Ask me about Evolution

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

OK sorry. The functional DNA in the first living organism. I forget forum perfection sometimes.:sorry1:

Not perfection, just it shows that you know what you're talking about (I don't mean that in a rude way).

But common descent means that they have a common ancestor. I do not think that means "One particular cell" but perhaps it does. On that I'm not clear.

So you agree that at all organisms alive come from that one particular ancestor. There may be other organisms who came from another ancestor but we haven't found them.

 

[savagewind]

Not perfection, just it shows that you know what you're talking about (I don't mean that in a rude way).

But common descent means that they have a common ancestor. I do not think that means "One particular cell" but perhaps it does. On that I'm not clear.

So you agree that at all organisms alive come from that one particular ancestor. c but we haven't found them.

I try never to "agree' about something I do not know.
You have not answered my question, have you?

Someone on board seems to think it is very important to admit to the truth of common descent but here you say "There may be other organisms who came from another ancestor". Which is it?

 

[Warren Clark]

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on it's eggs for fertilizing ?

where did this instinct come from and How did it develop?

Please explain in scientific means with proper sources.

The way we take care of our young is partially due to our maternal chromosome.

[Also note many animals do not hatch/take care of their young.]

This is usually developed by natural selection and competition.
For example, mongoose love eggs. A hen would quickly learn that leaving her nest would leave it open to predators. The hen hides the egg by sitting on it. Over hundreds possibly thousands of years the genes mutate making the shell less resistant to environmental changes including the need of incubation.

 

[Warren Clark]

That common decent is shown to be true because of similarities in the structure of the DNA can it be said similarities are the sources of the evolution of species?

In other words, to prove evolution is undeniably true one just needs to look honestly at the similarities in the species. True?

Well its one thing to look at as of many others.

Fossil record
vestigial organs
bad design
biogeography
etc

But DNA is very helpful in seeing where a species lineage has come from.

 

[Warren Clark]

That's right, DNA is not living. They're just extremely complex molecules. Viruses aren't living either though they are more than just molecules, if I remember correctly.

Viruses are biological living creatures and meet all the criteria of a living organism. DNA is what makes a living organism. A virus has DNA. Which is what they manipulate to make vaccines.

 

[sonofdad]

I try never to "agree' about something I do not know.
You have not answered my question, have you?

Someone on board seems to think it is very important to admit to the truth of common descent but here you say "There may be other organisms who came from another ancestor". Which is it?

Common descent only covers an individual group of organisms. In this case the group of organisms spans all known life on earth, and it appears we are all part of the same big family.

But it doesn't exclude separate lineages. Lets say for instance we were to find life in another solar system, many different species of organisms. The theory of evolution would predict that those species share ancestry with each other, but not that they share ancestry with life on earth.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I try never to "agree' about something I do not know.
You have not answered my question, have you?

Someone on board seems to think it is very important to admit to the truth of common descent but here you say "There may be other organisms who came from another ancestor". Which is it?

Well that's cause I'm not 100% on all of the facts of evolution. I am still learning. And even I stand on the border with it simply because scientifically it leaves itself open to the possibility of being proven wrong. It's not a Sith Lord so I do not think it deals in absolutes.

However I am making the assumption that there may be other organisms that come from another ancestor (we haven't found any), however so it stands as of now all organisms that we know of come from a common ancestor. So Yes common descent.

 

[Warren Clark]

This the point I needed to be addressed. Thank you.
Nothing that contains DNA is independent (or free from influenced) of the first living DNA which is called common descent. Is common descent a necessary phenomenon to believe if one believes in the model?

I'm slight confused of what you are insinuating.
But if I am reading this correctly, yes.
It would be perverse to deny that DNA shows common descent.

 

[savagewind]

Well its one thing to look at as of many others.

Fossil record
vestigial organs
bad design
biogeography
etc

But DNA is very helpful in seeing where a species lineage has come from.

Fossil records, vestigial organs, biogeography, DNA each means something in common.

Bad design is just criticism imo. I think criticism does not prove anything.

The commonality of life proves evolution is truth.

Multiple discoveries is a well known fact, is it not?

Commonly cited examples of multiple independent discovery are the 17th-century independent formulation of calculus by Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and others, described by A. Rupert Hall;[4] the 18th-century discovery of oxygen by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and others; and the theory of evolution of species, independently advanced in the 19th century by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science.[5]

Multiple discovery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My question is if commonality proves evolution true beyond a shadow of doubt, how can multiple discovers not fit that same model? You will say each inventor had similar foundations to work on but their discoveries are still independent. There is no connecting link. Can you explain that please?

 

[Warren Clark]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But DNA is not living. It is the vehicle of life, but it is not itself living. Its why Viruses and Prions are such interesting things. They contain DNA and/or RNA (Viruses) and are made of Proteins (Prions), these are as far as we so far know the basic components of life yet these things are not alive.

Perhaps the first singled cell'd organisms come from the attempt of a Prion to Infect a Virus? Who knows.

Also how would describe Mitochondria which are found in all living cells, divide on their own and have their own DNA?

