concentrated and reaction rates speed up.
There is no 'drive' or 'will' here, it is just a spontaniously fabricated micro-environment speeding up reactions would would happen anyway, albeit at a crawl when diluted in an ocean.
//an attribute so strong that it could lead to a formation of complex organ such as an eye, and indeed consciousness? //
Phototaxis is an oddity to me. It is useful to a photosynthetic creature at the top of the water column, to orient itself towards light and swim to the surface. Perhaps carnivorous organisms had to follow suit, in order to pursue them? If life began in the dark depths then, logically, eyes are late on the scene. (Note: deep sea fish, with eyes, presumably evolved from shallow water ones).
Then again, land plants clearly descend from something lacking eyes. Sea surface creatures certainy blur the lines between plants and animals.
//Typing a new word is not a problem, you just close your eyes and twiddle on the keyboard and you will have a new word, the question is, does it have any meaning? //
It may take many iterations of twiddling before a recogniseable word appears. (I appear to be referencing the infinite monkeys thing)
In the case of DNA, the cell will determine whether the altered sequence leads to a valid gene product and the environment determines whether it enhances survival and multiplication.
Indeed, DNA responds to chemical concentrations in the cell and can activate production of an enzyme to dispose of a glut of one substance or rectify the dearth of another. When the job is done, the enzyme needs to be digested back into amino acids, within the cell, to be recycled into the next required item. Everything is geared towards efficiency.
The reason we share about 46% of our DNA with a banana is because most of the code is all about the nitty-gritty of cell metabolism.
//By the way, My used copy if Michael Behe's 'Darwins Black Box' has arrived… so the previous owner may well have been an AB biochemist; no names, no pack drill. //
Not me, guv. You will soon be more widely read than me, in the subject!
jomifl; I know that feeling but, //the inanimate matter that became life must also have had a will so that it could become life// you could be barking up the wrong tree (of life).
Comparatively recently we didn't know what electricity was (still don't for that matter) similarly magnetism, auras, assorted waves, etc. which can be introduced into organic and inorganic matter. So couldn't the 'life-force' the 'will' to live, to survive and multiply have been and still is being introduced into inanimate matter from an external 'invisible' power?
We have at the moment a clear example of this 'will' in the ebola virus which seems to have a frightening (for us) pernicious 'intelligent' desire to survive.
Comparatively recently we didn't know what electricity was (still don't for that matter) similarly magnetism, auras, assorted waves, etc. which can be introduced into organic and inorganic matter. So couldn't the 'life-force' the 'will' to live, to survive and multiply have been and still is being introduced into inanimate matter from an external 'invisible' power?
We have at the moment a clear example of this 'will' in the ebola virus which seems to have a frightening (for us) pernicious 'intelligent' desire to survive.
Hello v_e! How's the reading going? - still waiting for your report. No I'm not on Nietzsche at present, as I mentioned above, I now have Behe's book, and will make a start when I've finished Karen Armstrong's 'The Great Transformation - The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confucius and Jeremiah'.
I see Hume gets a lot of mention by Behe, so I'll keep you posted.
I see Hume gets a lot of mention by Behe, so I'll keep you posted.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.