Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

[Ivellious]

We have found fossils of ancient bacteria/single celled organisms that predate all other fossils found on Earth. Basically, that demonstrates that life began as simple, single celled organisms that became more complex and diverse over time.

[sandy_mcd]

Good point wrain62.

Well that's the point isn't it. Nothing about life, even it's so-called "evolutionary beginning", is simple. ...
What are these "simple" fossils that are referred to?

See Ivellious' followup for one example.
Yes, life is complex. I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

[Stu]

We have found fossils of ancient bacteria/single celled organisms that predate all other fossils found on Earth. Basically, that demonstrates that life began as simple, single celled organisms that became more complex and diverse over time.

You of course realise that single-celled organisms (I take it you're referring to prokaryotes) are anything but simple -- even they are far more complex than anything any human has built, ever..

Small doesn't equal simple.

I would argue that the leap from "non-life" to "biological life" is a far larger more challenging task than going from single cell to multicellular life and beyond.

[Canuckster1127]

We have found fossils of ancient bacteria/single celled organisms that predate all other fossils found on Earth. Basically, that demonstrates that life began as simple, single celled organisms that became more complex and diverse over time.

Isn't this assuming that the absence of further evidence is then the evidence of absence?

[Ivellious]

No, not really. It's taking all the evidence we have available to us and using it to form a conclusion. If new evidence presents itself, the conclusion could change.

And when I said "simple" I meant comparatively speaking. I understand life is complex...I'm a biochemistry/genetics major in college. But I wasn't trying to argue for abiogenesis, I was arguing how the fossil record demonstrates a clear "beginning" of life in simpler single celled organisms that eventually get more complex and eventually leading to multi-cellular organisms. The fossil record indicates as much.

Today, the fossil record has been established and studied and put together enough for us to make these conclusions. The trends I stated above are clear, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary. I would argue that we have an extensive collection of fossils that we have dated and studied to form that conclusion...On the contrary, ID proponents use the argument that the fossil record is "incomplete" as one of the major reasons why ID is right, which ironically is precisely arguing that "lack of evidence for evolution is evidence of absence of evolution." Go figure.

[Stu]

Stu,
Yes. It would seem that there is something in DNA that can turn off or on certain functions based on environmental pressures. In other words it is pre-wired. If it is pre-wired, then how and why? How would non-intelligence know to design such a switch for something that may or may not be useful in the future?

Came across this video and thought you might find it interesting; regarding DNA and it's ability to act on external factors.

Are Genetic Mutations Accidental or Prescribed (or Both)

[zoegirl]

But at the very heart of the matter, there is a leap that one has to make. You have this record (that is incomplete) and in a time scale that is inconceivable. Meanwhile, we are working with minuscule changes in ridiculously small amounts of time compared to the record. Just, at the end of the day, you just don't know for certain whether those minuscule changes can provide the needed impetus for the collective changes needed to create that record.

In the absence of believing in a deity, the record *must* be enough...but let's be honest and realize that this is a leap that must take place.

[Stu]

And when I said "simple" I meant comparatively speaking. I understand life is complex...I'm a biochemistry/genetics major in college. But I wasn't trying to argue for abiogenesis, I was arguing how the fossil record demonstrates a clear "beginning" of life in simpler single celled organisms that eventually get more complex and eventually leading to multi-cellular organisms. The fossil record indicates as much.

Today, the fossil record has been established and studied and put together enough for us to make these conclusions. The trends I stated above are clear, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary. I would argue that we have an extensive collection of fossils that we have dated and studied to form that conclusion...On the contrary, ID proponents use the argument that the fossil record is "incomplete" as one of the major reasons why ID is right, which ironically is precisely arguing that "lack of evidence for evolution is evidence of absence of evolution." Go figure.

Well we have two very different views on the fossil record then, as the fossil record (according to evolutionary theory) is completely out of sync and upside down.

Simpler, single-celled, faster reproducing organisms are supposed to be much more capable / susceptible to change (through mutation to DNA) right?
So why is it that they supposedly dominated the earth for billions of years?

Compare that to the supremely more complex animals that followed where one witnesses bursts of complexity and diversity within groups of organisms with much smaller, slower reproduction cycles.

The Cambrian explosion being the perfect example. The Cambrian animals burst onto the scene with no precursors to speak of whatsoever. Not only that but many had features unique and highly complex.

Eyes being one. I'm sure you are familiar with just how intricate the eye actually is, it's construction a true marvel.

And new finds are continuing to be unearthed -- unfortunately they're not the intermediates that evolutionists hope for; on the contrary if anything it reveals yet more out-of-place, isolated organisms with no link to animal past or present; like this Tulip animal that has a feeding system unique to that creature.

Furthermore, the fossil record is not aligned with evolution as you seem to suggest. There have been fossils found in the Mesozoic Period of all the major plant divisions and all of the major animal phyla groups that are living today. That contradicts what we would expect, especially with birds being the supposed descendants of dinosaurs. If that were true, what are they doing existing alongside their predecessors.

