TED Conversations

AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The real evolution happened to our awareness not our bodies

The ability to create modern tools existed since we exist
What real evolved over time is our awareness of the
Law of physics and chemistry which was installed and configured for us before we arrive and ready to be discovered
why we are able to make modern tools only now?
what was missing before
The raw materials
or the deep relations between these materials (physics &chemistry)
or our awareness of that fact this materials are reshapable into different form of tools which helps us to save our time and efforts
but claiming man was ape this just pure theory which will never be proven
because man was created by GOD

Topics: life
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 19 2011: Honestly, you must be a provocateur because everyone here believes in Evolution. It's far more conceivable than the creation theory which is in fact less probable than the big bang theory.

    Some things about evolution you have to keep in mind.

    1. We shared a common Ancestor with Apes- We did not evolve from them.

    2. It does not negate the possibility of a God, in fact- it's possible that only a "God" can create such a complex world- where the best adapted survive and pass on their genes and evolve over time through natural selection.

    Your' reluctance to accept the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory or the merits of evolution it self. Instead, you can't accept that your creation theory is highly flawed and it negates the validity of your spiritual beliefs which are most likely tethered to your identity.

    Honestly, if it was me... and I was knee deep in the sinking ship called "creation story", I'd probably go down with it.

    Good luck!

    -Abdulalrhman
    • thumb
      May 19 2011: Hi Abdulairhman,

      Please speak for yourself when you say "everyone here believes in Evolution". It is arrogance like that, similar to what Harvey said at the beginning of his talk about "being wrong" that makes it all the more obvious that evolutionists have a complete intolerance for scientific challenges to their theory, no matter how sound. Unfortunately, the ship that is sinking is evolutionary theory - it has been buoyed up by so many supporters that it has become dogma, but ask yourself the very serious question - is it completely scientifically sound? There are just too many holes to count, and last I checked, holes in a ship are what cause them to sink. Even Lyell's uniformitarian ideas have been long rejected by any geologist worth his beans, and that is what Darwin founded his theory on, but some-how "scientists" refuse to question gradualism when it comes to life. Perhaps it would be more clear if they referred back to their highschool chemistry and biology and the laws that govern every system. For example - it was proven very long ago that every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing. Sort of makes the origin of life from nothing a bit of a non-scientific idea, doesn't it? And as for evolution as a means of speciation and formation of complex organisms from unicellular life - I'll believe it when the evidence is convincing. You should ask yourself: Do my genes really determine my survival THAT well? What about all of the regulation in between genotype and phenotype? Then think about population genetics, and what actually happens when mutations take place, and the fact that mutation rates are WAY HIGHER than supposed. What about mutations that are poorly selected for or against?....food for thought. I believe what we have is not a theory of natural selection, but one would have to call it supernatural selection - but hey, people want to keep God out of the question. I'm not discounting adaptation - just unscientific theories.
      • May 23 2011: Still scratching my head about how this impacts neo evolution. Are you saying we don't selectively breed and the phenotype is derived from the genotype? Moreover, who cares about "evolution vs. creationism." It is an idiots debate. The issue why you keep God out of the picture is because God is an undefiable variable. Therefore, you must make the existance of God a null. (the idea is never stated if God does exist evolution is not his will) Therefore, the scientific premises are based off the lack and not the presence. The fact is irrelevant in the context of the theory; whereas, you believe god and that is fine. You or anyone cannot then speak science believing he does exist in this case because you need to prove that premise. I am unsure of what you think of neo-evolution. Where the idea of genes and our ability to control the progression is not in question. How does God relate in anyway to neo-evolution? (by the way, I do in fact have a very strong faith. It does not remove the science.)To below PM:I see what you are saying; however, once you observe something you can attempt to control it. Therefore, you genotype and control. This breaks what you said. You are talking Phenotypes. We have pasted that issue with mondern technology. Moreover, the phenotype of color blind person can be caused in a few ways. However, a genotype color blind person will not see the colors. (simplification of the idea to change your view point.)

        PM: Do you realize the level of complexity between genotype to phenotype? (Yes, why do you think it is hard/complex?)
        Can't just insert a gene and make it do what you want, or remove another and make away with it! If we could do that, we would have cured diseases like cystic fibrosis a LONG time ago! (wow, what are some of the current therapies?)
        are you suggesting something like eugenics then?
        (What do you think neo-evolution is? Just because some Popular idtiots tried to fly a plane, does not mean you stop trying to fly or flight is bad.)
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: Hi Jonathan,

          Nope. That's not what I mean. Think carefully about it and you'll understand. For example, no matter how selectively you breed, you can't select for or against a trait (or mutation) that you cannot "see". By unable to "see" I mean a mutation that is "nearly neutral"....that doesn't directly alter your survival. If you look at populations, you'll realize that basically all mutations are like this - but they are STILL mutations! You can't hide them under a rug or expect them to somehow be of benefit later. They just incessantly build up. For example, you have at least ~ 300 mutations that you will pass on to your children if you have any. You WILL pass them on, whether you select for or against them. Are there any that make you more or less "fit" - that is debatable, and certainly this unceasing tide of mutations is extremely critical for neo-evolution but did not get even a mention in the talk. (yes, I know mutation is supposedly the engine of evolution, but NOT mutations you can't select for or against easily)..see what I mean?
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: To Above JL

          If only it was that simple! Genotyping doesn't allow control - it basically just gives you the info...the genotype! Do you realize the level of complexity between genotype to phenotype? Can't just insert a gene and make it do what you want, or remove another and make away with it! If we could do that, we would have cured diseases like cystic fibrosis a LONG time ago! But anyone can dream I guess! Also, are you suggesting something like eugenics then?
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: "For example - it was proven very long ago that every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing. Sort of makes the origin of life from nothing a bit of a non-scientific idea, doesn't it?"

        It seems that you are arguing that life can not come from non-life. How can you claim this as true? The origins of life were just as far back in time if life is natural or divine. The only things that's been proven is that livings things come from living things _as far as we have observed_. However, life must come from somewhere. As life is mostly complex chemistry and the processing of energy, it seems that the origin of life could plausibly have begun in a bunch of chemicals with generous amounts of energy. Like Earth's early oceans. There are some intriguing experiments which simulated the Earth's early oceans (as much as we could) which produced more complex chemicals than the ones that went in first. There is also geological evidence by way of fossils and stromatolites, as well as the chemistry of rocks, biological materials, water and air samples.

        There's also ancillary evidence by way of our genes and observed genetic drift, genetic therapy, and our understanding of mutations and how they operate. The reason for genes is explained by evolution, the process of evolution is laid bare by genetics. You can't accept the validity of genetic knowledge and dismiss evolution - the two are intimately linked.
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: However, life must come from somewhere. As life is mostly complex chemistry and the processing of energy, it seems that the origin of life could plausibly have begun in a bunch of chemicals with generous amounts of energy.


          I don't see how the evidence you describe puts weight or plausibility on life coming from nothing. You would think we would have the ability to replicate these conditions by now. Life is far too ordered and as you rightly say complex to come from non-living material. I guess what I'm saying is that we don't know how life began except for historical accounts of creation that appear in many cultures. So to discount history but to trust a random coming together of complex chemical reactions and chemistry? - I think it is a great leap of faith. But faith is necessary for any belief I guess.

