B
buffalo
Guest
I am not sure why they are getting pulled.
- Status
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
A halfway-formed organ can still be useful - a light-sensitive spot helps organisms find food and avoid predators, and half a wing might be able to allow gliding jumps.
At any rate, you’re using the same logical fallacy to arrive at your conclusions: The argument from ignorance.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Hang on, what specifically about the law of probability indicates that DNA couldn’t be constructed through natural means?
B
buffalo
Guest
Codes come from minds not nature.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
We’re talking about the law of probability, though.
Why do you say that codes come from minds and not nature?
B
buffalo
Guest
Do we see other codes developing in nature?
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
No, I don’t, but that does not prove that they cannot under certain circumstances.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I’m not sure, they’re being closed without explanation which I find a bit irritating. The last mod (Jean Anthony was it?) used to at least post why he was closing it.
B
buffalo
Guest
We now know that the DNA code provides the recipes for all life. The so-called junk regions are not junk. They have function.
We have to ask what came first the chicken or the egg. How would a simple multi-cellular organism come up with the complete recipe for all life?
B
buffalo
Guest
It must be something you or StA are saying.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Well, not exactly. The research you are (probably) referring to showed that large sections of what was considered to be junk DNA may have a function. It did not demonstrate that all parts of DNA had a function.
It wouldn’t. DNA isn’t an “all or nothing” thing, it doesn’t have to be present in its modern form, 100% complete, in order for an organism to survive. The idea is that the first organisms had a much, much simpler form of DNA, maybe even RNA.
B
buffalo
Guest
The question is since DNA has an active resistance to mutations and self corrects suggests it has remained pretty much the same since the beginning.
B
buffalo
Guest
DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation
…3.2 BEYOND THE REACH OF CHANCE
Perhaps the most common popular view about the origin of life is that it happened
exclusively by chance. A few serious scientists have also voiced support for this view, at
least, at various points during their careers. In 1954 the physicist George Wald, for
example, argued for the causal efficacy of chance in conjunction vast expanses of time.
As he explained, “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the
impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain”
[48; 49, p. 121]. Later in 1968 Francis Crick would suggest that the origin of the genetic
code—i.e., the translation system—might be a “frozen accident” [50, 51]. Other theories
have invoked chance as an explanation for the origin of genetic information though often
in conjunction with pre-biotic natural selection. (see below 3.3)
While outside origin-of-life biology some may still invoke ‘chance’ as an explanation
for the origin of life, most serious origin-of-life researchers now reject it as an adequate
causal explanation for the origin of biological information [52; 44, pp. 89-93; 47, p. 7].
Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and
nucleic acids in the 1950s and 1960s, many calculations have been made to determine the
probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. Various
methods of calculating probabilities have been offered by Morowitz, Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe, Cairns-Smith, Prigogine, Yockey, and more recently, Robert Sauer [53,
pp. 5-12; 54, pp. 24-27; 55, pp. 91-96; 56; 30, pp. 246-58; 57; 34; 35; 36; 49, pp. 117-31].
For the sake of argument, these calculations have often assumed extremely favorable
prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not), much more time than was actually
available on the early earth, and theoretically maximal reaction rates among constituent
© by Stephen C. Meyer. All Rights Reserved.
15
monomers (i.e., the constituent parts of proteins, DNA and RNA). Such calculations have
invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced
biomacromolecules at random is, in Prigogine’s words, “vanishingly small . . .even on the
scale of . . .billions of years” [56]. As Cairns-Smith wrote in 1971:
Blind chance…is very limited. Low-levels of cooperation he [blind chance] can
produce exceedingly easily (the equivalent of letters and small words), but he
becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very
soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become
irrelevant. [55, p. 95]
…3.2 BEYOND THE REACH OF CHANCE
Perhaps the most common popular view about the origin of life is that it happened
exclusively by chance. A few serious scientists have also voiced support for this view, at
least, at various points during their careers. In 1954 the physicist George Wald, for
example, argued for the causal efficacy of chance in conjunction vast expanses of time.
As he explained, “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . Given so much time, the
impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain”
[48; 49, p. 121]. Later in 1968 Francis Crick would suggest that the origin of the genetic
code—i.e., the translation system—might be a “frozen accident” [50, 51]. Other theories
have invoked chance as an explanation for the origin of genetic information though often
in conjunction with pre-biotic natural selection. (see below 3.3)
While outside origin-of-life biology some may still invoke ‘chance’ as an explanation
for the origin of life, most serious origin-of-life researchers now reject it as an adequate
causal explanation for the origin of biological information [52; 44, pp. 89-93; 47, p. 7].
Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and
nucleic acids in the 1950s and 1960s, many calculations have been made to determine the
probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. Various
methods of calculating probabilities have been offered by Morowitz, Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe, Cairns-Smith, Prigogine, Yockey, and more recently, Robert Sauer [53,
pp. 5-12; 54, pp. 24-27; 55, pp. 91-96; 56; 30, pp. 246-58; 57; 34; 35; 36; 49, pp. 117-31].
For the sake of argument, these calculations have often assumed extremely favorable
prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not), much more time than was actually
available on the early earth, and theoretically maximal reaction rates among constituent
© by Stephen C. Meyer. All Rights Reserved.
15
monomers (i.e., the constituent parts of proteins, DNA and RNA). Such calculations have
invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced
biomacromolecules at random is, in Prigogine’s words, “vanishingly small . . .even on the
scale of . . .billions of years” [56]. As Cairns-Smith wrote in 1971:
Blind chance…is very limited. Low-levels of cooperation he [blind chance] can
produce exceedingly easily (the equivalent of letters and small words), but he
becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very
soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become
irrelevant. [55, p. 95]
L
liquidpele
Guest
I checked with myself again just to be sure and was assured that I was correct so I doubt my posts were the causeIt must be something you or StA are saying.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah - I once though I was wrong but I was mistaken…I checked with myself again just to be sure and was assured that I was correct so I doubt my posts were the cause
So we are both right.