We have unearthed an extensive amount of fossils in corresponding strata worldwide, enough to conclude that we have a substantial representation of each period. Yet no intermediates exist.

Remember, phyletic gradualism states that we should witness small changes over long periods with many intermediates inbetween. Yet we find no such thing. Rather extended periods of stasis and rapid change, with none of those intermediates to be found.

You gotta admit.. somethings up. How do you explain it away?

[jlay]

Sandy, I guess I could address each point one by one, but I see that isn't the issue.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory which says that subsequent forms have to be more complex than earlier ones. So the development of tapeworms is not precluded.

I said as much in my last post. Neutral, positive or negative. But that doesn't change the fact that in at least one sense evo theory demands lower to higher movement over time.

Evolution is a concise explanation for observations made of the real world, fossils, life forms, genetic information, etc.

You won't hear me argue that Evo Theory isn't an explanation. But the real issue here isn't fossils, or genetic info. We ALL have the SAME evidence. It is the interpretations/explanations of the evidence. The evidence isn't stamped, "evidence of evolution." Just because vestigiality, adaptation are 'consistent' with aspects of Darwinism doesn't mean it supports molecules to man evolution. Vestigiality, NS, and adaptation are also consistent with ID and Creationism. But you would never here me say that any of those support Biblical man from dust creation.

So, my point in loss of function is that you said it is consistent. Sure, but it is also consistent with creationism and ID. My concern is that you are not using the term 'consistent' in the same sense. Consistent doesn't mean it supports molecules to man evolution. Unless you can show me how vestigiality can go from those early, simple cells you mention, to man. You've already wisely admitted that it can't. My reading is that when you say, "consistent," is that you are saying it supports the overall claims of evolution. That being molecules to man. Well vestigialy may support some things within Evo Theory, but it doesn't support the origins and function of systems we see today. In other words, Vestigiality will not get you from point A to B. Or I should say from A to Z. It may take you fom point Y to point Y2.
You see Evo supporters will say things like, "We see evolution (change) happening today. Vestigiality is evidence of evolution (change).Therefore Creationist are wrong to say we can't observe Evolution (Darwinian molecules to man). I'm going to give you a more obvious example.
-The area next to the river is a bank. I keep my money in a bank. Therefore my money is next to the river.
The word evolution can simply mean, change. But it can also mean the theory of evolution. The word representing change (evolution) is used within the theory, but often equivocated fallaciously.

We see change happening today. But that is not the same as saying, 'poof' abiogenesis, life evolved (complexity, higher forms from lower forms, etc). This is how I see you using the terms. When you say life evolved, you are not just saying diveristy, adaptation. We ALL, ALL, ALL agree on that. What you are saying is that those things are evidence that man evolved from those fossilized single cell bacteria. Since we have single cell bacteria, show me a fossil of the next step in the process. Show me exactly what that single cell evolved into in the next step of the equation that led us to man. Surely the fossil record can provide that.

Precursor: life started via abiogenesis (Life started?? No further explanation needed. Oh please.)
Life evolved through changes. Since life obviously (abiogenesis assumed, supported by relative simplicity of earliest fossils) had to (begging the question) start simple, the first changes would have to be to essentially more complex forms.Obviously, You are begging the question.
Once complex forms developed,Only there is no testable observable evidence of this. simpler forms could originate (cf: tapeworms) .

From what I have gathered from jlay's posts, his concern is with the development of complexity

Uh no. I am only using complexity because it is within Evolutionary theory. I am much more intersted in function. We can explain vestigiality. Function is no longer needed. Evolution does not have a mind. We know how and why the heart functions. The heart functions to pump blood. Give me a testable, observable example of how a system originates prior to a function being determined and designed. How does a mindless, unguided process know a heart's function prior to its origins? It doesn't. Yet the heart not only functions, but functions in harmony with a mulitude of other systems. When we design a system, before anything materializes, the designer will recognize a function. "I want bread to be toasted." From the function, the design is laid. From the design, the process of building occurs. Yet, in evolution, we are to believe all these functioning systems are the result of mindless, unguided, non-intelligent processes. If you give it enough time, wallah!! Let me sum up your hypothesis. Simple life forms appeared, unguided out of non-living material. Lot's of time went by, and bingo, fully functioning systems. It's like building a toaster by throwing the components into a whirlwind, leaving it for a million years and hoping by chance that a toaster emerges.

You also imply that a tapeworm is the result of losing info. That a distinct lifeform, the tapeworm) resulted because complex life already existed. Do you have any observable evidence that a unique lifeform originated from vestigiality?

[sandy_mcd]

Unless you can show me how vestigiality can go from those early, simple cells you mention, to man.

I think this pretty much sums up the entire discussion. I tried to point out how vestigiality is but one aspect of the evolutionary process; yet you continue, post after post, to demand that this one aspect explain everything about evolution.

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[Ivellious]

Simpler, single-celled, faster reproducing organisms are supposed to be much more capable / susceptible to change (through mutation to DNA) right?
So why is it that they supposedly dominated the earth for billions of years?