          Genetic drift actually argues far more strongly against evolution...consider what happens in a genetically drifting population? - does a new species emerge, or does an extinction occur? This, compounded by inbreeding, seems to make mutations and natural selection more of a problem for evolution than a solution. I can fully accept the validity of genetics and completely dismiss evolution. In fact, the "evolutionary tree" is so mutable itself that it seems to change every time a new genome is sequenced...just follow it on "the tree of life" website. Now we have fancy terms like "lateral gene transfer" to try to explain away places where genes from one entirely different branch appear in another branch....something to look into as well and see if you agree with the interpretation. Why must all life be from the same original life if it all contains DNA? I don't understand your reasoning. Its like saying all cars must have been manufactured in Germany because they use gasoline, or have steering wheels. So I fully accept gene sequences and genetic knowledge, but I have a hard time accepting evolution. Perhaps DNA is the signature of a common designer?
        • thumb
          May 24 2011: I'm curious about the experiments that showed more complex chemicals resulting from less complex chemicals under certain conditions thought to mimic the early earth. If you can cite the paper, I'd be interested to read it and evaluate it first-hand. Maybe this is the RNA related work? I know there is a theory that first life was all RNA-based (hence RNA enzymes, etc.)


          At Meher Below,

          So, you equate creation accounts to myth? Wow, that is brazen, considering that these are co-inciding accounts from civilizations so disparate from one another that during their day, they would not have been able to communicate between one another. Strange how they converge on a creation story that no-one wants to believe. But hey, there are plenty of people that don't believe the holocaust happened, so no biggy there.

          What makes history longer ago less accurate than history recorded say 100 yrs ago or hec, say 10mins ago. I would argue that historical observations were more carefully recorded by ancients than many contemporary historians record history today. "Accuracy and Objectivity" turn out to be highly subjective when you look at how history is normally recorded by the victors, so I'm not sure I understand your point here.

          So, if you can site any relevant information, pertinent data, reliable observations, and repeatable experiments that clearly even support the existence of something from nothing, let alone molecules to man evolution, I will gladly be open to those arguments. You see, it is evolutionary dogma that is the current "paradigm" requiring a shift in personal conviction. But there are so many convicted evolutionists without an open mind to any challenge to their theory, that they would rather say "you are being narrow minded" to anyone that challenges their view.

          On genetic drift - defining it doesn't help it go away. How does genetic drift support or not support evolution would be a better question to answer? does it fit "out of Africa?"
        • thumb
          May 25 2011: @Pekka, "we don't know how life began except for historical accounts of creation that appear in many cultures. So to discount history but to trust a random coming together of complex chemical reactions and chemistry?"

          Creation myths are not history. History is a field of social science that ideally abides by standards of recording observations, events, characteristics, etc. with a measure of accuracy and objectivity.
          Creation myths are cultural traditions equatable to fairy tales. Putting more validity in a myth for explaining natural phenomena over scientific observations of anything is beyond unreasonable.

          You seem to desire proof for everything except your own beliefs. And yet you are resistant to any findings that conflict with your world view? Could it be that proof, logic, and reason are not what inform what you believe, but rather an emotional attachment to a previously firm held ideology causing you to reject any evidence no matter how strong because of ingrained prejudices and preferences rather than relevant information, and pertinent data, reliable observations, and repeatable experiments?

          On genetic Drift:
          Genetic drift is the chance alterations to gene frequencies within a gene pool.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: so, are you saying that people were around to record the creation of everything and that there were many different groups of people all over the not yet existent planet who witnessed its creation? sounds a little suspect. You note the similarity of creation myths as proof that they are valid, and wonder how so many different cultures could employ similar stories in their societies. There are many explanations for such phenomena such as cultural cognates which can be illustrated by comparative and historical linguistics. In the later part of the 17th century Sir William Jones described the similarity among many languages of certain words, Pater in Latin, Vatar in Sanskrit, Father in English, were shown to share an etymological origin, similarly many cultural traditions such as creation myths share common origins. The argument could be made for false cognates, but this does not prove the validity of multiple yet simultaneous accounting of creation, though it could be due to a similarity in human perceptions and conditions giving rise to similar cultural milieus. If we are to accept any version of the “out of Africa” scenarios then it is reasonable to assume linguistic and cultural etymologies stemming from that society which was bottlenecked two hundred and fifty thousand years ago in what is now modern-day Ethiopia. That scenario is the strongest thus far and is backed by strong evidence from paleo-anthropological discoveries in the fossil record, and mitochondrial DNA mapping of the radiation of mutations throughout the globe that occur with predictable frequencies, the living test population's genetic markers match the dispersal in the fossil record quite well. You ask what makes modern historical accounting more valid than ancient “historical” accounting, well for one the use of a reliable system for recording such as complex written language complete with a standardized grammar and syntax which emerged only around 8 or 9 thousand years ago give or take. continued
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Since the universe is estimated to be many billions of years older than a decent system for recording its history let alone any people around to do the recording, it doesn't seem reasonable that anyone could be said to be a reliable witness to the act. However the known properties of certain physical phenomena with measurable decay rates ARE reliable witnesses and it is on them that we rely for revealing aspects of the nature of the universe, its history, and its origins.