Sorry a virus is a living organism that basically is RNA with a protein coat. These viruses mutate and copy within the cells of other living organism.

 

[Warren Clark]

Fossil records, vestigial organs, biogeography, DNA each means something in common.

Bad design is just criticism imo. I think criticism does not prove anything.

The commonality of life proves evolution is truth.

Multiple discoveries is a well known fact, is it not?

Multiple discovery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My question is if commonality proves evolution true beyond a shadow of doubt, how can multiple discovers not fit that same model? You will say each inventor had similar foundations to work on but their discoveries are still independent. There is no connecting link. Can you explain that please?

What? 1st. What does Isaac Newton have to do with Charles Darwin or evolution?

"Bad design" is a critical question that was answered by Evolution. Such as the prostate.

For more on these other areas of interest you can listen to.
[youtube]JqxCoibTtaI[/youtube]

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry a virus is a living organism that basically is RNA with a protein coat. These viruses mutate and copy within the cells of other living organism.

I'm sorry, I think that's incorrect. In it's environment Viruses are dormant, it's not until they come into contact with a host (the right one) do they become active. Before that they don't grow, reproduce, or eat. They can only reproduce with a host, and by the basic definition of life they are not living organisms.

 

[savagewind]

What? 1st. What does Isaac Newton have to do with Charles Darwin or evolution?

Is that how you read Multiple Discovers? Please read it again.

 

[savagewind]

The discovery of calculus is related to commonality. Newton and Leibniz both described it but their discoveries were not linked. Darwin and Wallace both described the phenomenon of natural selection but their discoveries were not linked.
One species shares characteristics with another and they are linked. Scientists share characteristics but they are not linked.

 

[Warren Clark]

I'm sorry, I think that's incorrect. In it's environment Viruses are dormant, it's not until they come into contact with a host (the right one) do they become active. Before that they don't grow, reproduce, or eat. They can only reproduce with a host, and by the basic definition of life they are not living organisms.

Technically by the scientific definition of life, it is alive when it has a host though.
But I know where you are coming from and I can't really argue one side of this, because I do see the other side of the argument.

When I think of a virus, I just think of it as a living mechanism that is a huge force in natural selection.
[youtube]VvTfkMhEw3g[/youtube]

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The discovery of calculus is related to commonality. Newton and Leibniz both described it but their discoveries were not linked. Darwin and Wallace both described the phenomenon of natural selection but their discoveries were not linked.
One species shares characteristics with another and they are linked. Scientists share characteristics but they are not linked.

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Calculus was created based off mathematical principles and observations (if I remember correctly), Darwin and Wallace described a process that already existed.

If you are making the argument that something can have the same characteristics but not be linked, I don't think that's the right way to describe it.

A better description would be that bats, insects and birds have wings, the structures however are different. They share a characteristic but it doesn't mean that Birds are Insects or Bats are birds. That btw is called convergent evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

 

[savagewind]

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Calculus was created based off mathematical principles and observations (if I remember correctly), Darwin and Wallace described a process that already existed.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

Yes and the created thing follows a process (life) that already existed.
The discovery of many things happened more than once in different places. It can be likened to a selected mutation (in which the possibility of the mutation being caused already existed). The similarities in discoveries are not linked says history. The similarities between species are linked, says you.

 

[Warren Clark]

Is that how you read Multiple Discovers? Please read it again.

Okay. I do apologize, I guess I got lost somewhere.
I see it that there are independent discoveries and inventions that lead to others.

Such as someone had to invent a boat in order for Charles Darwin to explore the Galapagos Islands.

In a way, sure. Multiple discovers helped reach us to the point of evolutionary understanding. Without basic understanding of evolution we wouldn't have more than half of our developed medical advances including pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The only downside are those you try to capitalize on scientific growth. As you can see by power companies and pharmaceutical companies today.

(Thank babaginoosh for giving the US Supreme court to deny pharmaceutical companies the ability to patent genes).

 

[Warren Clark]

Yes and the created thing follows a process (life) that already existed.
The discovery of many things happened more than once in different places. It can be likened to a selected mutation (in which the possibility of the mutation being caused already existed). The similarities in discoveries are not linked says history. The similarities between species are linked, says you.

Fractals are the mathematics behind life.
The discoveries are linked. You wouldn't have one discovery without the other.
In order to study microbiology, you need someone to invent a concave and convex lens. So on and so forth.

 

[savagewind]

Okay. I do apologize, I guess I got lost somewhere.
I see it that there are independent discoveries and inventions that lead to others.


In a way, sure. Multiple discovers helped reach us to the point of evolutionary understanding. Without basic understanding of evolution we wouldn't have more than half of our developed medical advances including pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The only downside are those you try to capitalize on scientific growth. As you can see by power companies and pharmaceutical companies today.
.

Well, no, but it sure is funny. A boats leads to a trip of discovery. Very good!

What I mean is similarities in species might be coincidence just like the discoveries in science are. But you say NO! The similarities in species prove they are linked. The similarities in the scientific mind does not prove the minds are linked, do they?