Evolution or not?

[VoloScientiam]

Now, before we begin, I would like to say that I am not proposing any other theory, but that i believe there has to be another way. Please, no arguments, but debates, using reason, facts and evidences.

I am inclined to believe that life was formed by another way than the theory of evolution. The bottom line issue that i have with the very basis of evolution is that, even if an amino acid were formed under all the right conditions, which the likely-hood of ONE being formed is very small (That you cannot deny, it may be true, no one has ever proven it can be done without premeditated planning, but also, no one has ever dis proven it either), it takes more than one amino acid to create a living organism, so the probability that all these amino acids (each having a very low probability of coming into existence in the first place), all coming together in the same place is phenomenally low. But I will concide, that given enough time, something with a probability of 1/10^999,999 power of happening, may still happen, however unlikely.

 

Next, if evolution works by natural selection, many creatures today would not be able to exist. Such as the giraffe, by the time it could have evolved the sponge-like apparatus that is needed to bend its neck to drink, every one of them would be dead, or going further back, the reason it would need a longer neck in the first place, to collect food, if there were continuous droughts, or whatever brought along the change, the change itself would be much much slower than the event that occurred to make it happen. Or the bombardier beetle, the chemicals it uses would kill it before natural selection would have a chance to use it.

 

Next, the mutation selection theory, the odds of a gene mutation happening are 1 in 10 million cell divisions, and the odds of 2 happening to one cell are one in 100 trillion. With the vast majority of mutations doing nothing, some being harmful, and many others fatal. The chances that it is to the benefit of the creature is very slim. And finally on this topic, never once, has a mutation been observed to create new DNA by which an organism could evolve.

 

Lastly, as for the common ancestor theory, evidence has shown that instead of a cone-like depiction of creatures, starting from few and spreading to many, that it is more of a inverted cone, starting from many and becoming fewer.

 

These are my thoughts on the subject, I know of no other method by which life could have started, but i believe that there are to many holes in evolution, they may be filled in at some point, but as for now, it is to flawed for me to wholeheartedly accept.

 

I would appriciate it if you would peacefully- give me your thoughts, and constructive criticisms on my own thoughts.

[Horza2002]

Well the origins of amino acids has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution. That will refer to abiogensis not evolution. Experiments conducted using the early Earths atmosphere have been carried out many times with varying reaction initiators. And in each case, amino acids, nucelotides and a varitey of other complex organic molcules were observed. Amino acids have since been shown to be found on asteroids, other planets, in nebulae etc. So it appears that they are very easily accesible to be made in nature. I would say that the greater mystery is why life predominately uses L-amino acids and not D- given that the naturally occuring synthesis of amino acids is racemic so should have produced a mixture (I would be interested if anyone knows as to the reason for this btw).

 

While I'm no evolutionary biologist (actually im a chemist), I'm making an educated guess at these next bits. You are assuming that the giraffe evolved its long next first and then realised..hang-on I can't drink now. The increase in neck length would have happened at the same time as the ability to bend the neck to drink...otherwise you would be right, they would have died out. Many evolutionary processes can occur at the same time..its not a linear progression.

 

Where did you get that statistic about mutation occuring? Because that will depend greatly on the cell (prokayrot or eukaryot) and the type (heart, liver, etc). In human cells, and I beleive in certain strains of Sptreptomyces and E.coli, there is a mechanism by which the DNA is regually checked and repaird to make sure that it has the correct sequence. However, not all animals/cells have this ability to do that. In early/less complicated life, no such mechanisms exist and so mutations can occur rather frequently. Especially in very simple cells where teh DNA is simply in the cytoplasm and is not protected by a nucleus or proteins... Why do you think the chances of a mutation being good is so slim?