          You ask how genetic drift may fit the "out of Africa" scenario: if our species stems from a bottlenecked gene pool, then it is likely that genetic drift is the cause of such a bottleneck creating a founder's effect.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: Pekka, I have to commend you for scrawling what may be the most offensive thing I have read in these forums, equating a disbelief in creation myths to denial of the Holocaust. You suggested that I was the brazen one, but I assert that you are far more so.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: Hi Meher:

          So to start, I take back my "scrawling of maybe the most offensive thing read on these forums" I should not have stooped to the level of Richard Dawkins, champion anti-creationist who makes this same claim from the opposite argument - was only trying to see if you had read his work, but apparently not.

          I also counter that you make the claim that evolution is factual, and then tell me that humans have to be present to record their own creation? Wow, that is quite an interesting mixup. I would say that those humans that did record anything down much closer in time to actual events related to our origins have marked down exactly nothing about evolution, and all about creation. Seems like maybe a Creator might like to communicate his doings to his created beings. But hey, that's probably totally rediculous to you too. After all, humans are the only real masters of self reflection and thinking. Why not just follow the whimsical uniformitarian ideas of a 22 yr old Darwin who fit "geological deep time" with a theory of origins that did not actually report observations of evolution, but simple genetic and phenotypic variations that occur with time in every kind of organism. I choose to go with the historical accounts, however "mythological" you may call them. But I have plenty of other reasons for that that would require far more in depth discussion. I enjoy the discussion though - it is interesting but sad that so many have closed the door to the possibility of a God. Why not re-examine it with an open mind? You would be surprised what you will find. An interesting read is a book called "The Devil's Delusion: atheism and its scientific pretentions" by Berlinski, a Stanford prof approaching this from a "non-religious" worldview. Check it out some time. You seem to have read some evolution texts, so why not read the other side?
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: HI Pekka, I have read some Dawkins, but I stay away from the militant atheism stuff, I've read the Selfish Gene, and various essays such as the Salamander's Tale but try to keep the politics and opinion stuff out of the mix as best I can. I'm not saying that I don't read any opinion, but that I try to mitigate its influence on my world view by drawing distinctions between what is known vs. what is assumed.
          Evolution is factual, how it works is where the theory comes in, it is provable, observable, and experiment-able; the Theory of evolution is concerned with the driving mechanisms and processes of evolution and it is there that the contentions lay within the scientific community.

