Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[bilby]

I was taking issue with both “froms”. Neither is needed with “whence”.

But I agree with Steve; If someone is going to object to the idea that a single cell life form could spontaneously arise in the context of a wider environment that contains all the chemicals that are present in that cell, it is utterly absurd for them then not to object to the spontaneous existence of an all powerful creator god with the ability to scoff at the laws of thermodynamics, in the context of no wider environment of any kind.

I’m not sure I understand. If one side is saying that the universe only works through specific natural laws but we don’t yet know what particular circumstances and environments allow for those laws to cause life to arise from non-life (and the distinction may not actually be that sharp) and the other side is saying there’s a magical creator who doesn’t have to follow any of those natural laws, why would the defenders of magic object that their creator uses magic?

As they say: With God all things are possible.

How does even the most magical of beings use magic to create itself?

If all things are possible, then nothing can be known - including whether or not there are any gods.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you invoke a creator from whence did he, she, or it come from?

Yikes! Two “froms” with whence.

Three, actually.

whence
adverb
from what place or source​

But what are you going to do? Languages evolve.

(Eta: you beat me to it.)

 

[bilby]

If you invoke a creator from whence did he, she, or it come from?

Yikes! Two “froms” with whence.

Three, actually.

whence​

adverb​

from what place or source​

But what are you going to do? Languages evolve.

Sure, but to whither are we going to with all this?

 

[Bomb#20]

If you invoke a creator from whence did he, she, or it come from?

Yikes! Two “froms” with whence.

Three, actually.

whence​

adverb​

from what place or source​

But what are you going to do? Languages evolve.

Sure, but to whither are we going to with all this?

It's time for all this to whither on the vine.

 

[Bomb#20]

HeeHeeHee.

We can jump to a cosmology thread.

For someone like me who thinks the logical answer to origins is an infinite universe that always was and always will be, existence and evolution of life on Earth is a point in an infinite sequence. No need for a creator.

If you invoke a creator from whence did he, she, or it come from?

Back in the 90s the Pope the day essentially said evolution might be considered part of god's plan. While there is no smoking gun or experiment that can demonstrate abiogenesis and evolution, the totality of evidence so far leaves evolution as the best model and explanation.

The Smoking Gun

The origin of new species* has been observed in the laboratory. (Mostly in fruit flies, because they're biologists' favorite animal, because they're so easy to experiment on.)

(* I.e., new populations that can't interbreed with the source population and produce fertile offspring. We can tell horses and donkeys are different species because mules are infertile.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Call me folks when this can be done without any cell in the first place. Actually start and demonstrate the process from scratch! (But then again, by creating the very simplest of cells would spoil the demonstration by the intelligent agency input)

I think the Chinese claimed a similar success a few years ago but I do recall a ready made cell was necessary.

This thread is about evolution, i.e., it's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. If you're stipulating that intelligent agency isn't necessary for the origin of new species from earlier species and are only invoking it for the origin of the first cell, that's great; it means you aren't rejecting science. We do not yet have a solid scientific explanation for how the first cell came to be.

 

[Learner]

Call me folks when this can be done without any cell in the first place. Actually start and demonstrate the process from scratch! (But then again, by creating the very simplest of cells would spoil the demonstration by the intelligent agency input)

I think the Chinese claimed a similar success a few years ago but I do recall a ready made cell was necessary.

This thread is about evolution, i.e., it's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. If you're stipulating that intelligent agency isn't necessary for the origin of new species from earlier species and are only invoking it for the origin of the first cell, that's great; it means you aren't rejecting science. We do not yet have a solid scientific explanation for how the first cell came to be.

Noted: this thread is about evolution. Just need to respond to one post besides this one.

As I see it, the 'origin of life' ideally should be part or inclusive with 'evolution' as a whole process package in one' (which would of course, give a 'much better' solid demonstration to argue that "no creator was necessary").

 

[Elixir]

As I see it, the 'origin of life' ideally should be part or inclusive with 'evolution'

As I see it, you are grasping at straws to declare “mah Pappy ain’t no monkey!”

Evolution doesn’t explain why matter exists, or why some of it qualifies as “alive” in our lexicon. It is also 100% indifferent to the notion that “some god musta created it all before it could evolve”.
Evolution explains the appearance of the myriad species we can observe, including the one to which we belong. It demonstrates the mechanism whereby diversity arises. And it does so using observable processes, without the benefit of magic apples, talking donkeys or tri-Omni genocidal maniacs.

 

[Learner]

As I see it, the 'origin of life' ideally should be part or inclusive with 'evolution'

As I see it, you are grasping at straws to declare “mah Pappy ain’t no monkey!”

Evolution doesn’t explain why matter exists, or why some of it qualifies as “alive” in our lexicon. It is also 100% indifferent to the notion that “some god musta created it all before it could evolve”.
Evolution explains the appearance of the myriad species we can observe, including the one to which we belong. It demonstrates the mechanism whereby diversity arises. And it does so using observable processes, without the benefit of magic apples, talking donkeys or tri-Omni genocidal maniacs.

