What Darwin discovered

@farmerman,

Is the chickenosaurus your hero species?

0 Replies

@parados,

And you can do the same to prove me wrong I suppose? You have no clue as to what the first creature was, if you believe you do, please let the group know what you know.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

I don't have to do anything. You made the claim. It is up to you to support it. I have already provided evidence showing you are wrong. There are no single celled organisms that have billions of nucleotide pairs. If you are claiming that higher organisms were created in a pond then you are misrepresenting the hypothesis. If you are simply wrong on your number then you could correct yourself now.

The general theory is that the first creature was single celled if it was even a cell and not just a self replicating strand of RNA or DNA.

1 Reply

@parados,

There is also not one bit of evidence that the designer of life was a single celled organism. Why do you persist in this empty argument?

0 Replies

The starting point of life on Earth was not a single celled organism, because this is much too complex to have formed by chance. An hypothesis which fits the facts better, and, indeed, which is popular among biologists, is a single molecule which copies itself. That would have been sufficient to start evolution by way of mutation and natural selection. This hypothesis violates no known principle, is not implausible given the range of what chemistry seems capable of, and has the benefit of not involving the supernatural. Given this one thing, everything else is explained.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

The one Im fond of(Today-I chnge my mind frequently) iis the development of sevral different kinds of prokaryotic cells, each of which has one or maybe two components of the six indicators of life but none contain all six. Over time, the one with the most complex o the indicators, that probably being a polymer cellwall "bag" of biochemical "stuff' that could fission. These "protocells" would glom to each other in a fashion championed by Lynn Margulis in her "capturing genomes" hypothesis. Over time, the evidence supports a tidal flat in a reducing environment (the Isua and Flinders rocks show the indicators of life by a reduzate of C12 orgnic layers among shale layers that are indicative of anoxic reducing conditions (Early prokaryotes were probably scared away by oxygen anyway)

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Nothing that happened on the Earth then, if forming at random, is logical to not be possible now, under scientific scrutiny. This has not happened, and never will, however when a single celled organism, that needs less to exist, is moved to a new world, the process of evolution will continue.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Nothing that happened on the Earth then, if forming at random, is logical to not be possible now, under scientific scrutiny. This has not happened, and never will, however when a single celled organism, that needs less to exist, is moved to a new world, the process of evolution will continue.

Evolution adapts the life forms it works on to their environments through natural selection. It has made life more and more complex. Working backwards from today into the past, life was simpler and simpler the further back in time you go. The question arises as to starting point. Either life started from nothing by chemistry, i.e. a replicating molecule, or life started from nothing by the will of a magical creature.

To me, believing a molecule can duplicate itself is more logical than believing in a magical creature. For my/our hypothesis, you only have to believe that chemistry could form such a molecule. For your theory, you have to believe in magic. There is a lot of evidence for the diverse capabilities of chemistry. There is exactly zero evidence of the existence of magic in the universe.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

It's not hard to believe chemistry could form such a molecule when we have formed such molecules.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/30/science/chemists-make-molecule-with-hint-of-life.html

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

It's not hard to believe chemistry could form such a molecule when we have formed such molecules.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/30/science/chemists-make-molecule-with-hint-of-life.html

Now let's see the replicable techniques for demonstrating the supernatural.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Natural selection, though it appears to be how evolution works, has nothing to do with how mutations form in the first place. That is, natural selection chooses the best suited organism, but DNA can not know this, and just puts out changes that are incorporated into it's programming. Thus what seems like random mutation, is actually a part of the programming of life, as it was designed. Do you follow?

1 Reply

@parados,

Nothing like DNA is even within the realm of human understanding at the moment......Thus it is not hard to understand, it is impossible to understand, though with every day we come a little closer.

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Natural selection, though it appears to be how evolution works, has nothing to do with how mutations form in the first place. That is, natural selection chooses the best suited organism, but DNA can not know this, and just puts out changes that are incorporated into it's programming. Thus what seems like random mutation, is actually a part of the programming of life, as it was designed. Do you follow?

