Evolution of the eye..

[aman]

A virus is a long way from life also. There is a key that we don't have yet but it might be found by one of the searching geniouses here. What caused these amino acids to align into RNA. There has to be an observable recipe following the natural rules that builds these blocks.

Just aman

[NapoleonGH]

Originally posted by blike

 

Us being here, having this discussion is a fact; explaining that we arrived at this point by means of evolution is a theory.

 

 

 

"there is a well thought out progression between cells and protiens about 15 steps i think." Very interesting, let me see.

 

Unfortunatly, single cells did arise like magic. See:

this thread

 

A few amino acids are a long way from a functioning cell.

 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. and NO. Evolution is an observed fact, we have observed speciation, we have bred for specific traits etc, darwinian evolution is quite real and an observed fact.

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html (i suggest looking up Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as fact and theory" in its entirety, only a tiny bit is included here.

 

 

Here are some obseved instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

what is a theory is the theory of natural selection. Common decent is as true as gravity

 

About ambiogenesis et al

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html this should clear up the creationistic pseudoscience you are spreading

[fafalone]

Evolution is a FACT.

 

Natural selection is a THEORY.

[blike]

What faf said ^.

 

"Bilke, no. Observations are "facts" theories are what explain the obersved facts. Hence evolution being a fact and a theory. "

 

So, hang on, did we observe natural selection bringing us to our present day stage? No!

 

Evolution is a fact as far as we can tell. (But remember, so was the second law of thermodynamics.) We have observed evolution in many instances [the famous guppy experiment]. In no way am I denying that. I'm simply stating that saying we originated from a single cell, and, through natural selection, we are what we presently are IS A THEORY. A theory is a well supported idea, saying that it is merely a theory is saying alot about its credibility. In other words, based on the data, this is what happened.

 

Unfortunatly you seem to have added something I never said.

 

Remember, always be careful when claiming something as "fact" or "law"; its been the downfall of many.

 

And if you think that article cleared up the abiogenesis you are sadly mistaken. I never attacked abiogenesis with the statistical model, only convergent evolution. Abiogenesis has issues well beyond statistics.

 

Interesting you should call my thoughts creationist psuedoscience, though. I havn't quoted a creationist yet, as I tend to disagree with the large majority of them. Most everything I've used comes from the rabidly creationist journals Science, Nature, and the magazine Scientific American.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

but evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. It doesn't account for how the Big Bang happened, nor where the initial matter/energy came from. It fails to explain sudden the sudden explosion of single-celled life

Ummm... should it?

 

I was rather of the opinion that evolution dealt with continuation, not origins.

[NapoleonGH]

Bilke:

first off we have observed it, to the extent that we have observed napoleon winning waterloo. in otherwords, we have seen such a plethora of evidence demonstrating that we share a common ancestor with chimps and that goes back and back through the fossile record and genetics etc that it would be silly to think it hadn't happen, that is a scientific fact, as much as as gravity

 

 

it doesnt only give statistical bits aobut ambiogenesis, it also shows the steps it takes, its not "protien magically bacterium" as you suggested.

 

some of your comments followed typical creationist pseudoscientific arguments, hence my statement

[fafalone]

and you know what we do to people who continuously spew pseudoscientific dribble around here....

[blike]

Sayonara: Ummm... should it?

 

No, it shouldn't. I said that because of this statement:

 

what do you mean "modern science has yet to come up with a suitable answer to our origins"? Evolution and the concept therein is one of the most well supported theories and most commonly observed facts out of all of science.

 

I was pointing out that evolution only accounts for the development of life on earth.

 

it doesnt only give statistical bits aobut ambiogenesis, it also shows the steps it takes, its not "protien magically bacterium" as you suggested.

 

The purpose of the other thread was to point out that as soon as conditions for life were met, life exploded. I did not address how fast life must have developed, but it is implied by the data that it must have been a fast development. This is not to say that it did not go through many steps, but there wasn't massive amounts of time for all this to occur.

[fafalone]

(in chat)

 

blike again (9:49:09 PM): what fossil record?

