• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For scientists who accept evolution

Hey, can we say xmas is FSM's "bday" too? or Would we have to wait for some FSM progeny before we have a gift giving holiday?
 
Mercutio said:
That is so cool...
Click to expand...


That's the thing, isn't it. If you don't bend science to your preconceived notions what turns up is neat in its own right. All you need is clever people thinking intelligent thoughts.

(Subject for another thread, but it is no secret that I have a religious faith and my subjective awe is partly informed by exactly this kind of science that sends the Creationists running for the barricades!)
 
Mercutio said:
That is so cool...
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Dr. Michael Syvanen is a professor studying molecular genetics in the Department of Medical Microbiology at the University of California, Davis, and has been an advocate since the early-80s of an idea that has gained considerable support over the last few years - that much evolution is not tree-shaped, but net-shaped. That is, that genes cross taxonomic lineages.
Click to expand...

There are deep ideological reasons for believing in a LUCA that explain the reluctance of many to abandon it. In fact this reason is built directly into the most basic model of modern biology, i.e. the tree of life. The only figure in Darwin’s “Origin of Species” happens to be a tree that inevitably maps back to a single trunk. Indeed the algorithms used in phylogenetic analysis can only find a single trunk, which, of course, is how they are designed. All practicing biologists are aware of the limitations of phylogenetic modeling with its built in assumptions, but nevertheless these assumptions do cause confusion. For example, let me pose a question and ask how often there was confusion when thinking about mitochondrial eve? Isn’t it a common misperception to think at some point that all of human life could be mapped back to a single woman? When in fact all we can say is that the only surviving remnant of that distant ancestor is her mitochondrial genome, and it is extremely unlikely that any of her other genes survive in any human populations. Because of the phenomena of sexual reproduction and recombination we share genes with multiple ancestors with no need to hypothesize any individual ancestor from whom we have descended. The same reasoning should apply to the evolution of all life; because of the phenomena of horizontal gene transfer we share genes with multiple ancestors with no need to hypothesize individual species from whom we have descended (10).
Click to expand...

Can you guys tell the difference between Pandas' Thumbs and Pandora's Box?
 
The wonderful thing about science is the freedom to explore new hypothese, the willingness to question and verify, the ability to change in the face of new information. You are not indoctrinated, you are at liberty.
 
hammegk said:
How many abiogenic events do you find most likely?
Click to expand...

most
1. Greatest in number: won the most votes.
2. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins.
Click to expand...

Being that most is a superlative, your question of "how many" doesn't make sense.
 
Hmm... talking about abiogenesis... Probably happens quite a lot. The universe is a big and old place.
 
delphi_ote said:
Being that most is a superlative, your question of "how many" doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
If you say so.

most: adv. In or to the highest degree or extent. Used with many adjectives and adverbs to form the superlative degree: most honest; most impatiently.
Click to expand...

Most likely .... greatest likelyhood ... highest probability .... etc.

Ergo, What number do you personally consider to be the best answer to the question: "How many abiogenic events have occured (and let's limit it to Terra rather than considering the universe to keep BD happy)?".
 
Hammy...given that link (which we both enjoyed), and the other comments in response to your question, I feel compelled to ask--why is the question important? One event, two, four, ten, a billion...natural selection is at work only after such an event, so why is it a big deal? The only answer that would not work for natural selection is "zero"; do you suggest that there have been no abiogenic events? I don't think so, and if you do not, the question seems to me to be absolutely irrelevant. Am I missing something?
 
Mercutio said:
The only answer that would not work for natural selection is "zero"; do you suggest that there have been no abiogenic events?
Click to expand...
Er, one 'creation event' would do it too. ;)

It is a fact life exists, so zero is not the answer under any scenario.

I don't think so, and if you do not, the question seems to me to be absolutely irrelevant. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I'd say you're missing something. At some number -- who knows what -- dozens, hundreds, thousands, ??? the common ancestor hypothesis falls apart. No doubt The Theory would get re-written but my there would be a vast amount of data to re-think the implications of. Perhaps a new and original thought might occur to someone during that endeavor.
 
hammegk said:
Er, one 'creation event' would do it too. ;)

It is a fact life exists, so zero is not the answer under any scenario.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back up the baseless claim?

I'd say you're missing something. At some number -- who knows what -- dozens, hundreds, thousands, ??? the common ancestor hypothesis falls apart. No doubt The Theory would get re-written but my there would be a vast amount of data to re-think the implications of. Perhaps a new and original thought might occur to someone during that endeavor.
Click to expand...

As all scientific theories would. How many times can we say this? Scientific theories are re-worked to fit with the observed data.
 
Taffer said:
Do you have any evidence to back up the baseless claim?
Click to expand...
You are now arguing that "life doesn't exist"? :)

As all scientific theories would. How many times can we say this? Scientific theories are re-worked to fit with the observed data.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but at some point, theories tend to get replaced with better ones, at least in fact-based scientific endeavors.
 
hammegk said:
Yeah, but at some point, theories tend to get replaced with better ones, at least in fact-based scientific endeavors.
Click to expand...
Which is why we're at evolution at this moment: It's a theory made to fit the facts.

Sensed a possible straw man earlier: The common ancestor portion of the theory applies to life on Earth... and a few microbes that hitched rides on spacecraft.

It seems possible, at least to me, there's a planet out there somewhere where two abiogenesis events occurred almost simultaneously, leading to two possible starting point ancestors.
 
hammegk said:
You are now arguing that "life doesn't exist"? :)
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Please explain how you think I am.

Yeah, but at some point, theories tend to get replaced with better ones, at least in fact-based scientific endeavors.
Click to expand...

How is the Theory of Evolution any different?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom