Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[Skeptic Ginger]

Alot of the people here, in my opinion, need to do less talking and more thinking.....

A lot, or one or two in particular?

 

[Lamuella]

In the completely useless sense that Darwin's "descent with modification" predicts regarding offspring. That being change happens (unless it doesn't) and it's neutral, increases chance of survivability, or decreases it.

Or do you suggest some phylogenetic miracles are being predicted?

I suggest that by studying the evolution of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others, and that by studying the evolution of trypanotolerance they are better able to breed cattle that are resistant to these parasites. Parasitology and parasite immunology are areas of science rooted firmly in evolutionary theory.

 

[hammegk]

Alot of the people here, in my opinion, need to do less talking and more thinking.

Most here appear incapable of more than demonstrating the ability to learn by rote, and regurgitating same.

I suggest that by studying the evolution of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others, and that by studying the evolution of trypanotolerance they are better able to breed cattle that are resistant to these parasites. Parasitology and parasite immunology are areas of science rooted firmly in evolutionary theory.

I see. Over and above the factual, useless-for-prediction "descent with modification" observation, how so?


drkitten: Back to the question given me, 'do mammals share a common ancestor', apparently yes, in the sense every bit of rna/dna seems to have the capability to re-direct outcomes at phylogenetic level when introduced, at least at some specific points, in otherwise foreign-to-it rna/dna.

How many times via abiogenesis rna/dna chemistry was 'rediscovered' is unknown ... once, three times, ten-thousand times ... so 'common ancestor' may not be the full answer. Shared common chemistry is a no-brainer.

 

[cyborg]

How many times via abiogenesis rna/dna chemistry was 'rediscovered' is unknown ... once, three times, ten-thousand times ... so 'common ancestor' may not be the full answer.

Are you suggesting that there have been a whole load of abiogenesis events over the entire history of life?

 

[Lamuella]

I see. Over and above the factual, useless-for-prediction "descent with modification" observation, how so?

Which of the three statements I made are you asking about?

That by studying the evolution of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others?

That by studying the evolution of trypanotolerance the Host-Pathogen team are better able to breed cattle that are resistant to these parasites?

That parasitology and parasite immunology are areas of science rooted firmly in evolutionary theory?

or are you just trolling?

 

[hammegk]

Are you suggesting that there have been a whole load of abiogenesis events over the entire history of life?

I suggest that theories predicated on 'single ancestor' accept findings that tend to confirm it, ands reject findings that suggest otherwise.

Which of the three statements I made are you asking about?

That by studying the evolution of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others?

That by studying the evolution of trypanotolerance the Host-Pathogen team are better able to breed cattle that are resistant to these parasites?

That parasitology and parasite immunology are areas of science rooted firmly in evolutionary theory?

Or as I'd say, by studying the genetic changes in succesive generations of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others.

And, by studying the the genetic changes in succesive generations of trypanotolerance the Host-Pathogen team are better able to breed cattle that are resistant to these parasites.

Now, where does either of those rely -- in any meaningful way -- on even "descent with modification", remembering that a giant edifice called neo-Darwinism has been constructed on that useless-for-prediction datum, and that neo-Darwinism, and that "basic evolutionary theory", have the smallest bit in common.

or are you just trolling?

No. Are you?

 

[Dragon]

I suggest that theories predicated on 'single ancestor' accept findings that tend to confirm it, ands reject findings that suggest otherwise.

...

Do you know of any "findings" that suggest other than a single ancestor?

 

[Mojo]

Now, where does either of those rely -- in any meaningful way -- on even "descent with modification", remembering that a giant edifice called neo-Darwinism has been constructed on that useless-for-prediction datum, and that neo-Darwinism, and that "basic evolutionary theory", have the smallest bit in common.

If you prefer calling it "basic genetic-changes-in-succesive-generations theory", go right ahead.

 

[drkitten]

I suggest that theories predicated on 'single ancestor' accept findings that tend to confirm it, ands reject findings that suggest otherwise.

I'm not aware of any 'findings' that suggest otherwise.

What are those 'findings,' then?