After hundreds of posts on multiple threads, you still don't understand the definition of the theory of evolution. Apparently, you don't read any posts thoroughly except your own.

Evolution occurs by virtue of the combination of (1) changes caused by accidents in reproduction (mutations) and (2) natural selection. It doesn't require DNA. DNA itself had to evolve. Evolution only requires that something copy itself and that there can be a mistake in copying (a mutation).

Now, please, give me your reproducible evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Evolution occurs by virtue of the combination of (1) changes caused by accidents in reproduction (mutations) and (2) natural selection. It doesn't require DNA. DNA itself had to evolve. Evolution only requires that something copy itself and that there can be a mistake in copying (a mutation).

So it appears that you do not understand that DNA is the code that produces everything that is alive. The code of DNA must be present, in order for what seems like a random mutation to happen. No DNA, no code to mutate, thus mathematically, you are proven wrong. Where DNA came from is a COMPLETELY different issue, and you are confusing the two subjects. Now as for what you call a mistake, there is no proof that the discrepancies in code copy are mistakes, as the definition of mistake is something that is wrong, and if the result of what you term a mistake, results in a better adapted organism, then it is clearly a correct process.

We call it a mistake, because the code is not as before, but there is no evidence that the code was designed to be as it was before, just our assumption.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Quote:
Evolution occurs by virtue of the combination of (1) changes caused by accidents in reproduction (mutations) and (2) natural selection. It doesn't require DNA. DNA itself had to evolve. Evolution only requires that something copy itself and that there can be a mistake in copying (a mutation).

So it appears that you do not understand that DNA is the code that produces everything that is alive. The code of DNA must be present, in order for what seems like a random mutation to happen. No DNA, no code to mutate, thus mathematically, you are proven wrong....

Any object which replicates itself, no matter what object, can have an error in replication.

For a complex structure, most errors will be harmful, since it is improbable that a random error will improve a complex structure. Only a small fraction of random errors to a complex structure will by chance be improvements.

The combination of these random errors that end up being improvements, and the tendency of improved systems to survive longer or better to produce more copies constitutes evolution.

Today living creatures store information in DNA, but the phenomenon would occur in any self-replicating system. Mistakes occur. A tiny fraction of them are helpful. Helpful traits tend to spread and harmful traits which aren't instantly fatal tend to die out of the population. This phenomenon must occur in any pool of self-replicating systems and is presumably the origin of DNA.

Now stop evading our repeated questions and tell us about your replicable evidence that the supernatural exists in any way at all in the universe. Everyone can now see that you're avoiding this question.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I will explain this again, the apparent errors, that happen with great regularity in DNA code development, are the cause, of evolution, not the other way around. Now, DNA is so excellent at reproducing billions and trillions of individual organisms, that a small percentage of mutations prove to be beneficial, in some way. These beneficial mutations are thus what moves species into new forms/evolving. Since species, could not survive ice ages and warm periods, without DNA caused evolution, it is logical, that evolution is a critical part of the operating system that DNA is.

All operating systems, are the product of an intelligent designer.

Whether you are an atheist or not, is of no matter to this.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

I will explain this again, the apparent errors, that happen with great regularity in DNA code development, are the cause, of evolution, not the other way around. Now, DNA is so excellent at reproducing billions and trillions of individual organisms, that a small percentage of mutations prove to be beneficial, in some way. These beneficial mutations are thus what moves species into new forms/evolving. Since species, could not survive ice ages and warm periods, without DNA caused evolution, it is logical, that evolution is a critical part of the operating system that DNA is.

All operating systems, are the product of an intelligent designer.

Whether you are an atheist or not, is of no matter to this.

You are correct when you say that evolution is the result of beneficial errors in replication, but this phenomenon will be true of any system which replicates itself and doesn't depend on the existence of DNA.