          If a creator did convey any history to the created then the story must have gotten real jumbled somewhere along the way because the facts do not match the common tales. I am not an anti-creationist, but I do think that any valid model of creationism must fit with known facts about the universe. We know that the universe could not have been created in 7 days, we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago, we know that each creature on the planet was not created in its present form, we know the earth travels around the sun, we know various things about material decay rates, the spin of various particles, and the molar mass of various molecules, we know quite a bit about quite a lot and any theory of creation must incorporate what is known and not contradict facts about the universe without solid verifiable proof. At this point any creationist theory should probably be pushed back to the big bang or hypothesize and seek proof for some guiding hand from that point because we know a lot of hard facts about the universe from that point onward. I'm not saying creationism is absolutely wrong but that any valid theory must match what is known or offer up some very hard facts to the contrary. continued
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: The young Darwin got some things wrong, but the great thing about science is that it uses a self correcting model and methodology for amending incorrect theories. If we were still strictly using Darwin's original theories it would be believed that little Homunculi are the mechanisms for heritable traits, with the advent of new technologies it has been shown that it is actually genes that carry the information for genetic inheritance. A current area of contention is the gradualist model of adaptation initially proposed by Darwin Vs. the Punctuated Equilibrium model proposed by Gould. There is strong evidence and rationale for both theories and probably neither are strictly the case as ring species tend towards the gradual and bottle-necked or founder's effect species seem to display a punctuated adaptive radiation.

          I try to keep an open mind, but do maintain strict criteria for what gets incorporated into my world-view. I amend my perspective often and am a very introspective individual and constantly asses how my perception is influenced. I should probably inform you that I am well acquainted with the theological perspective. My expertise is in Classical Education and Honors Studies. I am trained in the Occidental traditions of Western thought with a strong foundation in History, Philosophy, Literature (mostly ancient), and Linguistics. Christianity being a huge influence on Western thought was incorporated into much of my course work. I also have personal experience of the Christian perspective from religious experimentation in my youth.
          My mind has changed many times throughout my life and I fully expect it to change many more times. I am making a huge assumption here, but I don't think your mind is as open to change as you suggest others should be. Is your belief system for the most part a continuum of that which you were raised with?, have you ever been truly willing to question your beliefs and change your mind?
        • thumb
          Jun 6 2011: Hi Meher,

          Glad to hear you stay away from the militant atheism. I'm not a fan of pushing things too hard - it never really makes the point.

          I have dabbled in reading a few things, including a book by Coyne called "Why Evolution is True"..not quite done, but I find the arguments redundant and in many cases entirely unscientific. But I have seen overly zealous "Creationists" too, so no-one is immune to this.

          I will say that I fully agree that evolution (ie change) is a fact. This does not in any way support a notion of forming highly complex organisms starting from non-complex materials. That is where all the theory comes in that I question with a critical and also open mind. For example, why do we not hear about mutation rates being too great for evolution from simple to complex to operate over such long time scales? Seems to be a fundamental issue that should be addressed, but isn't...I'm sure you got that sense from my previous posts.

          Finally, I do find it very interesting this idea of punctuated equilibrium. It seems to me like evidence for creation cloaked in a "naturalistic" worldview - but hey, that's just me I guess!

          Don't you find it fascinating, as a historian, that different researchers can compile the same data to represent two or many more entirely different (and perhaps opposing) views of past events. This is just the case for the evolution creation debate, and I have to say that despite having evolutionary dogma shoved down my throat all through university and grad school, I still have not been convinced by it. It just lacks scientific substance I guess.

          Do you realize how evolutionists compile theories like punctuated equilibrium and gradualism? It is just like a historian, trying to fit pieces together to fit a particular view. Interestingly, many of the theories depend on dating methods that ASSUME uniformitarianism from the outset, so how is one to prove a non-uniformitarianist idea using uniformitarianist dating methods?
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: Meher,

          Just to point out in your argument you include several "we know" statements. I would counter that of those statements, there are some that we know, and others we don't really know.

          For example We know that the universe could not have been created in 7 days. REALLY? hmm...how do we know that?...we actually don't even know what the universe is really, do we, so how can we go so far as to say we know for sure how it was or wasn't made? The universe is a word made by humans to try to label something that we cannot fathom. I'm not saying that we don't have our theories, and that we don't have observable evidence about light, etc, but we do know that even time is relative to the speed of light, so how can we be so sure about how we relate time to the time it took for something to happen in our distant "past" which again is relative....our language really limits us I would say.