That one's easy. Did you know that billions of years ago the Earth wasn't quite the same as it is now? All multi-cellular organisms on Earth today would have died on that Earth. Single celled organisms dominated the Earth because conditions such as atmospheric conditions, climate, availability of liquid water, etc. would not have sustained anything else. It's also important to note that they did change and become more varied over time, they just didn't form plants and animals.

The Cambrian explosion being the perfect example. The Cambrian animals burst onto the scene with no precursors to speak of whatsoever. Not only that but many had features unique and highly complex.

This coincides well with the Earth's climate, atmosphere and other conditions becoming just right for larger, more complex life to thrive. There are hypotheses, such as the beginning of the global arms race creating pressures for new organisms to quickly develop. The eye, while certainly complex, has early stages as simple light detectors and each stage following that could have easily been selected for (most notably due to an arms race). Like all things, the eye did not just appear out of thin air fully evolved. Is there a perfect explanation? Of course not, but unless you forget about all the geological and ecological factors involved, it isn't as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

Furthermore, the fossil record is not aligned with evolution as you seem to suggest. There have been fossils found in the Mesozoic Period of all the major plant divisions and all of the major animal phyla groups that are living today. That contradicts what we would expect, especially with birds being the supposed ancestors of dinosaurs. If that were true, what are they doing existing alongside their predecessors.

By this logic, apes existing even though we evolved from them contradicts evolution. Just because something evolved from something else does not mean that the entire previous species dies out in the process...In fact, of course birds would have had to exist alongside dinosaurs! I mean, they couldn't have evolved from a dead species. Your idea of evolution is skewed in that sense. Evolution does not require that a species die out in order to evolve into another species...Also, what do you mean by there being all types of plants and animals existing in the Mesozoic period? Why would it be so hard to believe things other than dinosaurs existed back then?

Yet no intermediates exist.

When you say this you are just wrong. The anti-evolution camp states this over and over without end, refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I'll admit, we obviously do not have every single intermediate that could have ever existed. But we do have numerous examples of evolution, with intermediates. See: The evolution between horse and whale. Equivocating "not having every example covered" to "having zero evidence" is a farce. How does creationism or ID explain random, short lived existence of intermediates between whales and horses in the middle east?

The heart functions to pump blood. Give me a testable, observable example of how a system originates prior to a function being determined and designed.

Like the eye, the heart began in small, worm-like beings with an extremely simple task. The eye started as a light-sensor. The heart, as a muscle that pushed fluid through the body. Here's a link that you can briefly read up on the heart: http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/D ... lution.htm

[Stu]

Let me sum up your hypothesis. Simple life forms appeared, unguided out of non-living material. Lot's of time went by, and bingo, fully functioning systems. It's like building a toaster by throwing the components into a whirlwind, leaving it for a million years and hoping by chance that a toaster emerges.

Just a quick word from my side.

Jonathan Wells has a short logic test for an undirected origin of life explanation. Granted it's a somewhat simple representation, but that's the point.
Take a frog; insert in blender; turn on mixer until fully blended. Leave in "early earth conditions" for 1 billion years. What might you expect to find after that period. A single nucleotide? A single amino acid? RNA? DNA? A protein? A cell? A frog?

Time can do a lot of things, but I'm not sure working in opposition to what we intuitively know about how things tend toward chaos and entropy rather than order, is one of them.

[Ivellious]

That logic is flawed...Of course you'd find nothing...the cells in a frog work with each other in order to survive and thrive. Make them individuals, they die. Worse yet, you destroy the cells in a blender, so I don't see the point he's making...

[Stu]

When you say this you are just wrong. The anti-evolution camp states this over and over without end, refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I'll admit, we obviously do not have every single intermediate that could have ever existed. But we do have numerous examples of evolution, with intermediates. See: The evolution between horse and whale.

Will respond in full tomorrow (it's bedtime this side ), but if you have "numerous examples of evolution", please provide those examples.

What about the horse and whale?? Two very different creatures.

Equivocating "not having every example covered" to "having zero evidence" is a farce.

Well I never suggested you need to have every intermediate... I would settle for 5 intermediates out of the billions upon billions of animals / organisms that have existed in the entire history of the earth.

How does creationism or ID explain random, short lived existence of intermediates between whales and horses in the middle east?

Explain further. What short lived intermediates are these?

[Stu]

That logic is flawed...Of course you'd find nothing...the cells in a frog work with each other in order to survive and thrive. Make them individuals, they die. Worse yet, you destroy the cells in a blender, so I don't see the point he's making...

Well that's exactly the point isn't it!

In a frog you have all the necessary components for creating amino acids, proteins, DNA and RNA from scratch, as would be needed for an origin of life scenario.

If you like you can also insert an additional lion, flower and crocodile, or anything else for that matter; but as you rightly pointed out -- cells and their component parts and machinery all work in conjunction with one another, which is the very problem facing an undirected molecules-to-me pathway.