 

[drkitten]

Or as I'd say, by studying the genetic changes in succesive generations of Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax the Host-Pathogen project are better able to determine how and why it affects certain cattle more than others.


Now, where does [that] rely -- in any meaningful way -- on even "descent with modification",?

Well, given that "genetic changes in successive generations" are, by definition, "descent with modification," and similarly "descent with modification" is largely instantiated as "genetic changes in successive generations" I'd say that the reliance is fairly basic.

The only conceptual difference is that "genetic changes" rely upon the genome as a mechanism for transmission of modifications, while "descent with modification" allows for information to be transmitted outside of an organism's genome (as, for example, the "descent with modification" of an organism's mitochondria, instead of the organism itself). So in this example, both Darwin's theory and modern evolutionary theory are a better description of the natural world, since they incorporate other aspects of biology that your formulation does not.

 

[Lamuella]

wow, hammy, you entirely failed to actually answer my question. Well done.

and if mapping the evolution of the Trypanosoma parasites is so useless, why are the Wellcome Trust doing it? Fun?

Studying the evolution of parasites can help determine how closely different parasites are related. Determining how closely parasites are related improves dignosis and treatment options.

You've almost certainly scoffed at talk.origins before now, but they have a page that specifically debunks your opinion that evolutionary theory has no practical application:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

 

[blutoski]

I suggest that theories predicated on 'single ancestor' accept findings that tend to confirm it, ands reject findings that suggest otherwise.

You suggest wrong. An independent tree would be Nobel Prize material, and very exciting, even in the informal literature. We'd all be talking about it. Consider the flurry of publications when we discovered new amino acids in Archaea.

The possibility of independent abiogenesis events is very much discussed, and it is almost certain that it has happened. However, there is no evidence that the biosphere has more than one common ancestor, which is a different question. It is possible that independent roiss-machine lines merged, but that would be impossible to detect now.

 

[blutoski]

wow, hammy, you entirely failed to actually answer my question. Well done.

and if mapping the evolution of the Trypanosoma parasites is so useless, why are the Wellcome Trust doing it? Fun?

Studying the evolution of parasites can help determine how closely different parasites are related. Determining how closely parasites are related improves dignosis and treatment options.

You've almost certainly scoffed at talk.origins before now, but they have a page that specifically debunks your opinion that evolutionary theory has no practical application:

My impression is that these examples never impress critics, so I recommend treating this issue as a red herring. For all intent and purposes, there is no practical application for the astronomical physics of star formation, but that doesn't relate to whether or not it actually describes what it says it does.

 

[hammegk]

You suggest wrong. An independent tree would be Nobel Prize material, and very exciting, even in the informal literature. We'd all be talking about it. Consider the flurry of publications when we discovered new amino acids in Archaea.

What makes you think rna/dna chemistry is prone to produce different amino acids at any given level of genome complexity? (When y'all added another butterfly, er I mean amino acid, to your fact collection is irrelevant.) And since the tree has 'multiple roots' as a possible scenario, where does an independent tree enter the picture?

The possibility of independent abiogenesis events is very much discussed, and it is almost certain that it has happened. However, there is no evidence that the biosphere has more than one common ancestor, which is a different question. It is possible that independent roiss-machine lines merged, but that would be impossible to detect now.

Prions are an interesting twist, but over and above the rna/dna basis, the evidence for 'one common ancestor' is also assumption, not fact.


lammy: You're right; that talkorigins link is a laugher, although I've never stated there is no useful application for "evolutionary theory", although I at least refer specifically to macro-ev neo-Darwinism. The fact that Mendel was subsumed and expanded by neo-Darwinism is not really the key point of this discussion imnsho.

 

[blutoski]

What makes you think rna/dna chemistry is prone to produce different amino acids at any given level of genome complexity?

As somebody with 4 years of biochemistry, that sentence makes no sense. Do you mean: "are there other ways to have DNA, RNA, and so on?"

The answer is: yes. These molecules would work the same in different configurations. Many different ways. Probably millions of different ways. It's incredibly unlikely that multiple events would all end up with *exactly* the same chirality.

