The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C wrote:

That's fine ... Natural Selection is a fact ... but it's the source of the genetic diversity upon which NS acts, that is the issue.
... and no, taking a proverbial 'mutagenic sledgehammer' to the finely tuned and irreducibly complex systems observed in living processes won't do it.

Ok – but then we face a completely different issue. What you are unconvinced by is not natural selection or evolution at all: if natural selection is a fact, then evolution must necessarily follow. You merely do not believe that life originated spontaneously on earth.

No-one is claiming to have the final answer to that one: apart from the supernatural explanation, we currently have a small handful of competing scientific ones. There is no current consensus.

However the fossil record suggests extremely strongly that if you go back in time very far indeed, then life-forms become increasingly simple. The earliest examples we have found seem to be about 3.7 billion years old. At that stage all we can find is mats of extremely simple microbes.

The amazing thing is that these seem to originally not have depended on photosynthesis, but on thermal vents for energy, like some extremophile life that still exists around deep-sea vents today. It is not until later that we can see clear evidence for the start of the light-based economy of life that we take for granted today: the earliest strong evidence we can find for photosynthesis is roughly a billion years later, although some researchers have pointed out that some of the microbial fossils that we can see as early as 3 billion years ago have a striking similarity to cyano-bacteria, so it is not impossible that light as the basis of our economy of life goes back further.

Be that as it may: from about 2700 million years ago we see more and more evidence of atmospheric oxygen, and fewer and fewer anaerobic organisms.

Around the 1800 million year mark we start to see eukaryotes – organisms with complex cells. This is a vast leap ahead, and one that is of great interest to biologists: even the earliest known example of eukaryotic life is a LOT more complex (and a lot bigger!) than even the most sophisticated prokaryotic life-forms. On top of that, all eukaryotic life from that time onwards shares major features of cellular organization.

Basically we leap from simple and small single-celled organisms to much more complex ones with internal compartmentalization, where different parts of the cell have different functions.

One thing that may help explain this is that almost all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria and those that do not have them still have structures that are usually associated with them, suggesting that their ancestors may have had them in the past.

Mitochondria are amazing things. They look like tiny little prokaryotes living inside eukaryotic cells. Their main function seems to be the generation of energy, but it does some other key things as well. They have their own DNA, which is completely different from the DNA is the rest of the cell and strongly resembles bacterial DNA.

It may be that the leap we see is not necessarily a leap in mutative evolution at all, but one of symbiotic evolution. The fact that Mitochondria have their own distinct DNA which is very similar to bacterial DNA seems to support this idea, as does the fact that there are striking similarities between cyanobacteria, which produce oxygen as a by-product, and the chloroplasts that fulfill a similar function in plant cells.

In the last years more and more information about the genome sequences of simple eukaryotes, archaea and bacteria has started increasing exponentially, and some tantalising hints have been found: some primitive prokaryotes have structures that are strikingly similar to those found in some eukaryote organelles.

All things considered, then, it is not unreasonable to propose the theory that eukaryotes evolved because prokaryotes that already lived in close symbiotic relationships in microbial mats merged into larger, more complex cells, most likely by merging their dna in most cases, but retaining it in the case of mitochondrial dna and synchronising their reproduction cycles. This is something that is henceforth found in all complex eukaryotes… including us!

At this stage our brief overview of the history of life is already about 2 billion years into a 3.7 billion year story, past the half-way mark. We are still some way away from the first multi-cellular organisms, and sexual reproduction has not appeared yet.

If we review all this, and just stick to the things we are reasonably certain of, such as the rough timeline for the appearance of the first anaerobic life-forms, aerobic single-celled organisms, and then the more complex eukaryotes, where exactly does divine intervention fit in?

Are we to assume a creator started with some ultra-simple anaerobic archaea as a method of creating the kind of life that exists today over a 4 billion year period? If we do, then we must let go of some of the more common objections against evolution, such as a perceived inability to drive complexity and drastic changes in body plans. We cannot make any appeal to irreducible complexity: we are still relying on evolution to do the actual work. And if we do that, then Occam’s razor looms ahead of us: no deity is required in that explanation. And we certainly have no explanation that gives us “genetic diversity” for evolution to work on that has a divine origin.

If we place creation at the appearance of eukaryotes, then why do we see all those prokaryotes and archaea first? How come they seem to be built on a very similar plan, with common structures, and how come that some of that much earlier life ends up inside the later life in the form of mytochondria? Why are eukaryotes basically large cells that seem to have inside them structures from different archaea and prokaryotes?