That's quite a response to something I wasn't actually saying, as you think in your post.

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be considered as a 'unified process' (at least in thinking). A debate about God wasn't necessary for that line of thought.

Take it easy.

 

[steve_bank]

HeeHeeHee.

We can jump to a cosmology thread.

For someone like me who thinks the logical answer to origins is an infinite universe that always was and always will be, existence and evolution of life on Earth is a point in an infinite sequence. No need for a creator.

If you invoke a creator from whence did he, she, or it come from?

Back in the 90s the Pope the day essentially said evolution might be considered part of god's plan. While there is no smoking gun or experiment that can demonstrate abiogenesis and evolution, the totality of evidence so far leaves evolution as the best model and explanation.

The Smoking Gun

The origin of new species* has been observed in the laboratory. (Mostly in fruit flies, because they're biologists' favorite animal, because they're so easy to experiment on.)

(* I.e., new populations that can't interbreed with the source population and produce fertile offspring. We can tell horses and donkeys are different species because mules are infertile.)

I read a piece on green islands in Hawaian lava flows. Lava harfdens leaving isolated green spots in which insects begin to diverge in some ways from other isolated insects.

As I understand it speciation means divergence to the point where the two groups can no longer interbreed.

Natural selection is observed. I watched a 90s chardonnay on a guy who was looking at drought conditions in Central America. A sream had reduced to isolated pools.I n one pool a small fish had a natural innity to a parasite. Fish in another pool did not and were dicing off. Put fish with the immunity into the pool without the immunity and the immunity passed on .

The lactose bacteria experiment. Put a population of lactose intolerant bacteria into a lactose medium and most will die ff. A small number with immunity will survive and restablish a population.

A good example is antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, super bugs.

TOE says life evolved from simple self replicating orgasms of unknown origins. I take abiogenesis to be separate from TOE. TOE starts with the earliest known organisms and explains how life today evolved from those organisms.

Thee are experimnts that demonstrate creation of amino acids. Simulated lightning strkes into what is tught to be early ocean conditions. Undrsea valcanic vents are a good candidate for abiogenesis. Heat energy and chemicals. There aresekf replicating orgisims that live on chemicals.

TOE is similar to the BB. The BB starts with a theoretical set of initial conditions which can not be experimentally demonstrated. From that the BB explains how what we see today evolved from those initial consolations.

I don't see anything special about the article.

 

[Elixir]

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be a 'unified process' (

Why? Why not include stellar evolution, radioactive decay and the symmetry of the periodic table as well? If you broaden it enough you can probably eviscerate it of all meaning, leaving plenty of room for meddling gods.
The origin of matter and the origin of life have NOTHING to do with evolution, so for what reason “should” evolution include those things and not, say, the Fibonacci sequence?
The theory of evolution explains the observed fact of evolution. Evolution is a process undergone by EVERY* population of imperfect self-replicators in a dynamic fitness landscape. It does not explain the origin of matter, why prime numbers are useful or what King James cut from your fav book.

* Even virtual ones

 

[bilby]

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be considered as a 'unified process' (at least in thinking).

Why?

Do you also consider both 'building a car' and 'learning to drive' as a unified process (at least in thinking)?

 

[Bomb#20]

I read a piece on green islands in Hawaian lava flows. Lava harfdens leaving isolated green spots in which insects begin to diverge in some ways from other isolated insects.

As I understand it speciation means divergence to the point where the two groups can no longer interbreed.

Yes, exactly. That's why the experiments in my link are important -- they demonstrated the daughter populations couldn't interbreed.

Natural selection is observed. I watched a 90s chardonnay on a guy who was looking at drought conditions in Central America. A sream had reduced to isolated pools.I n one pool a small fish had a natural innity to a parasite. Fish in another pool did not and were dicing off. Put fish with the immunity into the pool without the immunity and the immunity passed on .

The lactose bacteria experiment. Put a population of lactose intolerant bacteria into a lactose medium and most will die ff. A small number with immunity will survive and restablish a population.

A good example is antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, super bugs.

Those kind of observations aren't any use for arguing with creationists -- they can always label whatever you see "variation within a kind or species", as Tigers! did upthread. Animals can get new features like natural immunity the same way we can get new features like blue eyes, by small mutations, without thereby becoming a new species. And anything at all can happen to bacteria -- they reproduce asexually, so there is no interbreeding, so there's never any way to objectively measure whether a new species has formed. Classification of bacteria into species is always a matter of subjective opinion. So to prove the origin of species in a laboratory you need to work with a sexually reproducing species and you need to check whether they can interbreed. Fruit flies are ideal.

 

[steve_bank]

I am talking more philosophically.

To me the article is another data point among many, but it is not proof that specialization has occurred naturally over the age of the Earth.

It is an artificial experiment. Calling the results proof of the end to end TOE from abiogenesis to what we see today is IMO interpretation. Nothing wrong with inerretion, it is part of the process.

