Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Jarhyn]

perhaps exposure to stress in a part of the body associated with reaching, there can be genetic linkages to activate a genotype for growing taller that was previously methylated and dormant.

That’s basically the speculation about ERVs … the pieces are already there, just waiting for some external event to cause them to be put to use. There is so much genetic
material in ERVs, it’s kinda hard to rule it all out. Now that it’s being looked at though, there will likely be some conclusions to be reached soon.

Yeah, my thought is that the behavior (not to be confused with purpose) of life is "hoard models of all kinds of all structures". Inevitably, one model will be behaviorally homologous to something real which has a survival value for "the hoard", and if that model sees activation, the hoard itself is more likely to remain.

It's a self reinforcing feedback loop about acquiring models for understanding and environment for the purposes of retaining the model.

As a result, anything that makes the hoard of models more helpful and less harmful to its own existence, such as quasi-lamarickian evolution, is going to be heavily selected for.

Very rarely does the hoard get reduced meaningfully, and it's usually when life gets really hard and the cost just of a little bit of DNA in each cell is still meaningfully high. The mammalian genome lost a LOT of pigments, etc..

Darwinian evolution is categorically inferior to any Lamarckian process. The hard part is "worm phenomena", things which use the platform as a substrate for reproduction without contributing to it. In this way, the diversity of cells in a body and their ability to "only mutate a little bit" comes into play in that it allows sacrificial adoption of various messaged adaptations. In short, it has to be limited in some strong way to prevent communicable cancers and other such bullshit.

I suspect we are going to see in the next few years the discovery of a semi-democratic method of demethylation determination on various "risky activations" where some cells will demethylate semi-randomly, some will die, and then the successful demethylations where stress hormones are less expressed than before gets communicated for wide distribution somehow among the body, and a phenotype shift happens.

 

[Elixir]

I suspect we are going to see in the next few years the discovery of a semi-democratic method of demethylation determination on various "risky activations" where some cells will demethylate semi-randomly, some will die, and then the successful demethylations where stress hormones are less expressed than before gets communicated for wide distribution somehow among the body, and a phenotype shift happens.

Or a nonphenotypic change, say in immune response to a given stimulus, or the production of a digestive enzyme … this stuff could be really hard to sleuth out after the fact.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suspect we are going to see in the next few years the discovery of a semi-democratic method of demethylation determination on various "risky activations" where some cells will demethylate semi-randomly, some will die, and then the successful demethylations where stress hormones are less expressed than before gets communicated for wide distribution somehow among the body, and a phenotype shift happens.

Or a nonphenotypic change, say in immune response to a given stimulus, or the production of a digestive enzyme … this stuff could be really hard to sleuth out after the fact.

IKR? Like, I consider those "phenotypical", as opposed to the genotype which encompasses "the whole hoard".

I remember reading Old Man's War and this was actually a theme of those books, the idea that there's so much in the human genome that you could get something radically different-seeming with minimal content changes, just using methylation on the genome we already have

 

[Learner]

Learner

Abiogenesis is not necessarily rare. We know the composition of our star by spectral analysis, and by spectral analysis we can see distant similar stars. We can see solar system formation and can see disks of material around distant stars in an early stage of planetary formation. We can deduce planets around distant stars. We can assume planets around similar stars have the same composition as our planets.t

Steve

There's enough information to make the assumption yes, without actually 'prodding the actual material', so to speak.

We see life forms in miles deep mines that live on chemicals. Chemical creatures at volcanic sea vents. Life and evolution may be common, but our ecosystem may not be.

Curiously...you're saying then, that the very beginnings of these said life forms; transforming from dead matter into living organisms is from a separate abiogenesis phase from all other creatures on earth?

I do not think TOE is likely to be demonstrated by experiment. By that I mean from a first self replicating organism to complex diverse life through mutation and natural selection.

I think the article in the OP is one of those periodic scientific reorts that appear in the news athat are hyped. It is good science, but not proof of anything.

Hear hear... although some of our forum members may not agree with your two points above.

Our observational limit is the ability to detect electromagnet radiation. We do not know what is out past that limit.

I'm with you on that.

I think evolution and abiogenesis are probably constants assuming our science applies elsewhere and conducive initial conditions.

Not going argue with your fair hypothesis.

There is a good chance there may be evidence of life past or present on Mars and other places in the solar system.

Yes this is your logical evaluation. Bomb highlights a great point.. about the distinction between making logical conclusions and scientific conclusions.

