Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life

Cell Biol. Int / Pubmed ^ | 01/06/05 | Trevors JT, Abel DL.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.

[Thatcherite]

The change in environment does not of itself cause the mutations. Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously. So evolution proceeds faster because natural selection has more beneficial mutations "coming at it" to select from.

But this is stuff you know already, right? You told me that you had investigated ToE and rejected it.

[Elsie]

I suggest you spend the next two minutes thinking about the following propositions.

Why, Cornelius?

You KNOW that Gorillas are not Chimpanzes and vice versa.

Dr. Zaius has told us this truth, over and over again, and our own eyes confirm it.

[Elsie]

Yup; I know it. 

 I know it don't seem right.

 

Just LOOK at what you just posted:

Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously.

In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good.  How can this BE????

You guys CANNOT have it both ways!

 

[VadeRetro]

Ok, please help me understand, this article say we are not apes but we have a common ancestor, so who is right?

Why invent a contradiction? The article says "Humans haven't descended from these apes."

Humans did not descend from the modern chimpanzee species as we know it today, but that species is our closest living relative, a "brother" where no other extant species is closer than "cousin."

But the "father" species, the thing at the branch point if you trace either line back, was an ape, too. What did it look like? A lot more like a chimpanzee than like us. We're the ones who changed a lot. We know. We have the record of the changes.

From here.

The upper right skull is a modern chimp. The next thing over is Australopithecus africanus. It's the most human-like species known of its day, 2.6 million years ago, and thus the best candidate to be on our line of ancestry.

The head still doesn't look incredibly different, despite the actual divergence from the chimp line having happened--on other evidence, mostly molecular--several million years before the owner of that skull ever lived. Most of the differences are below the neck. The australopithecines walked upright much better than do modern chimps. But they still looked a lot like chimps.

We're the apes who have changed the most from the others, but we're still closer at the molecular level to the chimps than the chimps are to orangutans. How do you ignore that? We're on the ape branch, one twig over from the chimps. The chromosomes say it. The DNA says it. The fossils say it.

It doesn't matter what some people would prefer to think.

It gets worse. Yes, our line traces back through apes. Apes arose from monkeys about 30 million years ago. Thus, before 30 million years ago, our ancestors were monkeys. Not any modern monkey species, but recognizeable monkeys.

Monkeys arose from "prosimian" primates like modern lemurs, tarsiers, etc. Not exactly any modern species, but something similar.

Our line traces back through primitive insecitivores, really primitive egg-laying mammals, true reptiles, amphibians, fish, simple chordates, sponge-like multicellulars, and protozoans. Eventually we arrive at something that would have looked like pond scum.

Deal with it!

[Thatcherite]

In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good. How can this BE????

You see so many of these false dichotomies. I get the impression that you are busy looking for holes or contradictions in evolutionary arguments before you've properly understood them. Understand them first, then try to spot the flaws.

Please read very carefully what I wrote, and think about it some more, not in terms of trying to pick holes, but in terms of trying to genuinely understand the argument. If you can't work it out in the next day or so ask me again, and I'll explain. I believe that you are clever enough to work out what I mean for yourself without me having to drag you through ever painful minute stage in the argument.

Hint: Read the entire sentences which you have highlighted portions of. The highlighted portions are contradictory it is true, but the context removes the contradiction.

[Elsie]

The change in environment does not of itself cause the mutations. Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously. So evolution proceeds faster because natural selection has more beneficial mutations "coming at it" to select from.

Total context.

Nothing improves.

[VadeRetro]

The upper right skull is a modern chimp.

Upper left.

[Thatcherite]

As you spent under an hour thinking about that (even if you read it almost instantly as I posted it) I'll give you a bit longer...

I cannot credit that you are as slow as this issue is making you seem.

[Nightshift]

I ask for assistance in trying to understand and you have to end the story with " Deal with it! I am trying to understand the evolutionists point in this debate, but am constantly bombarded with things like this Deal with it!. Is this typical of those who believe in evolution?

Skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Reference is from: Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins "What's most astonishing is that the facial features are like those that we don't see until 1.8 million years ago in the genus Homo. It is more Homo than australopithecine," he said, referring to the best-known group of hominids, which appeared in East Africa three to four million years ago and whose fossils have provided most of what we know about the earliest human ancestors.

So, is the new skull fossil a hominid—perhaps our earliest known ancestor? "It's very hard to be sure, but I think it's a hominid," said Lieberman. "But whether it was the earliest hominid or the earliest ancestor of anyone living today, we can't tell." New Genus, New Species Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers in France headed the international team of more than three dozen researchers. They found the fossils—an intact cranium, two lower jaw fragments, and several teeth—at a site in the Djurab Desert where the group has been excavating since the mid-1990s. The researchers compared the ancient skull and related fossils with the fossils of many other known hominids and primates. Based on characteristics such as the tooth type and the thickness of the enamel, the shape and positioning of the head, and the facial features, the team concluded that the creature represented a new genus and species of hominid.

