Evolution and Creationism

[rossum]

I thought this was already settled. Help me out:

If all organisms are of the same species with their ‘parents’, then going back to the common ancestor, there can only be one species.

True or false?

Maybe. We are eukaryotes, with mitochondria in our cells. Those mitochondria were once free-living organisms that were incorporated into our early single-celled ancestors: see here.

Hence it is possible that life originated twice in different parts of the planet, one origin resulting in most of our cell while the other origin resulted in our mitochondria.

Similarly, horizontal gene transfer may mean that our origins are from multiple abiogenesis events which have since exchanged genetic material; buffalo will be happy to explain more on this.

 

[rossum]

A single-cell bacterium

• represents the most complex (and far from fully understood) chemistry in the known universe…

This is an obvious error. Whatever source you got this from misinformed you. Our cells have all the chemistry seen in bacteria, plus the additional chemistry from our mitochondria (which bacteria lack) plus the extra chemistry needed to build and maintain a metazoan body: HOX genes, an immune system and suchlike. Again, something which bacteria lack. A metazoan has more complex chemistry than a single celled bacterium.

You need to find a better source, one which does not misinform you.

 

[EndTimes]

A single-cell bacterium

• represents the most complex (and far from fully understood) chemistry in the known universe…

This is an obvious error. Whatever source you got this from misinformed you.

You need to find a better source, one which does not misinform you.

NOW, Rossum - I heard this at a Lecture at BNL given by Bruce Alberts…
Why don’t you contact Bruce to tell him how you are way-better informed than him…

Bruce Michael Alberts (born April 14, 1938 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American biochemist and the Chancellor’s Leadership Chair in Biochemistry and Biophysics for Science and Education at the University of California, San Francisco.[3] He has done important work studying the protein complexes which enable chromosome replication when living cells divide. He is known as an original author of the “canonical, influential, and best-selling scientific textbook” Molecular Biology of the Cell ,[4] and as Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine.[5][6]

Alberts was the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005.[4] He is known for his work in forming science public policy, and has served as United States Science Envoy to Pakistan and Indonesia.[1][7] He has stated that “Science education should be about learning to think and solve problems like a scientist—insisting, for all citizens, that statements be evaluated using evidence and logic the way scientists evaluate statements.”[8] He is an Honorary Fellow of St Edmund’s College, Cambridge.[9]

 

[Noose001]

Maybe. We are eukaryotes, with mitochondria in our cells. Those mitochondria were once free-living organisms that were incorporated into our early single-celled ancestors: see here.

Hence it is possible that life originated twice in different parts of the planet, one origin resulting in most of our cell while the other origin resulted in our mitochondria.

Similarly, horizontal gene transfer may mean that our origins are from multiple abiogenesis events which have since exchanged genetic material; buffalo will be happy to explain more on this.

Just another myth and you failed to follow the logical deduction:

If all organisms are of the same species with their parents, there can only be one species in the world.

 

[EndTimes]

Destroying the bunkum of scientism !

And It came to pass that R tried very hard to appear relevant
in an Epic Failed Quest
to posit God and Man’s Sciences
as not being able to validly and mutually exist on Earth at the same time!

Alas! The fading credibility of R swiftly shrunk to zero -

 

[rossum]

NOW, Rossum - I heard this at a Lecture at BNL given by Bruce Alberts…

Then please reference the text of the lecture. I would be interested to see the place where Professor Alberts explained HOX genes in bacteria. Alternatively he may just have been making a rhetorical flourish in his lecture.

You would do well to compare the average size of a bacterial genome with the average size of a metazoan genome.

If all organisms are of the same species with their parents, there can only be one species in the world.

Please re-read the first word of my reply: “Maybe”. In most cases the offspring are indeed the same species as the parents. In a very few cases they are not. Even if the offspring are always the same species as the parents, then new species can still arise.

Before the Isthmus of Panama formed, many marine species were spread across from the Pacific to the Caribbean. When the isthmus formed those formerly single species were physically split into two separate populations, which were no longer able to interbreed. In time, microevolutionary changes made two separate species. In all cases, offspring were of the same species as their parents, but the parents had been split into two non-interbreeding populations.

 

[Pattylt]

Please remember that each species progeny are not identical to its parents! There are mutations in each generation. The children will still be able to breed with its parents but it’s great, great…grandchildren may not. Also, people often make it sound like evolution says a parent produces a new species. Evolution works on populations, made up of individuals, not each individual itself. Isolate a population from its sisters and brothers and over time, they will diverge unless there is absolutely no change in the environment…even then, mutations can become fixed in one population but not the other.

 

[EndTimes]

Then please reference the text of the lecture. I would be interested to see the place where Professor Alberts explained HOX genes in bacteria. Alternatively he may just have been making a rhetorical flourish in his lecture.

HOX Genes? Several pages on HOX genes can be found in this Book…
Micro-Biology of the Cell - Sixth Edition - Print Edition – New: - $130.00 to $210.00
Author Bruce Alberts, AND Alexander D. Johnson (Author), Julian Lewis (Author), David Morgan (Author), Martin Raff (Author), Keith Roberts (Author), Peter Walter (Author)

==============

NOPE… He wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination making a ‘rhetorical flourish’… .

Alberts waxed lonnnng on the in-credible chemical complexity of a cell…

In Molecular/Chemical/Cellular BIO R&D

• Each answer to known questions raises many more questions…
  Every 5 years - The amount of information in Biology expands exponentially…

Alberts spoke on what it would take and how long for science to fully understand a cell?
… IF a very concerted effort by varying science disciplines - along with a tonne of R&D money?
How long? IF a nation/science does as he suggests?
"By the end of the 21st Century"

===================

TEXT?