And as a pope put it, evolution may just be part of gods plan.

Indeed, evolution isn't a problem to theists in this context.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The experiment demonstrate that a single cell organism barely capable of life rapidly evolved to leave much more robust and fit descendents. That is the point. It surprised the experimentors how well these organism recreated robust biological features that had been purposefully crippled. All within 300 days. This gives us a poosible evolutionary rate based on observation, not speculation.

Which demonstrates the first ancient and feeble similar, primitive organisms could quickly evolve to leave much more capable descendents. We now have hard evidence this is possible. In an ancient world with lots of time and entire oceans with many microniches, life seems rather inevitable once it is over a certain threshold of complexity.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

Dead vs living is a arbitry distinction.

The sun is a process and we comsider it inaminate. Biolgcal life is a process abd we call it alive.

'Dead to living' for me has no scientific meaning, more relegious and philosophical.

I am equally skeptical of both science and religion in a general sense.

Because a scientific paper is published making a claim does not mean I accept the interpretation even if it is a good experiment.

Philosophically if asked formally I wuld say the BB and TOE are theories not proven facts.

It is a gray area, but to me objective proof is an experiment. Both BB and TOE can not be proven experimentally.

With TOE the preponderance of the pieces of evidence point to TOE as the best theory to explain observation, always subject to change and revision.

While there may be holes and questions, the archeological/fossil record shows a progession of form and change. After the mass extinction following the asteroid strike the recovery over a long period shows change and adaption by plants and animals. Mutation and selection. Environment changes, some orgisms loose some survive, new orangisms evolve. As Steond Goud put it, you may be the best adapted fish in the world but if your pond dries up you are history.

There was 19th century creationist theory tha when god created everything he put fossils where we foumd them.

 

[Learner]

I would think (simple terms) that with an eternal universe, logically this would be a regular occurrence.

Is there any reason to think it’s not? Even if the universe is only 13 billion years old?

Well yes, what ever the conditions were for the abiogenesis phase (THE initial phase before any biological evolution can even take place) Eternally or even 13 billion years, there aren't any known occurrences happening now. No evidence that it happens more than once.

Now I hope you're not going to waste your time again posting 'biological evolution processes' after the fact (abiogenesis) and mistake my view on the matter, a logical conclusion trying to profess factual claims.

Take an iPhone, fully charged. Type a decimal point (period) then type zeroes until the phone runs out of charge, and put a “1” in the last place.
That is the approximate percentage of the known universe from which we have observationally eliminated the possibility of current life. And our temporal window is a vanishingly small slice of the time the universe has been around. For all we know, life could be quite ubiquitous.

And this is what you close with, after all your posting responses... the summation.. merely pitting a theory with another theory...
...neither done by experiment, neither claimed as scientific conclusions.

Fortunately the topic does however... potentially bring good discussion for individual thoughts and perspectives.

 

[Elixir]

, there aren't any known occurrences happening now. No evidence that it happens more than once.

Creo Canard # 1,846

* we don’t know that no abiogenesis is happening now

* if an abiogenesis event like what gave rise to current diversity happened now, we would never know; at the time when the first prokayotic life appeared on earth, the atmosphere was anoxic. In the presence of oxygen, such organisms could not survive.

* NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. And still no reason to think abiogenesis isn’t a regular event.

 

[steve_bank]

Does Learner think humans ran around with dinosaurs? I have heard that from creationists.

Did Adan and Eve have a pet T Rex?

The fossil record shows at one point you would not want to go fishing and drop a net in the water.

 

[Elixir]

Does Learner think humans ran around with dinosaurs?

Prob’ly. Creos think lots of crazy things. But amazingly, they are able to put it all aside when matters of food, shelter and clothing arise. Lucky for them, fantasies of Jesus riding tyrannosaurs or superbeings poofing humans into existence don’t impact those issues.

 

[steve_bank]

Way back a Christian said the Ark carried dinosaur eggs.

 

[Elixir]

Which one of Noah’s in-breeders was assigned to sit on the Dino eggs?

 

[steve_bank]

I always wondered who had the job of shoveling manure.

The Ark must have stunk to 'high heaven' so to speak.

 

[James Brown]

Which of the eight people on the Ark were responsible for carrying the viruses that can only survive in humans?

You know, things like typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphillis...

 

[Elixir]

Which of the eight people on the Ark were responsible for carrying the viruses that can only survive in humans?