So, now there is a fossil (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) that more resembles man than your Australopithecus africanus and is older than Australopithecus africanus, so where does this leave your answer to "the most human-like species known of its day, 2.6 million years ago, and thus the best candidate to be on our line of ancestry." If this is true, where does this leave this theory that Australopithecus africanus is our closest relative?

So could this Australopithecus africanus be a descendant of Sahelanthropus tchadensis rather than man being a decendant of Australopithecus africanus or could Australopithecus africanus be in a totaly different catagory and not part of mans?

[Thatcherite]

"Deal with it"

I'll leap in to defend VadeRetro here. (not that he needs it)

The emotional problem that the supporters of science have in this debate results from what we see as a kind of wilful ignorance on the part of many creationists who feel able to hold forth on a subject that they are determined to learn nothing about. A common challenge I make of those who reject evolution is to ask them what the theory says. To date I have not ever had a correct (or even close) response which I think is highly significant.

For myself I am an atheist but I don't have a problem with religion (I'm not being patronising I am trying to explain my point of view). I don't believe that accepting ToE excludes God or disproves God and there are a great many christians (and muslims/hindus/etc) who agree with me.

I appreciate that you are making genuine efforts to understand but we can get awfully frustrated because there seem to be many who only pretend to examine the evidence open-mindedly, or who reject the evidence before they even know what it is, or who parrot long-discredited objections to theories like evolution. Unfortunately sites like ICR and AiG continue to propose feeble long-discredited arguments (along with the odd genuine conundrum, no-one says that scientific knowledge is yet absolute) that are plausible to the layman but laughable to those with better knowledge of the evidence.

I often become testy myself, despite my best efforts, and despite my awareness that testiness is unlikely to sway anyone. Please listen to VadeRetro, he has a better command of the material than most.

[VadeRetro]

Another source on Sahelanthropus. The most significant feature of Sahelanthropus ("Toumai") is its smallish muzzle. OK, we'd look different, less human, if our faces were longer. Against that, it's got a foramen magnum projecting rearwards, quadruped-style, whereas Australopithecus had it on the bottom, human-style. Which is more important for being human? Not looking too dog-faced, or not walking like a dog?

You're thrashing around for reasons to be confused. There will never be an end of that if no evidence need be considered as long as anyone, especially you, can be confused about anything.

Sahelanthropus is an ambiguous data point--there's no lower jaw and nothing below the jaw--for time in which data has generally been lacking. Interestingly, it's from about when the molecular data says the split from apes happened.

Well, one thing Sahelanthropus shows is a mix of human and ape features. It isn't exactly the mix which a straight linear picture of evolution would predict, but it's also something creationism says should never be found at all. That ought to mean something, but ... Oh! That's right! You're confused.

So, I guess you're going to stay confused.

[VadeRetro]

The emotional problem that the supporters of science have in this debate results from what we see as a kind of wilful ignorance on the part of many creationists who feel able to hold forth on a subject that they are determined to learn nothing about.

Yes. It's the [ignorance, stupidity, insanity, amnesia, "You Can't Make Me See"] bludgeon.

Incredibly, it's the main argument for creation on these threads.

[Nightshift]

Thanks. I am always willing to listen. I was taught evolution in public school. Though I do believe in God, I also believe man evolved from what God created (a design in his making). I am trying to listen to your side of the picture, to see the evidence, which is based on fossil records. We can always learn something.

[Nightshift]

Why not just say you disagree with this particular individuals remarks and show why, as you just did. This is more helpful than subvertly calling me names. Do you get your jollys that way. You are very knowledgable in this area and a little kindness and information would be nice or has your intellect put you above that sort of thing?

I found an article that one individual, supposedly an evolutioist, theorizes about and has a different opinion on what others in his field say and you call me confused. Anyone would be confused if they see 2 different opinions on a subject like this.

In the area of evolution you are the adult and I am the child, thanks for teaching me how to act like an evolutionist.

[VadeRetro]

It isn't exactly the mix which a straight linear picture of evolution would predict...

This could use some clarification.

Occasionally, it looks as if you can assemble a straight linear picture. The apes-to-humans series almost, but not quite, fills that bill. Theory doesn't really predict it, however. Theory says to expect a tree. Darwin drew a branching tree structure in Origin.

And trees are what we almost inevitably find. There's more detail in Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

[Nightshift]

Ok, I now understand a little on how this tree works, but how do you date the fossils to put them in the right posistion in this tree?