Professor? … Sure, R…

RE-VIEW a partial list of his Bonafides:

Bruce Michael Alberts (born April 14, 1938 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American biochemist and the Chancellor’s Leadership Chair in Biochemistry and Biophysics for Science and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. He has done important work studying the protein complexes which enable chromosome replication when living cells divide.

He is known as an original author of the “canonical, influential, and best-selling scientific textbook” Molecular Biology of the Cell ,

Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine.

Alberts was the president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1993 to 2005.

He is known for his work in forming science public policy,
and has served as United States Science Envoy to Pakistan and Indonesia.

+++++++++++++++++

*If you’ll publicly admit - Bruce Alberts knows more about the Cell than you do
I’ll give you that “text” - which you’re demanding… …

+++

 

[Noose001]

Please re-read the first word of my reply: “Maybe”. In most cases the offspring are indeed the same species as the parents. In a very few cases they are not. Even if the offspring are always the same species as the parents, then new species can still arise.

Before the Isthmus of Panama formed, many marine species were spread across from the Pacific to the Caribbean. When the isthmus formed those formerly single species were physically split into two separate populations, which were no longer able to interbreed. In time, microevolutionary changes made two separate species. In all cases, offspring were of the same species as their parents, but the parents had been split into two non-interbreeding populations.

In short you are saying that at some point in time, in isolated cases, an offspring may not be of the same species as the ‘parent’?

 

[Noose001]

Please remember that each species progeny are not identical to its parents! There are mutations in each generation. The children will still be able to breed with its parents but it’s great, great…grandchildren may not.

So you are saying that an offspring will always be of the same species with its parents, if this is true then we can only have one species in the entire world.

Evolution works on populations, made up of individuals, not each individual itself.

But mutations work on individuals within a population and not the population itself.

Isolate a population from its sisters and brothers and over time, they will diverge unless there is absolutely no change in the environment…even then, mutations can become fixed in one population but not the other.

Bacteria survive in all kinds of environment and even in isolation will still remain the same after 10s of thousands of generations.

 

[rossum]

HOX Genes? Several pages on HOX genes can be found in this Book…

So, nothing about HOX genes in bacteria. Colour me unsurprised.

Alberts waxed lonnnng on the in-credible chemical complexity of a cell…

I agree, cells are complex. However, metazoan cells are more complex than bacterial cells.

 

[rossum]

In short you are saying that at some point in time, in isolated cases, an offspring may not be of the same species as the ‘parent’?

Yes. Not all speciations are like that, but some are. The Marbled Crayfish is one such example.

 

[Noose001]

Yes. Not all speciations are like that, but some are. The Marbled Crayfish is one such example.

How many species of Marbled Crayfish do you know?

I’m testing the idea that a parent gives rise to an offspring of a different species.

 

[EndTimes]

EndTimes:

HOX Genes? Several pages on HOX genes can be found in this Book…

So, nothing about HOX genes in bacteria. Colour me unsurprised.

No… I’ll colour you downtrodden…

R - your credibility has suffered greatly with that monumental blunder…

 

[o_mlly]

Please remember that each species progeny are not identical to its parents! There are mutations in each generation.

OK.

The children will still be able to breed with its parents but it’s great, great…grandchildren may not.

Or the great great … grandchildren may be able to reproduce. The claim of speciation based on a lack of reproductive capability cannot be demonstrated when one of the potential partners is long dead.

 

[rossum]

How many species of Marbled Crayfish do you know?

I’m testing the idea that a parent gives rise to an offspring of a different species.

One species is enough: Marbled Crayfish. The new species is parthenogenic, which the parents of the first example were not. Hence, those parents gave rise to an offspring that could not interbreed with them: by definition a new species, different from its parents.

 

[EndTimes]

rossum:

Yes. Not all speciations are like that, but some are. The Marbled Crayfish is one such example.

How many species of Marbled Crayfish do you know?

I’m testing the idea that a parent gives rise to an offspring of a different species

And ‘speciations’ is a term some Darwinists love to use -
for it presumes upon us that Humans “evolved” from some (unknown) first critter
who in turn - emerged from chemicals aka Abiogenesis Theory presented as True.

They also love to say that when they’re waxing and waning forever about Darwinism,
that we’re not allowed to remind them that Science does not know how
the rumoured ‘first critter’ came to be -
for the reason that Darwinists are completely stumped by DNA - never mind ‘Cells’

 

[rossum]

R - your credibility has suffered greatly with that monumental blunder…

No blunder. A metazoan cell is chemically more complex than a bacterial cell. It has the added complexity of mitochondria, and its DNA has all the extra complexity needed to deal with the metazoan body. Plant cells have the extra complexity of chloroplasts as well.

 

[EndTimes]

No blunder.

R - The blunder was so big time - the walls are still echoeing the laughter which ensued…

_

 

[Noose001]

One species is enough: Marbled Crayfish. The new species is parthenogenic, which the parents of the first example were not. Hence, those parents gave rise to an offspring that could not interbreed with them: by definition a new species, different from its parents.

One species is not enough when talking about how a parent gives rise to an offspring of a different species. How many generations are there since the first Marbled crayfish?

A marbled crayfish can only give rise to a marbled crayfish cemented by the fact that they don’t even interbreed amongst themselves- your definition of species doesn’t even apply to them.