Are there then multiple acts of creation? Is there a deity tinkering with creation all the time, adding bits and bobs on as we go along? Using old designs? But that is just tacking a deity on to the theory of evolution for no discernible reason: again Occams Razor rears its ugly head. We have observed bacteria create entirely new breeds by merging DNA from two completely different types, so we know that that can happen.

We could just deny the validity of the evidence we have outright – but then where do all these pesky fossils come from? On what basis do we rule out the evidence, and what justification can we possibly supply for cherry-picking only what we like?

If we go further down the timeline we see the next steps: first multi-cellular life appears, followed by a radical new method for encouraging evolution: sexual reproduction. This radical new way of reproducing seems to throw evolution into overdrive: no longer do we see a slow and stately progression over billions of years: now, new forms can emerge much, much faster. The resulting explosion in different shapes and body plans is called the Cambrian Explosion. It started around 500 million years ago, and it is an amazing epoch in the history of life. During it we start to see some basic body plans that we would recognize today… and some truly bizarre ones that we would not. Some of the latter will die out and are never seen again.

If you want, we can discuss some of the implications for ID that this brings along with it later on, but I think you have enough on your plate for now: if evolution works with irreducibly complex basic material that must have been created, where do we draw the line?

How come that the eukaryotic cell can be reduced, and plausibly so, into functions that pre-existed in prokaryotes and archaea?

Why do we see Prokaryotic and Archaean life before we see Eukaryotic life if Eukariotic cells are irreducible?

The only possible solution that I can see is to push the boundary of irreducability back to the simplest of archaea and prokaryots... but then we are faced with the problem that we have pushed it back so far that the difference between a created and spontaneously generated proto-life is so small that we have to wonder why we feel the need to bring creation into it in the first place?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You missed a bit:

He was certainly a man who approached research subjects with critical thinking!!!

... and nothing you say can take away from the fact that he was an eminently qualified scientist who was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings.
At the same time he was also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). He became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961, and served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University.

After his NASA career he became a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College (1979–1992), and was a Member of the NASA Alumni Association. Jastrow was also a Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory

Vivisectus wrote: »

Ok – but then we face a completely different issue. What you are unconvinced by is not natural selection or evolution at all: if natural selection is a fact, then evolution must necessarily follow. You merely do not believe that life originated spontaneously on earth.

No-one is claiming to have the final answer to that one: apart from the supernatural explanation, we currently have a small handful of competing scientific ones. There is no current consensus.

Not only is there no possibility that life arose spontaneously ... there is also no possibility that any of the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information found in living organisms arose by non-intelligently directed means either.

Vivisectus wrote: »

However the fossil record suggests extremely strongly that if you go back in time very far indeed, then life-forms become increasingly simple. The earliest examples we have found seem to be about 3.7 billion years old. At that stage all we can find is mats of extremely simple microbes.

The Fossil Record is a record of dead things killed catastrophically and buried in cemented rock by world-wide water-based processes.
The theory that each rock layer represents millions of years of time is disproven by polystrate fossils, the fact that fossils of current living animals are found to be exactly the same as the current animals are themselves and the fact that they were obviously laid down catastrophically (over weeks/months) rather than gradually (over millions of years).

Vivisectus wrote: »

The amazing thing is that these seem to originally not have depended on photosynthesis, but on thermal vents for energy, like some extremophile life that still exists around deep-sea vents today. It is not until later that we can see clear evidence for the start of the light-based economy of life that we take for granted today: the earliest strong evidence we can find for photosynthesis is roughly a billion years later, although some researchers have pointed out that some of the microbial fossils that we can see as early as 3 billion years ago have a striking similarity to cyano-bacteria, so it is not impossible that light as the basis of our economy of life goes back further.

All these creatures were contemporaneous ... and not separated by millions of years ... just like extremophiles, cyano-bacteria and Man are contemporaneous today.
... and the reason that we see supposed 3 billion year old fossils that "have a striking similarity to cyano-bacteria" ... is that they were cyano-bacteria ... and they were fossilised thousands of years ago - and not billions of years ago.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Be that as it may: from about 2700 million years ago we see more and more evidence of atmospheric oxygen, and fewer and fewer anaerobic organisms.

Around the 1800 million year mark we start to see eukaryotes – organisms with complex cells. This is a vast leap ahead, and one that is of great interest to biologists: even the earliest known example of eukaryotic life is a LOT more complex (and a lot bigger!) than even the most sophisticated prokaryotic life-forms. On top of that, all eukaryotic life from that time onwards shares major features of cellular organization.