[VadeRetro]

Why not just say you disagree with this particular individuals remarks and show why, as you just did. This is more helpful than subvertly calling me names. Do you get your jollys that way. You are very knowledgable in this area and a little kindness and information would be nice or has your intellect put you above that sort of thing?

It would be different if you smelled genuine. So you're just a confused soul trying to understand but being mocked by the Philistines? Well, since you raise the issue, let's analyze whether your posts show the progression of someone on a quest for knowledge.

Post 288.

All science does it speculate on how things work, not how things were created. A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, a gorilla is a gorilla, and a human is a human and no matter how much science tries they will never get a human from a gorilla. That would be creating something and that has never been done or PROVEN, even by evolution.

Looks like the usual creationist strawman version of evolution. No transitional forms, and a gorilla has to give birth to a man.

Ichneumon informs you that you are an ape. He links a detailed, scientifically sound presentation of the point.

Your thirst for knowledge should have you brimming with a lot of questions, right?

Post 332.

The article only decribes changes in a type of "ape" but never made the ape a man. DNA will not allow that to happen. What you are trying to explain is all of a sudden 2 extra chromosomes mysteriously appear and whala - man - It s a nice story, theory, imagination, but you have not one shread of evidnce to prove it - only what you believe may have happen.

Thirsty for knowledge, or playing "Twist and Shout?"

Your confusion does not rub off on Ichneumon.

Undaunted by a thorough analysis of what you misread and what you didn't read at all, you keep strawmanning away.

Post 794.

... better yet show me a photo of an ape giving birth to man. You can't and you know it.

Someone with a thirst for understanding of evolution would not be saying this at this stage of the conversation. But you go on.

I'll stick with my beliefs, since you have NO facts

Here I think you were inadvertently honest about what's going on. You aren't looking for any understanding at all.

Then there was this lovely bit.

I never got past Harvard, but I did graduate from boot camp. Thats where they taught me meaningless things like shooting a tick off a fleas a$$ at a thousand yards.

Just a poor confused guy thirsting for understanding and being browbeaten for it?

No. All that was fairly open. You were a creationist citing the usual mantras, mocking strawmen of evolution, and being pretty blatant about how nobody was going to make you see anything.

But then you get cutesy-squirmy. Suddenly you're the science data-lawyer for the antiscience crowd.

Post 819.

The insect-eating, squirrel-like mammal sketched here is widely regarded as the ancestor to humans, apes, monkeys, and a large number of creatures now inhabiting Earth. These land-dwelling prosimians, now extinct, lived ~60 million years ago... I have seen so many different references as to which specific creature was the ancestor of man, makes anyone wonder, who is right.

Does anyone believe this is a sincere objection? We're only allowed one ancestor? I have more than one ancestor named "Victor."

You're wasting everyone's time. Obviously, you're setting snares to fool some very stupid people. Problem is, there can't be that many people that stupid using computers to read web pages.

So that's where I jumped in. Innocently, I wondered how you could be so mistaken:

Ok, please help me understand, this article say we are not apes but we have a common ancestor, so who is right?

Why invent a contradiction? The article says "Humans haven't descended from these apes."

I'm being patient, just explaining.

I also went on to link some evidence for what I was talking about.

You answer with Sahelensis in 829, waving it about as if it makes something (everything, really) already presented go away.

If this is true, where does this leave this theory that Australopithecus africanus is our closest relative?

Note how you mistate what I said to you. I told you A. africanus was the most human species of its day, 2.6 million years ago. I would also say it's more human overall than Sahelensis, although not in the specific area of muzzle dimension. I would also remind you that you started in post 288 saying an ape is an ape and a man is a man and never the twain have met, will meet, or can meet. Now you're linking your own transitional fossils to make mine vanish. This change has come over your position imperceptibly without any acknowledgement of "Hey, I was wrong about that but the goalposts are now over here anyway."

It is basically impossible to answer your objections without noting that your objections are dishonest misinterpretations, Twist and Shout gaming, straw-clutching, etc. Furthermore, if I'm noting that you aren't exactly what you pretend, you're wasting everyone's time with this stupid pretense in the first place.

There will never be any evidence for you. You will never do more than go find another straw to grasp. Your interest in science is only to see that bad science or no science gets taught, as the real thing has been getting "wrong" answers for 150 years.

[VadeRetro]

Ok, I now understand a little on how this tree works, but how do you date the fossils to put them in the right posistion in this tree?

A combination of superposition and radiometric dating. So now [What a shock!] it's going to turn out you're also a geology and nuclear chemistry denier?

So we're going to go dumb-dumbing on down the tree of knowledge? "But how do you know THAT, Daddy?" Do you have any pride?

[VadeRetro]

Ok, I now understand a little on how this tree works ...

I must say you're a fast reader.

[VadeRetro]

What is meant by "superposition."