Alternative to evolution and creationism

[Photonic]

As does technology.

As far as evolution is concerned, I can think of nothing more powerful than sapience. It allows us to evolve in such a way that prepares us for the future, rather than the present.

As far as Nature is concerned, that's insane.

 

[Riverwolf]

The fundamental flaw in this is that, while it may be possible to philosophically define life as all activity(and certainly religiously possible), we cannot do so scientifically. When I last looked, there was at least some debate over the scientific definition of "life", but it generally referred to self-replicating organisms. In other words, if something cannot act by itself, (such that, in order to be active, it needs an external force) it is not considered alive.

While I could see a possible counter argument being that we need food and water to remain alive, the problem with such an argument is that we need food for our maintenance of life, not beginning it. While I don't know the exact details (so if I'm mistaken please correct me), from what I understand, the process of life beginning in the womb is a combination of two other living cells (egg and sperm) working in conjunction with each other to combine into one life, so it's not quite the same thing.

 

[EarthAlive]

You may want to present the supposed evidence you have. It's not our job to do your leg work.

Ok take one example look at the work of Lynn Margulis and her work on symbiogenesis, she claims symbiogenesis (organisms working together in cooperation instead of competition is the main driving force of evolution, her work is opposed to natural selection). Margulis has even called neo-darwinism a religion. Margulis is a top grade scientist.

 

[Riverwolf]

As far as evolution is concerned, I can think of nothing more powerful than sapience. It allows us to evolve in such a way that prepares us for the future, rather than the present.

As far as Nature is concerned, that's insane.

Potentially destructive, while simultaneously potentially vital.

 

[Riverwolf]

Margulis is a top grade scientist.

Define "top-grade scientist."

 

[EarthAlive]

Define "top-grade scientist."

Successful in the field of science, notable in what she has achieved for science. Known for her work on the Gaia Hypothesis and Endosymbiotic theory and her theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution, which has recieved positive reviews in many science journals.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Accepting the theory with the most evidence is too mainstream. Lamarckian evolution is where it's at. I just get flu shots ironically.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok take one example look at the work of Lynn Margulis and her work on symbiogenesis, she claims symbiogenesis (organisms working together in cooperation instead of competition is the main driving force of evolution, her work is opposed to natural selection). Margulis has even called neo-darwinism a religion. Margulis is a top grade scientist.

I'll cut you a little slack seeing as though you are new to this forum. What we're looking for is for you to post the information that seems to support your position. This would include any of the following.... Peer Reviewed article(s), Book title and page number, Web link.......Telling us to check out so and so does not work here at RF.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Successful in the field of science, notable in what she has achieved for science. Known for her work on the Gaia Hypothesis and Endosymbiotic theory and her theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution, which has recieved positive reviews in many science journals.

If that is the case I could equally present scientist that "top grade" in their respective fields. A more notable one is Kenneth Miller.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

 

[ScottySatan]

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either
Seeing as how the definition of the theory of evolution is that organisms change over time, your independent origins theory is indeed all about evolution. Unless you can say that every organism went from primordial soup to their current state in less than one generation.So does this theory propose that the earliest common ancestor of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs is a bacterium? That all our similarity is independently derived? the fact that we share almost all of the same genes? That almost all of our genes have synteny (are in the same order as you read down the length of a chromosome)? |I can see a justification on why we would share genes, but not why we would have synteny.

 

[painted wolf]

Lynn Margulis is a very good scientist, but she isn't infallible, for example she also claimed HIV wasn't "an infectious virus" and this is patently, demonstrably false.

Appealing to authority, (ie. important person X says Y, so Y must be true) is not a valid argument. Especially when discussing science.

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either
Seeing as how the definition of the theory of evolution is that organisms change over time, your independent origins theory is indeed all about evolution. Unless you can say that every organism went from primordial soup to their current state in less than one generation.So does this theory propose that the earliest common ancestor of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs is a bacterium? That all our similarity is independently derived? the fact that we share almost all of the same genes? That almost all of our genes have synteny (are in the same order as you read down the length of a chromosome)? |I can see a justification on why we would share genes, but not why we would have synteny.

Let me just make it clear I do not support these models mentioned in this thread of independent origins, I do not believe a "primordial soup" ever existed. I merely started this thread, to lay some cards on the table and very briefly give an introduction to this rare theory about origins. Yes the word "evolution" could be defined as change over time, if so, then yes evolution has happened nobody denies this. What Independent origins theory denies is Darwins theory of evolution, common descent etc. The independent origins idea does not agree with any common ancestor. Imagine millions of little chemical ponds all over earth with different species coming out of each.