It cannot not happen. It is impossible for it not to happen. For any set of objects which replicate themselves, no matter what type of objects, sometimes replication errors will occur. A tiny fraction of the replication errors are beneficial. Beneficial errors spread through the pool of replicating objects. Harmful errors are edited out of the pool of replicating objects since their recipients, on the average, have less chance to copy themselves. There is nothing about this process which requires DNA.

The only question is how the process started. One theory is that the process started when a molecule formed that copied itself. The other theory is that a supernatural creature, who himself had no scientific origin, created the process on purpose. There is lots of evidence that molecules can do all kinds of cool things, but exactly zero evidence that supernatural forces exist in the universe. I will choose the hypothesis that doesn't contain magic.

I ask you again, tell me about any replicable demonstration that the supernatural even exists in the universe.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You are correct when you say that evolution is the result of beneficial errors in replication, but this phenomenon will be true of any system which replicates itself and doesn't depend on the existence of DNA.

Actually, with the exception of some viruses, that use RNA instead of DNA, all replication is controlled by the code of DNA. What systems replicate themselves, without DNA, excluding the mentioned viruses? Sheesh even telephone, computers, cars and refrigerators, that are changing are dependent on DNA for those changes, just think.

Quote:

One theory is that the process started when a molecule formed that copied itself. The other theory is that a supernatural creature, who himself had no scientific origin, created the process on purpose. There is lots of evidence that molecules can do all kinds of cool things, but exactly zero evidence that supernatural forces exist in the universe. I will choose the hypothesis that doesn't contain magic.

Here is where you are only looking to the past, and forget that evolution also happens in the future. Follow this, there will be a permanent base on Mars, if even one form of life is found or genetically engineered to live in the Martian environment, then the human who releases it there, fulfills the God equation, as the organism will multiply, and begin adapting by evolution to the Martian environment. Nothing supernatural is needed there, as nothing supernatural was needed on the Earth. You do know that the universe is 8 billion years older than the Earth, I presume? Seriously, just because you do not know what something is, or where it came from, does not make it supernatural. Even this thought is ignorant.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Replication in today's Earthly life is controlled by DNA. This is not in dispute, but the process of evolution doesn't depend on DNA. It would occur in any system whatever that copies itself. Replication errors occur. Some are beneficial. Beneficial errors tend to spread. Harmful errors tend to be edited out. Slowly the group of replicating objects is improved. This would always happen to replicating objects regardless of whether they used DNA for replication or did not.

The question is where the DNA came from. I and others believe that the DNA itself is the result of evolution. After hundreds of millions of years, a molecule formed by chance that could copy itself. The molecule's descendants evolved by the mechanism stated above and the result was eventually DNA. There is nothing unlikely about this hypothesis. Whether this happened on Earth or happened elsewhere and was spread to Earth, I believe that this is how DNA was first formed - by evolution starting from a self-replicating molecule.

I had thought that you were saying that a supernatural creator started the process. If you were not, then good, because I would hate to think that you believe in magic. So, if you believe that the DNA on Earth came from a non-supernatural creator or creators, what is the origin of the creators' DNA? Please don't evade this question yet again. Just answer it.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The definition of supernatural is undefined, clearly if we take life to Mars, get it started, then have a catastrophe on the Earth, and never get back to Mars, you would not be defining us as supernatural would you. Because this is all within the realm of intelligent progress, that either exist now or will in the future. Now this life, that we put on Mars, could develop by evolution into an intelligent being, able to ask, from where did I come, and it all begins again.

This may be what DNA does, the junk (unknown what it does DNA) could well be the data for creating or recreating, anything..... and yes this includes us, that may be in his image, that was left here as one cell billions of years ago. There is still way too much that we do not know? In fact, when the first caveman came out of the tree, 99.999 percent of all knowledge was unknown, and today that fraction has not changed, not by one bit.

The rover is working on this right now.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/curiosityrov.gif

1 Reply

What Darwin discovered

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know