Given the fossil record and the diversity today the only possible conclusion other than something like creationism is mutation, natural selection, and speciation.

Philosophically IMO neither the BB nor TOE can be experimentally tested as a complete theory. . I know that on the forum that view has given theists an opening to argue science is 'faith based' the same as religious faith. Witnessed by Unknown Soldier;s thread on faith.

As I have said before, it bugs me to watch science shows like NOVA when speculative science is presented as absolute ironclad truth.

 

[Learner]

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be a 'unified process' (

Why? Why not include stellar evolution, radioactive decay and the symmetry of the periodic table as well? If you broaden it enough you can probably eviscerate it of all meaning, leaving plenty of room for meddling gods.
The origin of matter and the origin of life have NOTHING to do with evolution, so for what reason “should” evolution include those things and not, say, the Fibonacci sequence?
The theory of evolution explains the observed fact of evolution. Evolution is a process undergone by EVERY* population of imperfect self-replicators in a dynamic fitness landscape. It does not explain the origin of matter, why prime numbers are useful or what King James cut from your fav book.

* Even virtual ones

A little over-kill on the thought process perhaps.

Nothing to do with...?

Evolution is always 'step two' in the sequence to life process!

I suppose It's easy isn't it, debating evolution, jumping the first step where life already exists? Not that evolution is a problem to many creationists anyway, depending on the individual.

 

[Learner]

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be considered as a 'unified process' (at least in thinking).

Why?

Do you also consider both 'building a car' and 'learning to drive' as a unified process (at least in thinking)?

Not sure how to apply your analogy to biological life. Create a car? Learning to drive, part of the process?

 

[bilby]

Evolution is always 'step two' in the sequence to life process!

Not really.

"Life" isn't really well defined. The chemistry just gets more and more complex, with the simplest stuff being considered "not alive", and the most complex stuff "definitely alive". Where you draw the line between those extremes is entirely arbitrary.

Evolution is an unavoidable characteristic of any system of imperfect replication, in which there are differences between individual cases that affect their success at replicating themselves.

As such, it probably pre-dates "life", as defined by most biologists, and the first life likely arose through the evolution of replicating chemical systems.

One of the leading hypotheses for abiogenesis is that of an "RNA World", in which self-catalysing RNA replication evolved to produce the first living cells.

Other hypotheses also include natural selection elements; Complex chemistry basically falls into that pattern, as, indeed, do many far simpler physical systems.

Natural selection is everywhere; It would be a surprise if it wasn't a key element of abiogenesis. You can see natural selection in the distribution of pebbles on a river bed.

 

[bilby]

What I was saying was simply both 'origin of life' and 'evolution' should be considered as a 'unified process' (at least in thinking).

Why?

Do you also consider both 'building a car' and 'learning to drive' as a unified process (at least in thinking)?

Not sure how to apply your analogy to biological life. Learning to drive?

A car is a prerequisite in order to learn to drive. You literally cannot learn to drive unless a car already exists. And yet, learning to drive doesn't have anything to do with building cars; You can be completely ignorant of how cars are built, and still take driving lessons.

Similarly, you can be completely ignorant of how life began, and still study and observe evolution. There's absolutely no need for these things to be thought of in a unified way as a single process; They are intellectually independent.

 

[Bomb#20]

A little over-kill on the thought process perhaps.

Nothing to do with...?

Evolution is always 'step two' in the sequence to life process!

I suppose It's easy isn't it, debating evolution, jumping the first step where life already exists?

You tell us.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

- Matthew 16:16​

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I read a piece on green islands in Hawaian lava flows. Lava harfdens leaving isolated green spots in which insects begin to diverge in some ways from other isolated insects.

As I understand it speciation means divergence to the point where the two groups can no longer interbreed.

Yes, exactly. That's why the experiments in my link are important -- they demonstrated the daughter populations couldn't interbreed.

Natural selection is observed. I watched a 90s chardonnay on a guy who was looking at drought conditions in Central America. A sream had reduced to isolated pools.I n one pool a small fish had a natural innity to a parasite. Fish in another pool did not and were dicing off. Put fish with the immunity into the pool without the immunity and the immunity passed on .

The lactose bacteria experiment. Put a population of lactose intolerant bacteria into a lactose medium and most will die ff. A small number with immunity will survive and restablish a population.

A good example is antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, super bugs.

Those kind of observations aren't any use for arguing with creationists -- they can always label whatever you see "variation within a kind or species", as Tigers! did upthread. Animals can get new features like natural immunity the same way we can get new features like blue eyes, by small mutations, without thereby becoming a new species. And anything at all can happen to bacteria -- they reproduce asexually, so there is no interbreeding, so there's never any way to objectively measure whether a new species has formed. Classification of bacteria into species is always a matter of subjective opinion. So to prove the origin of species in a laboratory you need to work with a sexually reproducing species and you need to check whether they can interbreed. Fruit flies are ideal.

"They reproduce asexually"? Not quite. Google for bacterial conjugation.

Bacterial conjugation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org