          we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago....hmm, this again is a bold statement. So, what exactly is our evolutionary past. You would be surprised, as many have pointed out here, who says that neanderthals aren't living now? We haven't even begun to sequence enough human genes to say who is who. Maybe I'm a different species from you? How do we know this? This dating past relies on the assumption that the earth has been uniform for a very long time. Do we know this? In fact, catastrophism seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Why should we then rely on methods that rely on assumptions to claim what "we know"? But there was a time that "we knew" that computers would never be helpful, "we knew" that airplanes were impossible, and "we knew" that the earth was flat (shoulda read Isaiah 40:22). So what "we know" really changes a lot, so I'm not sure the "we know" argument holds much ground.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: we know that man has an evolutionary past just as every other organism on the planet reaching much further back than a few thousand years ago....hmm, this again is a bold statement. So, what exactly is our evolutionary past. You would be surprised, as many have pointed out here, who says that neanderthals aren't living now? We haven't even begun to sequence enough human genes to say who is who. Maybe I'm a different species from you? How do we know this? This dating past relies on the assumption that the earth has been uniform for a very long time. Do we know this? In fact, catastrophism seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Why should we then rely on methods that rely on assumptions to claim what "we know"? But there was a time that "we knew" that computers would never be helpful, "we knew" that airplanes were impossible, and "we knew" that the earth was flat (shoulda read Isaiah 40:22). So what "we know" really changes a lot, so I'm not sure the "we know" argument holds much ground.

          we know that each creature on the planet was not created in its present form - this I will agree with - because we CAN know this - different from the previous 2! I have been arguing that organisms are degrading by mutation all the time...so of course they change. Does that rule out a creator or any creation story?...never heard a good reason why it should.

          we know the earth travels around the sun....as far as I know, I have never read a text to indicate anything contrary to this? - we know it, but why should that invalidate any creation account?
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: All the other we knows you mention relate to things that we know under our current conditions. But we must assume uniformitarianism in order for these "we knows" to hold for our distant past. In fact, if we say we know conditions have stayed approximately the same over the past several million years, then why so many signs of natural disasters like gigantic flood plains, fossilized creatures, and huge coal deposits. I guess they appeared by some random event, without at all affecting the atmosphere or decay rates? Can't have your cake and eat it too!
      • thumb
        May 25 2011: You're right Pekka. Life is too orderly and complex to emerge from some chemical soup. Life as it is now. But life did not always have to be this complex. After all, DNA is just a complex chemical compound, and we know that it works really well in even the simplest of organisms. So is it impossible to imagine a slightly less efficient molecule being created in an ocean (all the oceans) of chemicals, given millions of years of waves, currents, sunlight and lightning? It doesn't require much trust in those circumstances, that life will arise. Or at least complex, self regulating chemical compounds that take in energy from their environment to grow and produce copies of themselves. Once that is achieved, natural selection takes over.

        http://abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf - Abstract of the paper, 'Science' 1953
        "Formation of life author:sagan" in Google scholar yields Dr. Sagans work based on and continuing the Miller-Urey experiment

        Genetic drift - In a closed, unchanging environment, yes. Genetic drift will not yield new species. However, environments change, and what may have once been a useless mutation in some of the population suddenly becomes vital for survival. In which case the species adapts, maybe becomes another species, or perishes. Genetic drift does not force speciation. A changing environment paired with genetic drift does.

        Lateral Gene Transfer - Actually helps out the case for natural causes. As most such transfers are seen among single celled organisms, it appears that LGT's occur most easily with simpler genetic codes. The ability to transfer genetic material (chemical compound) could have helped pave the way to single celled organisms. This would also serve to homogenize that code, thus natural cause could be the explanation for DNA. All life may not have stemmed from one organism, but we may as well have.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: given those circumstances Daniel, I would say it requires a lot of trust and faith. I would also have to believe that the lightning, ocean, earth, primordial soup, and all came from nothing before that! Oh, right, first there was nothing, then it exploded!...takes a lot of faith I think!