More unexplained 'jumps' in CFSI without any intermediaries (as gradual evolution would predict).
The enormous evolutionist timescale is merely the product of wishful thinking ... that ignores the evidence of catastrophism and rapid fossilisation.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Basically we leap from simple and small single-celled organisms to much more complex ones with internal compartmentalization, where different parts of the cell have different functions.

One thing that may help explain this is that almost all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria and those that do not have them still have structures that are usually associated with them, suggesting that their ancestors may have had them in the past.

Basically we leap from primitive 'bottom dwelling' organisms that were the first to succumb to burial in Noah's Flood to organisms further up the oceanic ecological niches that were buried later.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Mitochondria are amazing things. They look like tiny little prokaryotes living inside eukaryotic cells. Their main function seems to be the generation of energy, but it does some other key things as well. They have their own DNA, which is completely different from the DNA is the rest of the cell and strongly resembles bacterial DNA.

All indicative of a common designer of enormous creative capacity.

Vivisectus wrote: »

It may be that the leap we see is not necessarily a leap in mutative evolution at all, but one of symbiotic evolution. The fact that Mitochondria have their own distinct DNA which is very similar to bacterial DNA seems to support this idea, as does the fact that there are striking similarities between cyanobacteria, which produce oxygen as a by-product, and the chloroplasts that fulfill a similar function in plant cells.

Clutching at straws ... to try an defend the indefensible ... the idea that blind chance and a selecting process could produce anything ... when we observe such combinations to be disastrous to existing functionality of all CFSI.

Vivisectus wrote: »

In the last years more and more information about the genome sequences of simple eukaryotes, archaea and bacteria has started increasing exponentially, and some tantalising hints have been found: some primitive prokaryotes have structures that are strikingly similar to those found in some eukaryote organelles.

... and the more we have learned, the greater the impossibility that evolution could be responsible for anything except marginal selection of minor pre-existing traits in organisms.

Vivisectus wrote: »

All things considered, then, it is not unreasonable to propose the theory that eukaryotes evolved because prokaryotes that already lived in close symbiotic relationships in microbial mats merged into larger, more complex cells, most likely by merging their dna in most cases, but retaining it in the case of mitochondrial dna and synchronising their reproduction cycles. This is something that is henceforth found in all complex eukaryotes… including us!

It is the logical equivalent of sticking a feather in the ground and proclaiming that it will 'grow' a hen ... none of these organelles have the capacity to do what Evolutionists wish they could do.

Vivisectus wrote: »

At this stage our brief overview of the history of life is already about 2 billion years into a 3.7 billion year story, past the half-way mark. We are still some way away from the first multi-cellular organisms, and sexual reproduction has not appeared yet.

It's all a lovely story (and one I too believed in, hook, line and sinker) ... but for all its superficial plausibility ... it completely falls apart upon even a cursory examination and comparison with the evidence, that it was all intelligently designed.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If we review all this, and just stick to the things we are reasonably certain of, such as the rough timeline for the appearance of the first anaerobic life-forms, aerobic single-celled organisms, and then the more complex eukaryotes, where exactly does divine intervention fit in?

Assumptions and unfounded conjectures don't provide evidence.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Are we to assume a creator started with some ultra-simple anaerobic archaea as a method of creating the kind of life that exists today over a 4 billion year period? If we do, then we must let go of some of the more common objections against evolution, such as a perceived inability to drive complexity and drastic changes in body plans. We cannot make any appeal to irreducible complexity: we are still relying on evolution to do the actual work. And if we do that, then Occam’s razor looms ahead of us: no deity is required in that explanation. And we certainly have no explanation that gives us “genetic diversity” for evolution to work on that has a divine origin.

You will get no disagreement from me on that ... Theistic Evolution is just as scientifically challenged, as its secular counterpart ... and with serious theological issues to boot.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If we place creation at the appearance of eukaryotes, then why do we see all those prokaryotes and archaea first? How come they seem to be built on a very similar plan, with common structures, and how come that some of that much earlier life ends up inside the later life in the form of mytochondria? Why are eukaryotes basically large cells that seem to have inside them structures from different archaea and prokaryotes?

All evidence of a common designer ... and eukaryotes are much more than 'large cells with structures from archaea and prokaryotes within them'.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Are there then multiple acts of creation? Is there a deity tinkering with creation all the time, adding bits and bobs on as we go along? Using old designs? But that is just tacking a deity on to the theory of evolution for no discernible reason: again Occams Razor rears its ugly head. We have observed bacteria create entirely new breeds by merging DNA from two completely different types, so we know that that can happen.

One enormous act of Creation (and no tinkering) ... and the bacteria are observed to still be bacteria ... that have re-combined (in a tightly pre-programmed manner) pre-existing genetic information.