I’ll flip you for it. 
R
reggieM
Guest
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
CHENGJIANG, China — The fish-like creature was hardly more than an inch long, but its discovery in the rocks of southern China was a big deal. The 530-million-year-old fossil, dubbed Haikouella, had the barest beginning of a spinal cord, making it the oldest animal ever found whose body shape resembled modern vertebrates.
In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.”
“Neo-Darwinism is dead,” said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first fishlike impressions of Haikouella five years ago.
Today, paleontologists still lack viable ancestors for the Cambrian’s forty or more animal phyla. Most researchers explain this by assuming that Precambrian animals were simply too small or too soft to leave a fossil record, or that conditions were unfavorable to fossilization.
In fact, the pair had failed to find any recognizable body plans showing steps along the way toward the complex Cambrian animals with their legs, antennae, eyes and other features.
What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved.
“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.”
Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
CHENGJIANG, China — The fish-like creature was hardly more than an inch long, but its discovery in the rocks of southern China was a big deal. The 530-million-year-old fossil, dubbed Haikouella, had the barest beginning of a spinal cord, making it the oldest animal ever found whose body shape resembled modern vertebrates.
In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.”
“Neo-Darwinism is dead,” said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first fishlike impressions of Haikouella five years ago.
Today, paleontologists still lack viable ancestors for the Cambrian’s forty or more animal phyla. Most researchers explain this by assuming that Precambrian animals were simply too small or too soft to leave a fossil record, or that conditions were unfavorable to fossilization.
In fact, the pair had failed to find any recognizable body plans showing steps along the way toward the complex Cambrian animals with their legs, antennae, eyes and other features.
What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved.
“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.”
Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
R
rossum
Guest
Correct.
There is no need for a new organ to appear for a new species. Both horses and donkeys share the same set of organs yet they cannot produce fertile hybrids.
But it might help it glide a bit further, attract mates with its display or help with heat exchange. A half-wing can have uses other than flying.
A light sensitive spot is still useful. Are your eyes useless because a hawk’s eyes are sharper? Your vision would be a useless fuzzy blur to a hawk trying to see a mouse in undergrowth from hundreds of feet in the air. There are many different types of eye, some sharper, some not so sharp. All are useful to the organism that carries them.
Correct, lungs did not evolve from gills. Gills evolved from the neck region while lungs evolved later from the gut. Many amphibians have both.
This is creationist rubbish. We have many transitional fossils in many series. The problem is that creationists redefine “transitional” in their own way. There are indeed no creationist-transitionals. There are many evolution-transitionals.
Try the water to land transition:* fish with fins.
- fish with fins on stumps.
- fish with fins on stumps with knees.
- fish with fins on stumps with knees and ankles.
- fish with fins on stumps/legs with knees, ankles and toes.
- amphibians with fins on stumps/legs with knees, ankles and toes.
- amphibians with legs with knees, ankles and toes.
rossum
I
itinerant1
Guest
I can’t reply fully to your objection at this time because I was relying on memory and perhaps I have wrongly recalled text and author. So, I will have to do a little homework. But the view I had in mind does not involve a misunderstanding of Mitochondrial Eve. That is, it is not based on the common misunderstanding of that particular theory. Obviously, some folks have been easily mislead by the word “Eve”.Setting aside your objection related to ME, the main point of evolution is common ancestry. And I was thinking of the issue more so according to monogenism and polygenism, which would both be true at different times and points on the evolutionary tree.
So, perhaps you can give your perspective on the subject stated in the following manner. And I may risk saying this scenario is consistent with what Cavalli-Sforza has said.
If one traces their ancestry beginning with their parents, they will encounter an increasing number of sets of direct ancestors: 4, then 8 grandparents, and so on. The numbers increase exponentially. Yet if one goes back far enough in time, those numbers begin to decrease due to the decreasing size of the earth’s population. Eventually, one would arrive at a first pair of ancestors. Otherwise, their would be no common descent, no evolution.
R
rossum
Guest
Correct so far.
Here you are in error. Evolution is a population phenomenon, and we would arrive at a small population of ancestors, not a single pair. The smallest scientific estimate I have seen for the minimum human population is 1,000 breeding pairs, though most estimates are much closer to a minimum of 10,000 breeding pairs.
Each of us carries two copies of (almost) every gene. Some genes are different in the population - some have a version (allele) for blue eyes while other have a version for brown eyes. If there are 100 variants of a gene then there must have been at least 50 breeding individuals (at two copies per individual) alive to carry all those copies and pass them on.
Given known mutation rates, the known number of different versions of each gene, and the known number of those versions we share with chimpanzees we can make estimates of the minimum human population size. As I said, the minimum estimate I have seen is 1,000 breeding pairs - 2,000 individuals of breeding age plus however many too young or too old to breed. The human population was never as low as two.
It is possible that our ancestors’ population was smaller earlier, but that would have been before we diverged from the chimpanzees and so the animals involved would not yet have been human.
rossum
I
itinerant1
Guest
I am familiar with this hypothesis. Perhaps you can unpack it, showing your interpretation. That is, give a possible ancestral history of the 1,000 - 10,000 or so pairs, i.e. the origins of this population.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
I’d like to add my expertise at this argument if you will. Here’ where we’re at:
- I don’t know a single geneticist.
- I think you have badly misunderstood what you have read.
- There have been many misunderstandings.
- 15 years have past.
- A huge quantity of work has been published
- Status