Here is a table from a comparison of Schwabe theory Vs Darwinian evolution. The table is found at: The Genomic Potential Hypothesis: a Chemist's View of the Origins, Evolution and Unfolding of Life. (Christian Schwabe).

 

[Riverwolf]

Successful in the field of science, notable in what she has achieved for science. Known for her work on the Gaia Hypothesis and Endosymbiotic theory and her theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution, which has recieved positive reviews in many science journals.

"Successful in the field of science" is extremely vague, as is "notable" and "many scientific journals." IOW, they are useless as far as determining credentials go.

Therefore, I say again: define "top-grade scientist."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let me just make it clear I do not support these models mentioned in this thread of independent origins, I do not believe a "primordial soup" ever existed. I merely started this thread, to lay some cards on the table and very briefly give an introduction to this rare theory about origins. Yes the word "evolution" could be defined as change over time, if so, then yes evolution has happened nobody denies this. What Independent origins theory denies is Darwins theory of evolution, common descent etc. The independent origins idea does not agree with any common ancestor. Imagine millions of little chemical ponds all over earth with different species coming out of each.

Here is a table from a comparison of Schwabe theory Vs Darwinian evolution. The table is found at: The Genomic Potential Hypothesis: a Chemist's View of the Origins, Evolution and Unfolding of Life. (Christian Schwabe).

But that's just it. These ideas are set on the back burner because they're NOT ("Theories")..They're hypotheses. They have not been tested or falsified. The y fall short of adhering to the criteria laid down by the Scientific Method.

 

[EarthAlive]

But that's just it. These ideas are set on the back burner because they're NOT ("Theories")..They're hypotheses. They have not been tested or falsified. The y fall short of adhering to the criteria laid down by the Scientific Method.

Natural selection fails the requirements for the Scientific Method aswell. Who has ever tested, measured or witnessed natural selection, how can such an abstract concept be scientific? Can natural selection be put into a vial, can it be weighed? Not science is it?

 

[painted wolf]

The primordial soups or chemical ponds are not non-life, since when have chemicals and proteins been "non living", they are very much alive.

No a chemical is not alive... nor is a protein. Proteins are used by living things, but so is salt and we don't claim salt is alive.

Senapathy seems to support abiogenesis but for Schwabe he supports biogenesis.

Yes Christian Schwabe has written a paper on biogenesis, do you know what biogenesis means? It means life only comes from life. Look up the work of Louis Pasteur. So according to Schwabe the chemicals in the ponds have always existed in the universe.

Except that chemicals are not alive. And even self replicating RNA can be mixed together in a lab from non-living ingredients.
Again, unless one is going to grant things like salt life.

It also still has the fundamental flaw of still giving every living thing a shared common ancestor in this "living" puddle of chemicals. Where did the living chemical puddle come from, how did it become a living thing?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Natural selection fails the requirements for the Scientific Method aswell. Who has ever tested, measured or witnessed natural selection, how can such an abstract concept be scientific? Can natural selection be put into a vial, can it be weighed? Not science is it?

Natural selection is tested in laboratories and in the field everyday. For example: E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Natural selection fails the requirements for the Scientific Method aswell. Who has ever tested, measured or witnessed natural selection, how can such an abstract concept be scientific? Can natural selection be put into a vial, can it be weighed? Not science is it?

Sure it has. You're just not well versed in the studies and the documentation.

Peter and Rosemary Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Peter and Rosemary Grant are distinguished for their remarkable long-term studies demonstrating evolution in action in Galápagos finches. They have demonstrated how very rapid changes in body and beak size in response to changes in the food supply are driven by natural selection. They have also elucidated the mechanisms by which new species arise and how genetic diversity is maintained in natural populations. The work of the Grants has had a seminal influence in the fields of population biology, evolution and ecology."

Here you go.......
[youtube]xkwRTIKXaxg[/youtube]
Evolution Primer #4: How Does Evolution Really Work? - YouTube

 

[painted wolf]

The major flaw with the "million little puddles" idea is that all living things have a shared genomic heritage. If each species was truly unique to it's own origin, then they would all be truly unique.
Instead we see a distinctive nested hierarchy of relatedness throughout all life.

It also doesn't explain why life is all DNA based, when we know that other molecules are capable of doing the same job... lot's of types of RNA such as dRNA and other molecules such as PNA, TNA, GNA and so on. Why is everything DNA?

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

Successful in the field of science, notable in what she has achieved for science. Known for her work on the Gaia Hypothesis and Endosymbiotic theory and her theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution, which has recieved positive reviews in many science journals.

That doesn't mean top grade.

What advancements has she made in our understanding of fact?