 

Many Gramm-positive bacteria are now becoming resistant to loads of antibiotics; one example is Vancomycin. Vancomycin works by binding and holding VERY tightly to one of the essentiall 'bricks' that the bacteria need to make their cell membranes/walls (the D-Ala-D-Ala dipeptide). However, a lot of bacteria now have had a mutation that means one single atom in that brick has changed (from a nitrogen to an oxygen; one of the amides is replaced with an ester). This change makes Vancomycin 10,000 less effective, to the point where it is completely useless as an antibiotic....from the bacteria's point of view, that mutation is EXTREMLEY beneficial.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am inclined to believe that life was formed by another way than the theory of evolution

 

Correct. Life is formed by abiogenesis, and with life species are formed by evolution.

 

Next, if evolution works by natural selection, many creatures today would not be able to exist. Such as the giraffe, by the time it could have evolved the sponge-like apparatus that is needed to bend its neck to drink, every one of them would be dead, or going further back, the reason it would need a longer neck in the first place, to collect food, if there were continuous droughts, or whatever brought along the change, the change itself would be much much slower than the event that occurred to make it happen. Or the bombardier beetle, the chemicals it uses would kill it before natural selection would have a chance to use it.

 

At best these are arguments from ignorance. In the case of the giraffe especially, since both the traits in question can form gradually together eliminating your supposed problem. More than that, by comparing DNA of species, you can build a tree of life by considering the closest species the more related. This can be done for any protein common to most life, and each time you do it you get roughly the same tree of life. The odds of this being a coincidence are astronomical.

 

Next, the mutation selection theory, the odds of a gene mutation happening are 1 in 10 million cell divisions, and the odds of 2 happening to one cell are one in 100 trillion. With the vast majority of mutations doing nothing, some being harmful, and many others fatal.

 

Then it should not surprise you that we still share a large percentage of our DNA with species such as bacteria.

 

The chances that it is to the benefit of the creature is very slim. And finally on this topic, never once, has a mutation been observed to create new DNA by which an organism could evolve.

 

Sure it has. I'm certain gene duplication events must have been observed by now.

 

Lastly, as for the common ancestor theory, evidence has shown that instead of a cone-like depiction of creatures, starting from few and spreading to many, that it is more of a inverted cone, starting from many and becoming fewer.

 

Well no wonder you don't believe in evolution, with people lying to you like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Patterns_in_frequency

 

Briefly, if extinction happens faster than speciation for a prolonged period of time, we would all go extinct. As shown by the fossil record, even mass extinctions do little to reduce the number of species because they are followed almost immediately by rapid speciation.

[VoloScientiam]

Well, Thanks to you both. Im not very versed in the subject and just wanted to hear the explanations of someone who is Those were all just things i have heard. I would love it if someone could show me the documents or such of amino acids found on asteroids and nebula.

[Horza2002]

While this is not a scientific journal paper, it shows that they were discovered in a comet in 2009.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html

 

This paper here was published in the journal Advances in Space Research in 1995. While it is not direct evidence of amino acids in space, it highlights the possibility amino acids can be formed in the prescence of cosmic radiation present in open space. IN this experiment, they exposed methane, ethane and propane to various cosmic raditation and detected glycine (the simplist amino acid), alanine and some non-proteogenic amino acids.

 

Formation of amino acid precursors in cometary ice environments by cosmic radiation : K. Kobayashia, T. Kasamatsua, T. Kanekoa, J. Koikeb, T. Oshimab, T. Saitoc, T. Yamamotoe, d and H. Yanagawaf

[StringJunky]

Well, Thanks to you both. Im not very versed in the subject and just wanted to hear the explanations of someone who is Those were all just things i have heard. I would love it if someone could show me the documents or such of amino acids found on asteroids and nebula.

 

Here's one:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/left_hand_aminoacids.html

[John Cuthber]

Glycine in interstellar space

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...593..848K

[VoloScientiam]

Thank you. This was eye-opening

[Moontanman]

Isn't saying that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis a little bit disingenuous? I know Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis but wasn't abiogenesis a type of evolution, the evolution of less complex chemicals into more complex chemicals resulting in organisms of some sort?