 

 

I think this is a nice summary of blike's evolutionary knowledge

[blike]

fafaIone (9:34:47 PM): ::changes blikes user status to "Pseudoscientist #2"

blike again (9:47:45 PM): too bad there's no data to back that up. anything i've said has come straight out of journals.

blike again (9:48:08 PM): 8-)

fafaIone (9:48:54 PM): no, everything you've said is your own little interpretation of journals

blike again (9:49:16 PM): eh, no.

fafaIone (9:49:25 PM): "the journal says blah, so therefore my blah is correct" no.

blike again (9:49:33 PM): until you can point out how i've misinterpreted journals, you cannot argue.

fafaIone (9:49:56 PM): the fossil record speaks for itself.

blike again (9:49:57 PM): with specific instances.

blike again (9:50:04 PM): what fossil record?

blike again (9:50:12 PM): for what?

fafaIone (9:50:16 PM): rofl

fafaIone (9:50:18 PM): thats going on the site

fafaIone (9:50:24 PM): blike again (9:49:09 PM): what fossil record?

blike again (9:50:42 PM): eh, what are you trying to use the fossil record to prove?

fafaIone (9:51:03 PM): just about everything i've said.

blike again (9:51:15 PM): gee, how vague.

 

in context. all you said was the fossil record. Great argument. Like I had any idea what you were speaking about.

[fafalone]

fafaIone (9:51:21 PM): but arguing with you about this is worse than arguing with zarkov

blike again (9:52:36 PM): because you accidentally said common ancestor had ANYTHING to do with it

fafaIone (9:52:57 PM): common ancestors and convergent evolution are two different topics

blike again (9:53:07 PM): which it does not. if you'd read any research journal you'd see them explaining how the eye evolved seperatly and independantly many different times.

fafaIone (9:53:48 PM): thats called convergence

fafaIone (9:54:16 PM): different species developping similar features is convergence.

blike again (9:54:37 PM): thanks, cpt. obvious. but yesterday you said it was because of a common ancestor

fafaIone (9:54:50 PM): you said convergence didn't happen.

fafaIone (9:54:59 PM): "its a joke"

blike again (9:55:00 PM): i did, and I made my case for it.

fafaIone (9:55:15 PM): but you just admitted your own argument was obviously convergence

blike again (9:55:52 PM): no, you said that its called "convergence". thats true, thats what its called, but i think convergence is highly unlikely.

fafaIone (9:56:11 PM): so it's highly unlikely a whole bunch of organisms have developped eyes?

fafaIone (9:56:36 PM): ::looks around:: i don't think so

blike again (9:57:16 PM): no, its highly unlikely that they would all evolve the same trait because of convergence. that was in support of "Theory of Life: We're Programmed".

fafaIone (9:57:28 PM): vision was a favored trait for an environment and group, therefore photoreceptors became more complex. there is no "useless intermediate"

blike again (9:58:16 PM): why aren't more traits convergent among the 5 phyla?

blike again (9:58:23 PM): that share eyes

fafaIone (9:58:50 PM): jointed appendages?

fafaIone (9:59:01 PM): ceolem development?

fafaIone (9:59:55 PM): the same basic eukaryotic cell structure?

blike again (10:00:15 PM): thats not because of convergence, thats because of ancestors.

fafaIone (10:00:26 PM): ...and the previous two

fafaIone (10:01:36 PM): fins? gills?

fafaIone (10:02:05 PM): hearts?

blike again (10:02:19 PM): common ancestors.

fafaIone (10:02:32 PM): all of those?

blike again (10:02:43 PM): no, probalby not jointed appendages

fafaIone (10:03:06 PM): so how did those come about?

fafaIone (10:04:54 PM): ...

fafaIone (10:06:45 PM): plant roots for example... plants in different orders have developped similar features separetely

fafaIone (10:07:10 PM): there was no "master ancestor" that explains the same basic shape that occures so many times in sea creatures

fafaIone (10:09:07 PM): in fact, whales descended from 4-legged mammals

fafaIone (10:12:10 PM): ... you got quiet

 

 

I believe you lose my dear USF student

[aman]

Once life evolved and differentiated at least as far as the carbon based organism, if a feeding niche was available and it was not too far a stretch than something filled it. Even vastly different evolved "by now"species. Maybe the world was filled by marsupials in isolated places on the Earth long before Australia split away.

I've got to think on it more.

Just aman

[fafalone]

They have marsupials in a few other places, like madagascar.

[aman]

Another isolated island. In isolated areas the evolution may have been arrested by an abundance of energy and separation but maybe the world was covered by marsupials before regular mammals evolved. There really isn't any way to tell from fossils, is there?

Just aman