Still a Fact Though
How could the spontaneous origin of all the species be beyond all reasonable doubt if the theory had omitted the eukaryotes which, as you learned in biology class, are the more complicated cells with a nucleus and make up the, err, plants and animals?
We don’t know how the plants and animals evolved, but we know that they did evolve?
Well, yes. For the origin of eukaryotes, and everything else for that matter, is merely a research problem, not to be confused with the fact of evolution. You see there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution assures us that the species arose spontaneously, but it doesn’t tell us how. That’s for the theory of evolution to figure out.
This all makes sense to evolutionists because the fact of evolution does not come from science.
Gee, another "Science can't explain everything, so that means it can't explain anything!!" post.
ReplyDeleteIt's a nice change of pace from the usual "this is sooooo complex, that proves the DESIGNER musta diddit!!" we've been getting lately.
Gotta switch those Creationist nonsense claims around every now and again, keep the IDiot propaganda from getting stale. Right CH?
I suppose it's worth pointing out that science has continued research and hypothesis testing in the 15 years since that paper came out
ReplyDeleteThe origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics
The archaeal ‘TACK’ superphylum and the origin of eukaryotes
Predation between prokaryotes and the origin of eukaryotes.
...while Creationist pretend scientists like Herr Goebbels here sat on their collective butts and cashed their DI propaganda checks.
Which group has done more to further scientific knowledge? Hmmm...
Yo Throaton,
DeleteHow do you know that many of the scientists doing research in biology are not Christians or don't have hidden doubts about evolution? He or she would either be a fool for revealing such doubts (big career risk) or have an inordinate amount of courage, which is what I'm looking for in a scientist. I detest ass kissers. Science advances through self-criticism. Ass kissing is the antithesis of scientific progress.
You got that, Throaton?
Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin
DeleteExcerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389
Problems of the RNA World - Did DNA Evolve Twice? - Dr. Fazale Rana - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682
There simply is no smooth 'gradual transition' to be found between these most ancient of life forms as this following articles and videos clearly point out:
Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1
An enormous gap exists between prokaryote cells and eukaryote cells. A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP (energy).
http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp
The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4
Mitochondria - Molecular Machine - Powerhouse Of The Cell - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5510941/
On The Non-Evidence For The Endosymbiotic Origin Of The Mitochondria - March 2011
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-non-evidence-for-the-endosymbiotic-origin-of-the-mitochondria/
On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
Jonathan M. - January 10, 2012
Excerpt: While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to -- at the very least -- give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist -- and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html
Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010
DeleteExcerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b
Bacterial Protein Acetylation: The Dawning of a New Age - July 2012
Excerpt: Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes. Obviously, this misperception must be modified. From the presence of a cytoskeleton to the packaging of DNA to the existence of multiple post-translational modifications, bacteria clearly implement highly sophisticated mechanisms to regulate diverse cellular processes precisely.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/bacterial-protein-acetylation-dawning.html
Materialism simply has no credible answer for how this extreme level of complexity 'accidentally' arose in the first living cell, nor how this extreme integrated complexity found in life randomly evolved to the next 'simple' step of life.
Even more problematic for evolutionists, than the unexplained gap between prokaryote and eukaryote cells, is that even within the 'bacterial world' there are found to be enormous unexplained gaps of completely unique genes within each different type of bacteria which has had its DNA sequenced:
ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
Even the Cell's (RNA) Shredder Looks Designed - February 14, 2013
DeleteExcerpt: They have established that this machine is irreducibly complex in eukaryotes. Does it have any evolutionary precursors?
Quote: "The RNA-binding and threading mechanism used by the exosome in eukaryotes is very similar to that of the exosome in bacteria and archaebacteria that the researchers had structurally characterized in earlier studies. "Although the chemistry of the shredding reaction in eukaryotes is very different from that used in bacteria and archaebacteria, the channeling mechanism of the exosome is conserved, and conceptually similar to the channeling mechanism used by the proteasome, a complex for shredding proteins," says Elena Conti.,,,
With this description in mind, several problems become apparent for evolutionary explanations of these machines. First of all, they are already present in bacteria and archaebacteria, presumably the simplest living things. Moreover, the bacterial exosome is chemically different but structurally similar. This means the design is "conserved" but not the ancestry. Then there is another chemically different but structurally similar machine in eukaryotes: the proteasome.