[Horza2002]

No, the term and theory of eveolution only concerns life and its changes etc. Abiogensis is the theory of how life began..they are not the same thing. You saying that chemical evoleved into life is that same as sayog evolution is worng coz its onlya theory.

 

Although, thinking about it, it all really depends on what your definition of life is though.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Horza2002

[Moontanman]

No, the term and theory of eveolution only concerns life and its changes etc. Abiogensis is the theory of how life began..they are not the same thing. You saying that chemical evoleved into life is that same as sayog evolution is worng coz its onlya theory.

 

Although, thinking about it, it all really depends on what your definition of life is though.

 

 

No, Darwin did not coin the word evolution, lots of things evolve, people, planets, stars, the universe, and chemical reactions. The Theory of the Evolution of life pertains to living organisms but the process that created those organisms was also an evolutionary one. It is called chemical evolution...

 

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/Chemical-Evolution.html

 

 

Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.

 

 

The chemical and physical conditions of the primitive Earth are invoked to explain the origin of life, which was preceded by chemical evolution of organic chemicals.

 

 

In the first stage of chemical evolution, molecules in the primitive environment formed simple organic substances, such as amino acids. This concept was first proposed in 1936 in a book entitled, "The Origin of Life on Earth," written by the Russian scientist, Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin. He considered hydrogen, ammonia, water vapor, and methane to be components in the early atmosphere. Oxygen was lacking in this chemically-reducing environment. He stated that ultraviolet radiation from the Sun provided the energy for the transformation of these substances into organic molecules. Scientists today state that such spontaneous synthesis occurred only in the primitive environment. Abiogenesis became impossible when photosynthetic cells added oxygen to the atmosphere. The oxygen in the atmosphere gave rise to the ozone layer which then shielded Earth from ultraviolet radiation. Newer versions of this hypothesis contend that the primitive atmosphere also contained carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen. Present-day volcanoes emit these substances.

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin03

 

Evolution is not restricted to life forms...

[Mr Skeptic]

Isn't saying that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis a little bit disingenuous? I know Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis but wasn't abiogenesis a type of evolution, the evolution of less complex chemicals into more complex chemicals resulting in organisms of some sort?

 

Evolution cannot function until you have something that self-replicates. I believe Darwin suggested God as the creator of the first living thing (whether he believed that or not is a different story), but then with that first life and evolution explained the rest of the species. Modern abiogenesis theories try to make use of evolution and extend it beyond what we would consider to be life, but that can only go as far as a self-replicating entity. You can't explain via evolution anything that can't replicate, so while you can sneak a little evolution into abiogenesis you still need a mechanism to make the first self-replicators.

[Ringer]

No, Darwin did not coin the word evolution, lots of things evolve, people, planets, stars, the universe, and chemical reactions. The Theory of the Evolution of life pertains to living organisms but the process that created those organisms was also an evolutionary one. It is called chemical evolution...

 

. . .

 

 

Evolution is not restricted to life forms...

 

 

When we just say 'evolution' we are usually using it in the form of evolution of life, not any other type. The term evolution can be applied to most anything that changes, but the OP is probably talking about evolution of organisms here. In an even stricter sense evolution doesn't just need life, it needs populations. Assuming the definition of biological evolution as the change in allele frequency in a population of similar species, evolution doesn't need only life, but populations of life.

[Horza2002]

I agree with you that yes, other things in the Universe do indeed evolve (like stars, etc) but the term Theroy of Evolution applies to life. It does not explain how stars form or how life started. Chemical evolution is a seperate theory that is related to evolution yes but as Mr Skeptic has pointed out, you need something that self-replicates before evolution can occur.

[CharonY]

one has to keep in mind that the term evolution in different contexts mean different things. In biology, it refers to the change of allele frequencies over time. As such, it does not cover the rise of self-replicating molecules. In the strictest sense, it does not even cover all self-replicating molecules per se as the narrow definition is tied to DNA-based replicating systems (including all known life forms and mobile genetic elements). Again, one could try to broaden the definition, but the correct context has to be given.