Shoot: in the lab, I spend all half my time cursing at racemic mixtures.

(When y'all added another butterfly, er I mean amino acid, to your fact collection is irrelevant.)

The date is not the issue. The point was that it challenged and refuted a tenet of Central Dogma, and it was considered exciting, not threatening.

And since the tree has 'multiple roots' as a possible scenario, where does an independent tree enter the picture?

When you're dealing with reality instead of metaphors.

However, that was my point about roiss machines merging. There may have been a synthesis of independent biomes. However, if their chemistry was so similar as to be indistinguishable, we'll probably never know.

Prions are an interesting twist

I don't know what that means. Their ancestry is much easier to understand than other kingdoms.

, but over and above the rna/dna basis, the evidence for 'one common ancestor' is also assumption, not fact.

Posturing.

 

[Dragon]

Posturing

hammegk in a nutshell

 

[hammegk]

At times, who isn't?

As somebody with 4 years of biochemistry, that sentence makes no sense. Do you mean: "are there other ways to have DNA, RNA, and so on?"

The answer is: yes. These molecules would work the same in different configurations. Many different ways. Probably millions of different ways. It's incredibly unlikely that multiple events would all end up with *exactly* the same chirality.

Shoot: in the lab, I spend all half my time cursing at racemic mixtures.

"Handed-ness", and "racemic: Of or relating to a chemical compound that contains equal quantities of dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms and therefore does not rotate the plane of incident polarized light. ... courtesy of dictionary.com .. more handed-ness" ... I'm sure interesting to some.

Perhaps that's posturing as well, or perhaps these attribues directly address the sanctity of neo-Darwinism; I admit I don't know.

The english alphabet can also assume a vast number of different configurations, as could the quarks in the universe. Some configurations communicate meaning, others are meaningless.

The date is not the issue. The point was that it challenged and refuted a tenet of Central Dogma, and it was considered exciting, not threatening.

Could you be a bit more specific in the tenet you specifically refer to?

When you're dealing with reality instead of metaphors.

A good point, but a bit more philosophical than this thread merits.

However, that was my point about roiss machines merging. There may have been a synthesis of independent biomes. However, if their chemistry was so similar as to be indistinguishable, we'll probably never know.

And should separate trees actually exist, how would one differentiate them?

I don't know what that means. Their ancestry is much easier to understand than other kingdoms.

A tiny attempt at humor .... Prions, twist ... get it?

 

[Dragon]

hammegk -

Do you know of any "findings" that suggest other than a single ancestor?

 

[hammegk]

Nope. Unfortunately, as I already pointed out

... should separate trees actually exist, how would one differentiate them?

Yeah. That's the ticket. Phenotypes are just an illusion.

 

[blutoski]

"Handed-ness", and "racemic: Of or relating to a chemical compound that contains equal quantities of dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms and therefore does not rotate the plane of incident polarized light. ... courtesy of dictionary.com .. more handed-ness" ... I'm sure interesting to some.

You asked a specific question, and I answered you. This is what you do with answers? Not even a thanks?

At least pretend you ask questions because you're interested in learning.



My impression is that you were suggesting that an underlying physics would guide independent abiogenesis events to identical chemistry, such that these biomes may merge without the ability to detect their unique origins. You proposed that alterations in rna/dna would impact functionality.

My counterargument is that abiogenesis events would be subject to ordinary laws of physics which do not thermodynamically favour any particular chirality. Organic reactions outside a living organism produce optically inactive racemic outcomes, so mirror-images are possible. As are enantiomers. But enantiomers are thermodynamic equals outside of a biome. Nucleic acids have several chiral centers, and could exist and function identically in, at my count, any of 512 different combinations each.

Yet only one configuration exists in the biome. Two explanations are possible: the other 511 varieties either did not originate (unlikely), or were outcompeted by our common ancestor (likely).



Abiogenesis biochemistry is a mature scientific field, not just fru-fru philosophy. Optical activity is key to exactly the field of research you are discussing.

I'm sure interesting to some.

Sour grapes. You don't understand it, so you dismiss it as unimportant.