These machines all appear to be irreducibly complex. They are composed of multiple parts, each essential for function. They are also essential for life: the article says that "unwanted accumulation of RNAs can be damaging to the cell" and that these complex machines have multiple functions. In addition to shredding excess RNAs, the exosome "processes certain RNA molecules into their mature form." Since all living things rely on DNA translation via RNA molecules (messenger RNAs and transfer RNAs), it is difficult to imagine any putative ancestor getting by without functional exosomes from the very beginning. Maybe that's why the article did not even mention evolution.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/even_the_cells_1068921.html
There goes batspit77 losing control of his sphincter again.
DeleteWe live during a great time. Thanks to the internet, we can access so much information from so many sources. I really appreciate your effort Dr. Hunter
ReplyDeleteThank you for blogging.
You crack me up, Cornelius. This is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that many of the scientists doing research in biology are not Christians
ReplyDeleteMany, perhaps most, biologists in North America are Christians. However, most of them are not the Cornelius-fundamentalist kind of Christian, adhering to a sect that demands that evolution be false. Go read Kenneth Miller's book and come back when you've understood that.
Which evolution are you talking about?
DeleteHowever, most of them are not the Cornelius-fundamentalist kind of Christian, adhering to a sect that demands that evolution be false.
DeleteWell, I am Christian but I am not a fundamentalist. However, it is obvious to me that the theory of evolution is a pile of crap. LOL.
Talking about sects. Isn't it true that evolutionists are part of a religious sect that demands that evolution is true? I think so. And a chicken sh!t religion to boot. LOL.
Enézio E. de Almeida Filho:
DeleteWhich evolution are you talking about?
Part of the deception of evolutionists is to use the different definitions of evolution to their advantage in order to hide the stupidity of Darwinian evolution.
DrHunter also employs the same technique, conflating the meanings of words.
DeleteLouis.,
their advantage in order to hide the stupidity of Darwinian evolution.
Too bad there is nothing large enough to hide your stupidity
Sorry ,Louis for the insult. I just wanted to see how it feels to be you. Not to my liking,carry on.
DeleteJeffrey:
DeleteMany, perhaps most, biologists in North America are Christians. However, most of them are not the Cornelius-fundamentalist kind of Christian, adhering to a sect that demands that evolution be false.
So you're saying that believing in Darwinian evolution is not determined by one's religious views.
If you really believe that, then you should discourage every Darwinist from attacking ID as "Creationist," since this has no real bearing on the issue.
Personally, I know of no one who has said their "creationist views" led them to ID. In fact, atheists accept ID.
So, why not call off the dogs?
We'd be much obliged. :)
"In fact, atheists accept ID."
DeleteName them.
Hunter: Evolution omitted how eukaryotes could emerge and evolve? That would be like physics omitting gravity, politics omitting elections or baseball omitting homeruns.
ReplyDeleteThat's how science works, Cornelius. You act surprised, but if you were familiar with the history of science then you wouldn't be.
Science isn't a theory of everything. It is a patchwork of overlapping theories, each valid in its own domain.
Thermodynamics arose well before statistical physics. It was possible to use the notion of entropy without knowing what entropy was from the statistical viewpoint.
Newton's theory of gravity did not explain where gravity came from, it merely postulated its existence and the inverse-square law. Einstein's theory, relating gravity to curvature of spacetime, came much later. In the meantime, physicists made lots of progress applying the concept of gravity to discover new planets, even though they had no understanding of its origins.
So it is with biology. One can study the evolution of eukaryotes without knowing how they emerged in the first place. Compartmentalization in science is not news. It's how science works. Welcome to the real world, my friend.
"So it is with biology. One can study the evolution of eukaryotes without knowing how they emerged in the first place. Compartmentalization in science is not news. It's how science works. Welcome to the real world, my friend."
DeleteThe difference with the other science is that you are studying "actual" eukaryotes trying to find evidence that they "evolved". You are making history missing the first chapter. Different initial conditions of the story can make your hypothesis right or wrong with the same evidence.
oleg, the emerging of eukarotes was not an evolutionary process? Explain.
DeleteAre you, guys, familiar with chemistry? A hundred years ago it was a rather successful science, wasn't it? At that time it postulated the existence of atoms, even though it could not explain where atoms came from. There was not even direct proof that atoms existed at the time.
DeleteIn fact, to this day chemistry has not bothered to explain where atoms come from. That task fell to atomic physics and quantum mechanics, which are separate branches of science.
In turn, atomic physics postulates the existence of electrons and atomic nuclei. It does not bother to explain how electrons and nuclei came to be. Nuclear physics took care of that.
So, no, scientific disciplines need not explain everything to which they refer. Every scientific theory has postulates that it does not bother to explain. Atomic physics postulates the existence of electrons and nuclei and the nature of their interactions. It does not explain either of those.
