Evolution

[Conscious Bob]

That's a bit silly. Any "new" life rising after Life 1.0 doesn't stand a chance because Life 1.0 can out compete it. Life only needs to arise once then evolution will take over.

If that was the case then there should be other lifeforms with a different DNA sequence in the fossil record.

 

[Meadow337]

Evolution is a theory without proof. All 'proofs' of evolution are proof of adaption of species and not evolutionary change from one species into an entirely different species, that is to say cows have always been cows even as they have adapted to different environments with superficial changes in colour, size or amount of hair. There is no evidence to support macro change from one species to another.

 

[beer good]

If that was the case then there should be other lifeforms with a different DNA sequence in the fossil record.

Not necessarily.
1) DNA doesn't get preserved in fossils. Fossilised remains are, by definition, not the original tissue but rather a mineralised mould of it.
2) While we've found huge amounts of fossilised remains of animals and plants covering just about the entire process of the evolution of life, the fossil record is far from complete in the sense that we can find every individual or even every species over the last 3 1/2 billion years. Not every animal that dies leaves a fossil behind - and even if it did, we'd have to dig up the entire world to find it.
3) In order to leave recognisable fossils behind, Life 2.0 would have to be successful enough to evolve at least multi-cellular forms of life. If it comes along at a point where Life 1.0 already dominates the entire biosphere, it might not survive long enough. That's one of the reasons why people looking for "alternative" forms of life in the few areas that don't seem to support normal life - say, arsenic-heavy environments, isolated underground lakes, and goth gangs. So far they haven't found anything conclusive.

That's not to say it has or hasn't happened, but that if it did happen, it's far from certain that we'd be able to find proof of it.

Also, http://www.evolutionfaq.com/.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Evolution is a theory without proof. All 'proofs' of evolution are proof of adaption of species and not evolutionary change from one species into an entirely different species, that is to say cows have always been cows even as they have adapted to different environments with superficial changes in colour, size or amount of hair. There is no evidence to support macro change from one species to another.

This is a genetic argument so forget macro, forget fur, feathers, leaf, bark or any other characteristic of any organism found on this planet. Everything alive is related because everything alive has the same DNA helix, that is a proven fact.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Not necessarily.
1) DNA doesn't get preserved in fossils. Fossilised remains are, by definition, not the original tissue but rather a mineralised mould of it.
2) While we've found huge amounts of fossilised remains of animals and plants covering just about the entire process of the evolution of life, the fossil record is far from complete in the sense that we can find every individual or even every species over the last 3 1/2 billion years. Not every animal that dies leaves a fossil behind - and even if it did, we'd have to dig up the entire world to find it.
3) In order to leave recognisable fossils behind, Life 2.0 would have to be successful enough to evolve at least multi-cellular forms of life. If it comes along at a point where Life 1.0 already dominates the entire biosphere, it might not survive long enough. That's one of the reasons why people looking for "alternative" forms of life in the few areas that don't seem to support normal life - say, arsenic-heavy environments, isolated underground lakes, and goth gangs. So far they haven't found anything conclusive.

That's not to say it has or hasn't happened, but that if it did happen, it's far from certain that we'd be able to find proof of it.

Point one is flawed, DNA is routinely found preserved in fossils, not complete sequences but certainly enough to determine whether or not it's DNA.

Point two, that's flawed too. The huge amount of remains of animals and plants where DNA can be obtained, have the same DNA and as this is worldwide any DNA of a significantly different nature would've shown up by now.

Point three, flawed again, fossilised bacteria is regularly discovered.

What we need for the argument to stand is an organism, some tiny little thing with a significantly different DNA sequence, it hasn't been discovered, we know that life can generate but the point life has only generated once upon Earth is scientifically valid.

 

[Meadow337]

This is a genetic argument so forget macro, forget fur, feathers, leaf, bark or any other characteristic of any organism found on this planet. Everything alive is related because everything alive has the same DNA helix, that is a proven fact.

That however doesn't prove evolution All it proves is that carbon based life forms on this planet forming DNA from the same pool of resources have formed it in the same way into a double helix etc etc. Science works decidedly backwards in its thinking sometimes.

If given a pile of lego blocks 1 000 000 000 children construct very similar basic shapes does not prove anything other than given those specific building blocks a limited set of constructions will result.

Actually if anything the uniformity points to design rather than randomness because you would expect a wider range of variations than there are (Just to be difficult LOL).

 

[Conscious Bob]

That however doesn't prove evolution All it proves is that carbon based life forms on this planet forming DNA from the same pool of resources have formed it in the same way into a double helix etc etc. Science works decidedly backwards in its thinking sometimes.

Given that your viewpoint flies in the face of modern genetic science allow me the luxury of saying wtf.