You know, things like typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphillis...

Those were created special by the Christian god, after deFludde, and over the protests of Muhammad, Odin, Zeus and some more junior gods.

 

[James Brown]

Well, if YHWH is going to commit genocide by drowning millions, I suppose we can't put it past him to kill millions more by specially creating smallpox and polio. Whaddagod!

 

[Learner]

, there aren't any known occurrences happening now. No evidence that it happens more than once.

Creo Canard # 1,846

* we don’t know that no abiogenesis is happening now

Well yes, sure, I don't have an issue with your statement.
I'm saying we haven't seen any indication for the regular reoccurrence.

* if an abiogenesis event like what gave rise to current diversity happened now, we would never know; at the time when the first prokayotic life appeared on earth, the atmosphere was anoxic. In the presence of oxygen, such organisms could not survive.

If the abiogenesis event happened now as it did then, It wouldn't be problematic if the first prokaryotic life is never known The importance would be, that noticeably, the abiogenesis event has happened again.

* NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. And still no reason to think abiogenesis isn’t a regular event.

I get it... evolution regarding changes in biology in living things and having nothing to do with abiogenesis. Well ok, we can do that. No need to bother about expanding a little, connecting the two.

There are no reasons yet that tells me abiogenesis is not a rare occurrence, and importantly...I didn't' make any claims with confidence to say otherwise. You are eager, which is fine, and it seems you put effort in your posts for that type of debate, as you do when countering a knowledge claim, although it wasn't a knowledge claim I had made, it was my 'hypothetical', off-the-cuff non- experiment, moment of thought on abiogenesis. I wouldn't be passing that idea as facts to other Christians, in a manner of speaking.

 

[steve_bank]

Lerner

Chemical presses are what they are. Stars are formed by natural processes. We see it happening in the distance.

Live dead material is an arbitrary distinction. Chemistry is chemistry either way.

With the right chemicals with a source of enrgy like hot undersea vents reactions occur and the ball starts rolling. The rest is a chain of chemical reactions.

Brownian motion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brownian motion is the random motion of particles suspended in a medium (a liquid or a gas).[2]

This motion pattern typically consists of random fluctuations in a particle's position inside a fluid sub-domain, followed by a relocation to another sub-domain. Each relocation is followed by more fluctuations within the new closed volume. This pattern describes a fluid at thermal equilibrium, defined by a given temperature. Within such a fluid, there exists no preferential direction of flow (as in transport phenomena). More specifically, the fluid's overall linear and angular momenta remain null over time. The kinetic energies of the molecular Brownian motions, together with those of molecular rotations and vibrations, sum up to the caloric component of a fluid's internal energy (the equipartition theorem).

This is a derail to Science vs Religion, but...

You question evidence and inference yet the only creationist evidnce is a few lines in old text by an unknown author.

There is no experimental or observational evidence. Creationist arguments locality try to justfy creationism by attempting to refute science, science which by this time is evdbced by what science has aterialy produced. There is little question about the efficacy of science as a whole.

Note that because philosophically I consider TOE unprovable, that does not mean I have issues with it or have an alternative theory. My technical work conditioned me to be skeptical of what is considered proof'.

Someone had a sign on his office 'In god we trust, all others bring data.'

Creationists do not have data, TOE does have data on parts of the evolutionary process. The tinme scale is prohibitve.

Creationism is solely based on unquntfied inference.

 

[Tigers!]

Which of the eight people on the Ark were responsible for carrying the viruses that can only survive in humans?

You know, things like typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphillis...

I would hazard a guess and say eight people all carried them in one form or another.
And lest we forget these viruses evolved over time.

 

[Elixir]

I'm saying we haven't seen any indication for the regular reoccurrence.

It doesn’t matter what you are saying. You are uneducated in the matter. If it was a regular occurrence you would never know it, for reasons I already outlined.

If the abiogenesis event happened now as it did then, It wouldn't be problematic if the first prokaryotic life is never known The importance would be, that noticeably, the abiogenesis event has happened again.

^ Word salad. There is nothing “important” about a nuclei acid forming for a vanishing moment in a mud puddle or a hydrothermal vent. It could be happening constantly and wouldn’t matter one bit, because such things would be incredibly unstable in the current earth environment. You owe it to yourself to learn just a wee bit about these things beyond what hucksters like Hamm and Hovind, Dembski and Behe have stuffed your noggin with. Flaunting ignorance doesn’t become more effective by increasing the volume.