Likewise, theory evolution deals mostly with how new species come about and assumes that life originated somehow. Origin of life is a separate topic that someday may merge with the body of evolutionary theory or it may stay a separate discipline.
"At that time it postulated the existence of atoms, even though it could not explain where atoms came from."
DeleteThis comparison is utter nonsense. No one is talking about determining where subatomic particles of a eukaryote comes from but how an entire organism crucial to evolution evolved.
"That's how science works"
No thats how science doesn't work. That phrase is getting tired from its over use. Real science when it doesn't know something says it does not know and ends the discussion there. Today's "how science works" says we don't know how it works but we know it had to be along our philosophical lines of naturalism even though we don't know.
This is without a doubt an example of Religion in evolutionary thought.
"Origin of life is a separate topic that someday may merge with the body of evolutionary theory or it may stay a separate discipline."
LOL you will merge it if and only if it suits you to do so. the real reason why there is this harsh divide by people on your side is because it makes for an effective cut and run. No rational and unbiased Human being would claim that the Origin of DNA (Origin of life) and the later development of it (evolution) are totally separate subjects. DNA is common to both. Your side has sold that divide out of necessity because you know you will get trounced on abiogenesis but its akin to saying how a child forms in utero has no bearing whatsoever on how it will develop after birth. Of course how life formed would have implications for how it evolved (if it did). Saying otherwise is just drivel. Popular dogma drivel but drivel nonetheless.
oleg said: "So it is with biology. One can study the evolution of eukaryotes without knowing how they emerged in the first place. Compartmentalization in science is not news. It's how science works. Welcome to the real world, my friend."
ReplyDeleteBut when the study of evolution consistently shows its premise violates the second law of thermodynamics it shows you're the one that lives in a not so real world.
awstar
DeleteBut when the study of evolution consistently shows its premise violates the second law of thermodynamics it shows you're the one that lives in a not so real world.
How in the world does evolution violate the 2LoT?
You ready to back up that ridiculous claim?
Thorton. here you go.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
Sewell's paper has been discussed by some people with knowledge of statistical physics at The Skeptical Zone:
DeleteA second look at the second law...
Granville Sewell vs. Bob Lloyd.
Sewell does not understand statistical mechanics well.
Sorry, I don't do wingnut cranks. Make the argument in your own words.
DeleteThorton said: Sorry, I don't do wingnut cranks. Make the argument in your own words.
DeleteIf you don't accept the argument of a peer reviewed paper of a mathematician, what chance will there be you'll accept my argument?
But here goes. The argument is so simple a child could understand it. Maybe you to.
The law of Entropy says that all things spontaneously tend toward mediocrity. Not to variety and perfection.
The Theory of Evolution violates this law.
Awstar,
DeleteAs you noted, this is a paper on the subject is statistical mechanics by an applied mathematician. As a physicist teaching statistical mechanics at the graduate level, I can tell you that Sewell misunderstands statistical mechanics. For details, go to the Skeptical Zone forum linked above.
awstar February 17, 2013 at 4:19 AM
Delete[...]
But here goes. The argument is so simple a child could understand it. Maybe you to.
The law of Entropy says that all things spontaneously tend toward mediocrity. Not to variety and perfection.
The Theory of Evolution violates this law.
Entropy may be a simple concept in principle but it is widely misunderstood.
This is from the Index to Creationist Claims in the Talk Origins Archive:
Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
1) the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
2) entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
3) even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
"Science isn't a theory of everything"
ReplyDeleteThat's another reason why evolutionist "just so" stories and "evolution explains everything" typical claims are in so evident contrast with real science. Fortunately for science.
[...]These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. This its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analysed" and crying aloud for treatment.]
Popper on pseudo-science and the "problem of demarcation".
Sorry if crossposted, but here a very interesting paper by Eugene Koonin
ReplyDeleteThe origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics
The origin of eukaryotes is a huge enigma and a major challenge for evolutionary biology [1-3]
http://genomebiology.com/content/pdf/gb-2010-11-5-209.pdf
This is my first time i visit here. I found so many entertaining stuff in your blog, especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the leisure here! Keep Pet Products wholesale, Small Dog Carrier, Small Dog Collars up the good work.
ReplyDeletethe establishment of an unprecedented and brutal regimes, it is cheap wedding dresses worse than a brutal executioner, representatives of feudalism, dark incarnation. Read fast to condemn Adger article, however, can not help but make people feel, whether it Adger lift too high or too political it? That it is tracing
ReplyDelete