You never know though what might happen if you publish, you might just overturn a hundred years of observation, research and experiment going right back to Darwin, that would at least be worth a Nobel Prize.

 

[Conscious Bob]

If given a pile of lego blocks 1 000 000 000 children construct very similar basic shapes does not prove anything other than given those specific building blocks a limited set of constructions will result.

If you take out the kids can your Lego constructions construct themselves...?

This is the Life quandary, it's where Aristotle suddenly confronts Darwin.

Aristotle believed that animals could spontaneously generate in the world from nowhere. This famous Greek Natural Philosopher has been discredited over and over again over hundreds of years but here's a fact.

On Earth the primordial mud was once lifeless then there was life. Science has never been able to replicate this phenomenon where life can spontaneously generate.

It could be that the conditions are so rare that in order for life to beat the odds it requires a universe full of galaxies...

 

[Meadow337]

Given that your viewpoint flies in the face of modern genetic science allow me the luxury of saying wtf.

You never know though what might happen if you publish, you might just overturn a hundred years of observation, research and experiment going right back to Darwin, that would at least be worth a Nobel Prize.

A hundred years of attempting to prove a THEORY which is an IDEA which is as valid or invalid, in the absence of physical evidence, as any other theory.

Using Reductio ad absurdum reasoning one is forced to conclude that the end result does not prove the theory. You have complex life at one end and various component bits at the other end and no sure way of proving exactly how the building blocks made the house

Particularly, as you so kindly pointed out, any and all experiments attempting to replicate the formation of even the simplest construct we could call life from the aforementioned building blocks has failed abysmally.

At best all one can say is that this is what happened, we don't why or how, although we do know approximately when (providing that the latest geological research supports previous theories about the age of the earth instead of contradicting them as they seem to be in the process of doing) and so far our best scientific theory is that there was a process we call evolution, but we can't conclusively prove it. Evolution may well end up being regarded with same amusement as the flat earth theory, which if I recall was the leading science of its day

 

[Meadow337]

Just because I feel like it (having a bit of a debate is such fun!):

Evolutionary theory negates itself because it uses itself to prove itself while ignoring the logical problems.

Just take the discussion of alternative life forms we have been having in this thread.

Evolution states that life throws up a whole bunch of low level organisms, which, despite completely flying in the face of entropy (which IS demonstrably provable) like to become more complex. Despite all the issues with the statistical improbability of any given mutation being successful and leading to a more complex and viable organism, life manages to evolve a whole range of differing organisms, which share some common genetic characteristics (FYI the research actually shows that there are considerable differences which account for the difference in species) but lets go with the commonality of DNA because that is used as one of the "proofs" of evolution.

So here we have a theory which states that it is true because all the millions of variables it proposes are necessary to successful evolve into advanced life forms have evolved into one common genetic code with a very small variation.

Does this strike you as being in any way logical? It can't have it both ways. It can't say there needs to be this vast genetic soup of millions of failed variations in order to work (FYI where exactly ARE all these weird and wonderful failed organisms BTW - just one would be good in fact) but the fact they aren't there is proof that evolution is true? Its completely illogical.

 

[Conscious Bob]

A hundred years of attempting to prove a THEORY which is an IDEA which is as valid or invalid, in the absence of physical evidence, as any other theory.

In the absence of physical evidence? There have been many major scientific discoveries directly attributable to evolution, here's a couple you would've known about from school.

Gregor Mendel published his scientific work on inheritable traits in 1865
Francis Crick and James D Watson discovered the DNA Molecule in 1953

Genetic Science which is a proper science only exists because of the unique properties of DNA.

Using Reductio ad absurdum reasoning one is forced to conclude that the end result does not prove the theory. You have complex life at one end and various component bits at the other end and no sure way of proving exactly how the building blocks made the house

Ridiculous... each generation of the DNA molecule can pass on it's traits to the next generation again proven science not theory.

Particularly, as you so kindly pointed out, any and all experiments attempting to replicate the formation of even the simplest construct we could call life from the aforementioned building blocks has failed abysmally.

I never said it was impossible, it just appears to be very difficult and the problem of life's origin is separate and distinct from the process of evolution.

At best all one can say is that this is what happened, we don't why or how, although we do know approximately when (providing that the latest geological research supports previous theories about the age of the earth instead of contradicting them as they seem to be in the process of doing) and so far our best scientific theory is that there was a process we call evolution, but we can't conclusively prove it. Evolution may well end up being regarded with same amusement as the flat earth theory, which if I recall was the leading science of its day

When geological research on the age of the Earth is revised the planet always gets older... Evolution has been proven through the discovery and application of the DNA molecule and humans have been using DNA for thousands of years through the application of selective breeding.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Just because I feel like it (having a bit of a debate is such fun!):

Is it? To me in this instance it's like poking a caged bear with a stick.

