Originally posted by jaywillIt is not a coincidence. Astronomers are interested in the big bang Theory, evolutionary Biologists are interested in the origin of life, geologists are interested in the origin of the earth, etc.
Why do you think they are interested ? Just a coincidence?
Also many scientists are actually interested in almost every field of science though to a greater extent in their own field.
The theory of evolution combined with the fossil record implies that there was single cellular life on earth sometime in the distant past. It is clear that current biological life could not survive on the early earth and what about before the earth existed? Any scientist worth his salt would ask the question "where did life come from?"
But none of the above equates to a claim that the Theory of Evolution is dependent on a theory about the origin of life.
In fact since we do not have any solid theories about abiogenesis (although there are a number of hypothesis) your claim is proven false as the Theory of Evolution is alive and well.
If laboratory life synthesis could be achieved in the future would you consider this helpful to the theory of evolution or detrimental?
Or would you consider it benignly irrelevant?
Benignly irrelevant.
It might however shed some light on the process of abiogenesis and it would therefore by highly relevant to both the field of Biology and science as a whole.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The theory of evolution combined with the fossil record implies that there was single cellular life on earth sometime in the distant past.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The fossil record tells us only one thing for certain:
There use to be on earth a lot of animals which apparently no longer exist.
Darwin himself was not at all satisfied with the support to his theory that the fossil record yeilded at that time.
"But just in proportion as the process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reval any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record"
[Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, 6th English Edition, 1910, Vol II, p. 49]
This is Darwin's own take on the most serious flaw with the theory. His hope is that in the future the "imperfection" of the geological record would be more perfected and supportive to the theory.
The question is, so many years latter now, has this "imperfection" of a non-supportive fossil record changed dramatically?
I don't think it has. If it had then "Punctuated Equilibria" would not have been proposed to explain why the fossil record is not more supportive around a century latter.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat do you mean by 'for certain'? Do you mean "What I accept as true" or "what would be obvious to most people" or "what doesn't conflict too much with my beliefs"?
The fossil record tells us only one thing for certain:
There use to be on earth a lot of animals which apparently no longer exist.
Any geologist can tell you that the fossil record shows that there was a point in time when there was only single cellular life on earth and that there was a point in time when no fossils of life were formed at all. You can pretend that is not 'certain' if you like.
There are many other things we can learn from the fossil record including where and when those animals/plants lived etc etc etc so your claim that only one thing can be learnt from the fossil record is rubbish and you know it.
Presumably, as evidence of evolutionists having in the past tried to extend evolutionary theory to cover origin of life, you posted...
Sir J. William Dawson wrote in Modern Ideas of Evolution, 1890, reprinted in 1977, page 22:
"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which it can be evolved, with adequate causes for the evolution. This is admitted in terms by Darwin and his followers, but constantly overlooked in their reasoning, in which evolution is spoken of as if it were, or could be, an efficient cause. The title Origin of Species was itself a misnomer as used by Darwin. The book treated not of origin of species, but of the transmutations of species already in existence."
[My emphasis]
Point being, that in the past Evolutionists did, as I say, speak often about Evolution as a cause of life as even though in theory, they claimed they were not doing so.
The shift away from origins came gradually. Don't try to revize history to say that Evolution was never about origins of life.
And as TWhitehead has said, this is not a quote of an evolutionary biologist. Do you have any evidence of a supporter of evolution saying that it could be used to explain the original origin of life (or rather, the origin of the first self-replicating chemicals)? If as you claim, it was widely thought, you should be able to find a quote...
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinActually the credit for that belongs to scottishinnz.
And as TWhitehead has said, this is not a quote of an evolutionary biologist.
It is telling though that he had to go back over 100 years to find a quote and even then it is not a quote from an evolutionary biologist and even then the quote actually contradicts what jawill was trying to show.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOops, quite right. Sorry Scottishinnz.
Actually the credit for that belongs to scottishinnz.
It is telling though that he had to go back over 100 years to find a quote and even then it is not a quote from an evolutionary biologist and even then the quote actually contradicts what jawill was trying to show.
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Penguin"Evolution depends on four factors -reproduction, competition, variation, and natural selection. All four factors existed in some form in the pre-biotic universe. All four started their twisting long before life began."
Oops, quite right. Sorry Scottishinnz.
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
--- Penguin.
- Howard Bloom
Originally posted by Penguin"Ever since Darwin, critics have objected that evolution could only explain minor change within species, but not major transformations. One difficulty is that applying gene frequency methods to model large changes has always resulted in paradoxes. These occur because the methods rely on highly evolved attributes, such as separate populations, chromosomes, gene loci, or sex. Yet none of these could have pre-existed when early molecules first competed in a pre-biotic soup. This makes it hard to model how life started or how these latter attributes evolved.