          Scientifically, more ordered molecules do not arise spontaneously from less ordered ones..that's why Francis Crick came up with panspermia...send the problem to another galaxy.

          Also, this 1953 paper by its title alone is a quack. Formation of life?...get real. Life requires more than a few molecules to exist...they have to work together!

          For genetic drift, I am talking about the open environment on this earth. ...
          However, environments change, and what may have once been a useless mutation in some of the population suddenly becomes vital for survival. In which case the species adapts MAYBE becomes another species, or perishes. Basically it is that big MAYBE I have a problem with, nothing else!

          Genetic Drift together with enviromental forces cannot force speciation..it has never done this, and seems that it never will!

          Lateral gene transfer supports stemming from one organism? Forgive me, but I don't see how this can account for different species on different branches of a "tree" having almost identical genes despite "millenia" of supposed reproductive separation. Some explaining needs to be done. The evolutionary tree looks strangely like a giant lawn of different species, not a tree at all. (remember we only recently have sequenced many animal genomes)
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: http://192.12.12.16/education/csss/csss05/papers/monaco_et_al._cssssf05.pdf
          Here is one article that discusses some of the models for self organization of amino acids and origin theories. I chose this article for its relative simplicity and because it merely articulates that there are many plausible models for how life can emerge from non life.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: To Pekka,

        The title of the paper nowhere says the formation of life. The reults have implications for theories about the formation of life, but was not designed to create life. Only amino acids from simpler elements in an early Earth approximation. Entering in the search term formation of life with the author as sagan, so long as the search is in google scholar, will yield the work done by sagan building on that experiment. The reason this experiment was important was because it showed that the chemicals of life could have been produced naturally. But as you pointed out, chemicals are not life. Unless that chemical, that molecule, can take in energy from it's environment to grow and reproduce. At which point the molecule becomes self sustaining, and life is born. The more efficient ones will eventually come to dominate, bringing on competition for resources, producing some molecules, or probably colonies of molecules, which feed on available resources and others which feed on those colonies. Those better at defending themselves or bypassing another's defenses will eventually come to dominance. Over time those colonies would specialize, with some parts forming an outer layer, some processing nutrients, another housing and copying the genetic code, etc, and that's a one celled organism.

        What's wrong with maybe? If you bet, maybe you'll win or maybe you'll lose, that doesn't mean Las Vegas doesn't exist.

        As for your second to last paragraph, it is in direct contradiction with the paragraph above it.

        I didn't claim that lateral gene transfers indicate all life sprang from one organism. I was saying that lateral genes transfers would have aided the first stages of life, pre-cellular days. It is highly evident that something must be going on, and while we may not know the specifics, that doesn't mean that evolution is false. And the tree looks well brachiated to me, with few transfers outside of one celled organisms.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2011: Hi Daniel,

          Thank you for clarifying somewhat the distinction between molecules and life. It is one thing for a complex molecule to exist, or even to randomly get formed with enough external energy input, it is quite another for those molecules to assemble into living organisms. Spontaneous generation should be happening in Las Vegas pretty often, but I haven't heard of it yet ; )

          I agree there is nothing wrong with maybe. Maybe God created you and I and this whole earth?

          As for the tree of life - it seems it can be adjusted to suit anyone's fancy. For me it appears more like a field of grass when I do sequence comparisons, for others, it appears like a brachiated tree...maybe this, or maybe that. Let's not claim it is clear evidence one way or the other.
    • thumb
      May 22 2011: "We shared a common Ancestor with Apes- We did not evolve from them. "
      its not only we and Apes
      we share with common things with every thing even stones and tree and the sky
      every thing consist of atoms even our bodies
      so what theory we can drive from that?
      • May 23 2011: Well, what observation do you want to test? That poetry is beautiful!
        It is to simple to debate basic things; whereas, this thread had such potential!!! Ugh, life, more life, massive amounts of stupidity... DEATH! I am not bothering anymore with the basic if anyone kicks it up a notch, I will stick around.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.