Evolutionary theory negates itself because it uses itself to prove itself while ignoring the logical problems.

Evolution is a proven theory... without it genetic science would not exist.

Just take the discussion of alternative life forms we have been having in this thread.

Yeah of course, forum discussion, That'll show them pesky scientists!

Evolution states that life throws up a whole bunch of low level organisms, which, despite completely flying in the face of entropy (which IS demonstrably provable) like to become more complex. Despite all the issues with the statistical improbability of any given mutation being successful and leading to a more complex and viable organism, life manages to evolve a whole range of differing organisms, which share some common genetic characteristics (FYI the research actually shows that there are considerable differences which account for the difference in species) but lets go with the commonality of DNA because that is used as one of the "proofs" of evolution.

The research.. What research? Care to tell me where this research is from?

So here we have a theory which states that it is true because all the millions of variables it proposes are necessary to successful evolve into advanced life forms have evolved into one common genetic code with a very small variation.

Different life forms did not evolve a common genetic code, a common genetic code evolved different life forms through natural selection, you might not agree with it but you should acquaint yourself with evolution first before you make your counter argument.

Does this strike you as being in any way logical? It can't have it both ways. It can't say there needs to be this vast genetic soup of millions of failed variations in order to work (FYI where exactly ARE all these weird and wonderful failed organisms BTW - just one would be good in fact) but the fact they aren't there is proof that evolution is true? Its completely illogical.

That is a misinterpretation of the known facts, DNA is the mechanism of evolution and through it we understand the variation of life but DNA itself is not alive, it is the means by which life evolves.

 

[Meadow337]

Firstly there is a wonderful thing called a search engine where you can look up the counter arguments to evolution put forward by scientists rather than creationists, even though some of their arguments are pretty valid as well.

Secondly evolution is not a proven theory. There are many scientists who do not agree with it, it just happens to be the theory of the moment because the only other proposed alternative - creationism - is highly unacceptable to the scientific mind.

Thirdly I do not personally agree with evolution just from a logical point of view. As you dig into the premises of the theory there are just too many gaps and inconsistencies.

 

[beer good]

It's just happened to be the "theory of the moment" for the last 150 years, is all, despite a lot of people trying to disprove it. Whoever told you the quicky talking points you repeated above was, quite simply, lying to you. Or bearing false witness, if you prefer. But that's not really the topic of this thread - if you want to have a debate on it, by all means start a separate thread and I'll be happy to pick it apart.

ETA: OK, sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh, I apologise. It's just that the "It's all just a THEORY! And there's NO evidence!" stuff keeps coming up no matter how many times it's explained, and at some point you just want to point out that it's very easy to look up why it's nonsense, if you're interested.

 

[Meadow337]

Actually even evolutionists will say it is 'just' a theory If you separate the theory of evolution from the observable facts it's not a bad theory, the problem arises when you start comparing it to what actually is, and what isn't (but should be if evolution was true as stated in theory) that the issues arise which means that at best it is a theory in serious need of revision, or its wrong, that is why I deliberately compared it to the 'Flat Earth Theory' which fit the observable facts and the collective scientific knowledge of the time, but as people put aside their intellectual prejudices that newer better theories have come to light. Instead of defending the status quo why doesn't science try to think outside of the box? Just because it has been around for 150 years doesn't mean anything. How many centuries did people believe the earth was flat? All it really means is that for 150 years people have refused to think creatively (ha ha!) about the problems NOT explained by the Theory of Evolution in order to come up with better explanations.

Good grief I'm not a scientist and just plain common sense tells me there are serious inconsistencies between observable reality and the theory.

Anyway using the theory of evolution to postulate the potential for life in the universe is still a fallacious and erroneous argument as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Conscious Bob]

The Flat Earth Theory doesn't stand up to scientific enquiry, the Theory of Evolution does. If DNA isn't proof, what is it then?

 

[Meadow337]

I presume you actually mean the scientific method and the fact that it doesn't is one of the arguments against it used by actual factual scientists

DNA doesn't prove evolution because there is no physical evidence to support a change from one species into another. No known natural mechanism that can be observed to support the process of such change. Species are distinct. There are no genetic or physical 'inbetweeners' which is why I said that as a theory evolution is all fine and well. It is when you start trying to apply it to what is real and observable that the fault lines in it are exposed. Evolutionists try to paper over this issue by saying macro evolution can't be observed but this just obfuscates the issue rather than trying to solve it.

It is in fact the evolutionary equivalent of saying God is not observable but he is there anyway, you just have to take it on faith. (Yeah yeah now I'm being naughty and really stirring the pot).

 

[Conscious Bob]

I'll ask you again, what is DNA? Don't tell me what you think it isn't, tell me what it is.

 

[Meadow337]

DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid

 

[Conscious Bob]

DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid

Yes very good, now what do you think it does?