Oops, quite right. Sorry Scottishinnz.
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
--- Penguin.
Starting from this underlying paradox, the book explains not only how early competition began on a far simpler basis. It suggests that paradoxes for all the transformations could be solved if this early competition had not ceased, but had continued expanding down the ages, from the pre-biotic soup to modern humans.
Citing the molcular evidence, the basic equations, and an easy to follow descriptive logic The Big Bang of Evolution offers a simple but viable model for how some of the most important events in the history of life must have unfolded."
From a Preface to Sean Gould's Book The Big Bang of Evolution - From Pre-biotic Soup to Modern Humans
The Book Review also states "Sean Gould has a background in control and information theory, and has published two previous books on evolution. "
Originally posted by Penguin"Every organism that ever was is a relative of its antagonists, of its food, and of the inanimate forces of complexifigenesis and catastrophe. A new way of framing questions and answers emerges when one sees Darwinism, the arithmetic of self interest, and the patterns of the human psyche in the broader context sketched by cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, microbiology, and paleontology. In this light, it's time to reevaluate. What traits have we inherited from previous forms of life, and what traits have been bequeathed us by our pre-biotic ancestry?
Oops, quite right. Sorry Scottishinnz.
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
--- Penguin.
Again Howard Bloom
Originally posted by jaywillAgain, your own quote contradicts your own claims.
"Evolution depends on four factors -reproduction, competition, variation, and natural selection. All four factors existed in some form in the pre-biotic universe. All four started their twisting long before life began."
- Howard Bloom
Originally posted by jaywillWhich bit of that quote do you think supports your claim, because I cant see it.
[b]"Ever since Darwin, critics have objected that evolution could only explain minor change within species, but not major transformations. One difficulty is that applying gene frequency methods to model large changes has always resulted in paradoxes. These occur because the methods rely on highly evolved attributes, such as separate populations, chromosomes, ...[text shortened]... in control and information theory, and has published two previous books on evolution. "[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillAgain, it doesn't even begin to support your claim.
[b]"Every organism that ever was is a relative of its antagonists, of its food, and of the inanimate forces of complexifigenesis and catastrophe. A new way of framing questions and answers emerges when one sees Darwinism, the arithmetic of self interest, and the patterns of the human psyche in the broader context sketched by cosmology, astrophysics, particle ...[text shortened]... d what traits have been bequeathed us by our pre-biotic ancestry?
Again Howard Bloom[/b]
Originally posted by PenguinThe following quote laments that evolution theory is incomplete because of the origin of life problem not being solvable by the evidence for the theory. I take "incomplete" foundation to mean that the theory should also account for the origin of life in order to have a proper foundation:
Oops, quite right. Sorry Scottishinnz.
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
--- Penguin.
"The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning. Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks, more than eighty percent of the age of the Earth itself, fossils residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the ricks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or hourse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest rocks ot the Earth were formed. Thus we have no clue, even from evidence which penetrates very far back in time, as to how the information standard of life was set up in the first place, AND SO THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY LACKS A PROPER FOUNDATION."
[Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 8]
My emphasis.
"Lamarck was the first to formulate the scientific theory of the natural ORIGIN of all organisms, including man, and at the same time to draw the ULTIMATE inferences from this theory: firstly, the doctrine of the ORIGIN of the most ancient organisms through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION; and secondly, the descent of Man from the Mammal most closely resemblin Man -- the Ape,"
[ - Ernst Haeckel, Evolution of Man, 1903, Vol I, p. 85]
My emphasis
Originally posted by jaywillHmm, ok. Had a quick scan of [http://www.bigbangtango.net/website/Xerox/Xerox.htm] and frankly, I'm not impressed.
[b]"Evolution depends on four factors -reproduction, competition, variation, and natural selection. All four factors existed in some form in the pre-biotic universe. All four started their twisting long before life began."
- Howard Bloom [/b]
Firstly, evolution depends on 3 factors, not 4. Reproduction, Variation and Competition will result in Natural Selection and thus Evolution.
Secondly, he's saying that Galaxies and even elementary particles evolve through natural selection. But galaxies and elementary particles do not reproduce. They are produced but the requirement is for reproduction.
Thirdly, your initial assertion was that was that evolution used to be widely thought (among its proponents) to be applicable to the origin of life. This is a recent paper by one person and is not yet accepted by the scientific community (nor, I think, will it ever be). He has a lot of work to do to convince serious, skeptical, scientists that his hypothesis holds water.
I realise I'm changing my requirements but I was really after some evidence for your original assertion that Evolution by Natural Selection was widely thought among evolutionists to account for the appearance of the first chemical replicators.
--- Penguin.