Vivisectus wrote: »

We could just deny the validity of the evidence we have outright – but then where do all these pesky fossils come from? On what basis do we rule out the evidence, and what justification can we possibly supply for cherry-picking only what we like?

I'm not the one cherry-picking or trying to 'shoe-horn' the evidence to meet my theory ... rather than following the evidence to where it logically leads.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If we go further down the timeline we see the next steps: first multi-cellular life appears, followed by a radical new method for encouraging evolution: sexual reproduction. This radical new way of reproducing seems to throw evolution into overdrive: no longer do we see a slow and stately progression over billions of years: now, new forms can emerge much, much faster. The resulting explosion in different shapes and body plans is called the Cambrian Explosion. It started around 500 million years ago, and it is an amazing epoch in the history of life. During it we start to see some basic body plans that we would recognize today… and some truly bizarre ones that we would not. Some of the latter will die out and are never seen again.

Like I say, the fossil record isn't a multi-billion year record of life ... it is patently a contemporaneous record of death in a world-wide water-based catastrophe.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If you want, we can discuss some of the implications for ID that this brings along with it later on, but I think you have enough on your plate for now: if evolution works with irreducibly complex basic material that must have been created, where do we draw the line?

The lines are drawn at the selection 'walls' that appear quite rapidly when artificial or natural selection are applied to existing genetic diversity.

Vivisectus wrote: »

How come that the eukaryotic cell can be reduced, and plausibly so, into functions that pre-existed in prokaryotes and archaea?

Just for the sake of argument, accepting that such a 'reduction' ever took place ... the prokaryote would be the irreducibly complex component in such a scenario ... and what an irreducibly complex component it is!!!

Vivisectus wrote: »

Why do we see Prokaryotic and Archaean life before we see Eukaryotic life if Eukariotic cells are irreducible?

I don't accept that we do see this ... what we see today is contemporaneous Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic life.

Vivisectus wrote: »

The only possible solution that I can see is to push the boundary of irreducability back to the simplest of archaea and prokaryots... but then we are faced with the problem that we have pushed it back so far that the difference between a created and spontaneously generated proto-life is so small that we have to wonder why we feel the need to bring creation into it in the first place?

Irreducibly complex phenomena and systems in living organisms number into the billions ... and every one of them have probabilities against their non-intelligently directed production that are vastly greater than the Universal Probability Bound ... and therefore are mathematically impossible.

SW wrote: »

CFSI isn't a recognised scientific term, it's not an argument against evolution.

CFSI is a mathematically sound argument against the non-intelligently directed production of life and observed genetic diversity.
If you wish to argue that maths isn't science, I'll grant you that Pyrrhic 'victory'!!!:)

obplayer wrote: »

References to peer reviewed papers on CFSI please.

That's a bit like a Roman Catholic demanding papal assent to a protestant theological doctrine ... such a demand is a Catch 22.:)

Conventional Science refuses to publish or peer review ID research papers ... so asking for such papers is also a Catch 22 demand.

SW wrote: »

Smoke and mirrors, JC. I asked why someone hadn't been awarded a nobel prize for their work on CFSI and disproving evolution.

As Fr Jack might say, I guess that would be an ecumenical matter!!!:)

SW wrote: »

Correct. Creationism is exactly that. Glad we can agree on something.

I meant an ecumenical matter between the believers in Evolution (who award Nobel Prizes) and the believers in ID (who have maths on their side).
The Creationists are on the sidelines looking on at this fascinating clash of beliefs.:):eek:

obplayer wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the mother watching her son's regiment parading past? She turns to her husband and says 'look, everyone's out of step except our Johnny!'
If 'CFSI is a mathematically sound argument' then mathematicians would accept it. Clearly, by your own admission, they do not.

... a more accurate analogy would be another little Johnny ... who declared that the Emperor had no clothes ... and was despised by everybody for his lack of appreciation of the sartorial elegance of the 'buck naked' Emperor!!!:):eek:

obplayer wrote: »

He was not an ID proponent he was a puzzled scientist looking for a solution. Show us a quote from Prof. Crick where he advocates intelligent design. And once again, he was talking about the origin of life not evolution. Do you believe that by telling the same lies over and over we will come to believe them?

He was certainly puzzled allright ... and he defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.
He was talking about both the origin of life ... and the origin of the genetic diversity of life.

SW wrote: »

There is no mathmatical proof for ID. If there was, it would re-write the science books. It would be international news.

It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)

SW wrote: »

ID is just creationism re-branded due to religious groups attempt to have Genesis taught in the science class and being subsequently barred from doing so as it wasn't science. So they re-branded as ID and tried again.

... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,