A great example of evolution is the Galapagos Islands. A number of islands, containing the same species, but over time, despite the close proximity, they changed, based on the food, landscape, etc. Now there are new species, where there was one. Colours, nose/mouth changes, and one, a large lizard is now a swimming reptile, eating seaweed. This is a mere glimpse in gegraphic time, expand that to the dawn of early sea life on Earth, and till now
KiwiTim: That the complex molecular machinery required for self-replication could form 'de novo' by chance occurrence is a probability, but in real terms the size of this probability is quite absurd, and of little value in the real world ( a larger probability might be that there is a planet in the universe with seas of lemonade and continents made of toffee; we all know this is quite absurd) . So we are left with a big question mark. Did this first self-replicating cell form by some natural process that we currently know nothing of, or did something with intelligence make it? Since modern humans are yet to create life in the lab via random processes ( Craig Venter has reconstructed life, but he used information from living organisms and human intelligence to do it ), it is highly unlikely that life started spontaneously without some kind of directing intelligence (this is quite uncomfortable for some human ears, but from what we can see of this world it is more probable than life forming 'de novo').
I reject that argument, as it attempts to quantify probability of a process as "absurdly small" when the process itself isn't clearly understood, so the probability of it "just happening" can't be determined. And from observation, we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%. Yes sure - that presents a paradox, but nowhere near as large a paradox as presented by a hypothesis that "something with intelligence" created life.
I agree with you totally that the oceanic islands are great evolutionary laboratories that show the power of natural selection and provide proof for the theory of common descent. I'm not refuting that at all. Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.
Certainly, it does not explain the start of the first self-replicating cell. I'm sure you can see the issue: without self replication there is no natural selection. The problem then becomes how did self replication molecular machinery appear without natural selection?
tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.
But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.
There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.
The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life. That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..
KiwiTim: I agree with you totally that the oceanic islands are great evolutionary laboratories that show the power of natural selection and provide proof for the theory of common descent. I'm not refuting that at all. Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.
Certainly, it does not explain the start of the first self-replicating cell. I'm sure you can see the issue: without self replication there is no natural selection. The problem then becomes how did self replication molecular machinery appear without natural selection?
As I undestand from a few docos on astro biology, if you have water, and if you have electricity, and no doubt some other criterias, these can create in a chemical reaction, amino acids. These are the building blocks on life. It was only a few weeks ago there was an article where scientists created DNA using this known or believed method. Artificially created life. Sounds amazing, but its a chemical process, add electricity, and you create another material, in this case one with a biological makeup.
The earth, 300 milion years after creation, was a molten ball. All that was added were meteorites and comets in a period of bombardment carrying ice (Great Bombardment?) Earth was silica, then water, weather, thunderstorms added to the mix. Thats the base process I recall, I believe it is proven or at least taken as correct. And water is actuall;y very common in our solar system
KiwiTim: Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.
All the answers? Of course not. Presuming that "gaps" in understanding might have "unnatural" explanation is at best wishful theistic speculation, at worst, collating "gaps" to argue that as the vast bulk of evidence is incomplete and therefore "suspect" is disingenuous contextomy.
tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.
But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.
There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.
The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life. That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..
tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.
But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.
There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.
The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life. That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..
You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.
No-one has proved that the universe is expanding, so you cannot base arguments based on the fact that it is. For the very same reason, no-one has proved that it isn't expanding - and likewise their arguments are not based on fact either.
It is an idea to think of these kind of arguments from both sides as both arguments have a equal merit. Likewise the reliance on light and time being related is also something that often gets challenged - people forget that time really is only relative to a local event - outside of that event horizon, time has a particularly different meaning.
KiwiTim: That the complex molecular machinery required for self-replication could form 'de novo' by chance occurrence is a probability, but in real terms the size of this probability is quite absurd, and of little value in the real world ( a larger probability might be that there is a planet in the universe with seas of lemonade and continents made of toffee; we all know this is quite absurd) . So we are left with a big question mark. Did this first self-replicating cell form by some natural process that we currently know nothing of, or did something with intelligence make it? Since modern humans are yet to create life in the lab via random processes ( Craig Venter has reconstructed life, but he used information from living organisms and human intelligence to do it ), it is highly unlikely that life started spontaneously without some kind of directing intelligence (this is quite uncomfortable for some human ears, but from what we can see of this world it is more probable than life forming 'de novo').
I reject that argument, as it attempts to quantify probability of a process as "absurdly small" when the process itself isn't clearly understood, so the probability of it "just happening" can't be determined. And from observation, we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%. Yes sure - that presents a paradox, but nowhere near as large a paradox as presented by a hypothesis that "something with intelligence" created life.
You can get some measure of the size of the probability required by looking at the size and number of the protein molecules required for self replication. You would need to define the minimum amount of molecular machinery required for self-replication, then calculate the probability of the amino acids combining by random chance.
A sample size of one doesn't provide a very good level of statistical proof ("we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%").
We can't say abiogenesis occurred. If this could be replicated in the lab, then we could make some predication about the probability of abiogenesis, but we have nothing in that department. So far abiogenesis is science fiction.
You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.
No-one has proved that the universe is expanding
Direct observation says it is.
Is something in an infinite amount of space really expanding?
If you subscribe to the Big Bang theory, then the universe was as big as a shoebox, fractions of millionths of a nanosecond afterwards. And its been expanding since. Thus, it cannot be defined as inifinite
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
Vocus
