Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[InfiniteNow]

Moving away for a moment from the depressing religious and creationist inspired violence topic, here's one that puts matters into better perspective. Enjoy.

YouTube - Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed...

[Kayra]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

One support for my position is that it has (apparently ) not happened again in the ensuing 3.5 billion years, even thought the environment is significantly less hostile.

I find that interesting.

Interesting indeed. I have not read all of the arguments to the end of this thread yet (still working on it) but wanted to address this statement while it was fresh in my mind at least.

Please ignore if this has already been resolved.

I personally believe that life and its precursors are being continuously created. The problem is that any new "Life" that forms from random confluence has an astronomically small chance of being capable of competing with previous random "Life" forms that have had opportunity to improve themselves through natural selection.

I hope I am not missing the obvious here

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Kayra

Interesting indeed....I personally believe that life and its precursors are being continuously created. The problem is that any new "Life" that forms from random confluence has an astronomically small chance of being capable of competing with previous random "Life" forms that have had opportunity to improve themselves through natural selection.

Maybe. But it remains true that all extant life forms run on a common "life architecture" (identical 4 DNA bases, 20 amino acids, use of RNA, common energy usage, etc). One might suggest that there is "only one" successful model that has shown up for any number of reasons. One hypothesis is that there really is only one model, so if it shows up again, we would not notice it as "new".

But it appears true that no other superior building blocks have arrived on the scene in 3.5 billion years.

[Kayra]

Hmm.

One might also suggest that even if superior self assembling building blocks exist and appeared later in the evolution of life, they would have grave difficulty contending with existing life forms that have had the opportunity to adapt and efficiently avail themselves of most of the renewable energy in a system?

Another hypothesis may be that many different "life architectures" have had their opportunity, and that life as we know it now is simply the winner by reason of any number of superior traits it possesses. One might suggest that there is "only one" remaining successful model.

I guess my point is that, while your position is not invalidated by these possibilities, neither is it supported.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Kayra

One might also suggest that even if superior self assembling building blocks exist and appeared later in the evolution of life, they would have grave difficulty contending with existing life forms that have had the opportunity to adapt and efficiently avail themselves of most of the renewable energy in a system?

I think that is a valid hypothesis, although I can't think of any evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Kayra

Another hypothesis may be that many different "life architectures" have had their opportunity, and that life as we know it now is simply the winner by reason of any number of superior traits it possesses. One might suggest that there is "only one" remaining successful model.

Possible as well. But this is at odds with the generally-accepted framework for "common descent".

Not that I mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework.

[InfiniteNow]

As has been stated recently elsewhere, there's no reason to think that there weren't multiple common ancestors which later merged. Neither of us has evidence one way or the other, so you cannot argue with any validity that there was "only" one.

Your suggestion that you don't "mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework" reminds me of the sickening and academically dishonest approach used by Ben Stein.

[Kayra]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

But this is at odds with the generally-accepted framework for "common descent".

Not that I mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework.

It is my understanding (I just read up on this )that "common descent" refers to the source of all existing life, and not to alternative life architectures. If these alternatives were entirely incompatible with our current system, then extinction would leave little or no fingerprints.

OK, it is thin, but not impossible

I suspect that my hypothesis will remain just that, unless some caches of alternate life are found somewhere on this planet feeding on an as yet unknown energy source.

Bio, I would bet you rather like being at odds with the generally-accepted framework when you can justify it

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Kayra

It is my understanding....that "common descent" refers to the source of all existing life, and not to alternative life architectures. If these alternatives were entirely incompatible with our current system, then extinction would leave little or no fingerprints.

Understood. As I said above, I think this is a valid hypothesis. I just can't think of a test, other than...

Originally Posted by Kayra

...unless some caches of alternate life are found somewhere on this planet feeding on an as yet unknown energy source.

Originally Posted by Kayla

Bio, I would bet you rather like being at odds with the generally-accepted framework when you can justify it

Damn. You saw right through me. And I was trying to be so mysterious.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

As has been stated recently elsewhere, there's no reason to think that there weren't multiple common ancestors which later merged.

As has been said other places- "merged"? How would two lines merge? And two lines with different genetic architecture?

Originally Posted by IN

Neither of us has evidence one way or the other, so you cannot argue with any validity that there was "only" one.

Sure we do. We have only found one. This leaves three possibilities:

1) It only happened once
2) It happened more than once, but all were identical
3) Some other life model occurred, but died out (or we have not found it)

Originally Posted by IN

Your suggestion that you don't "mind being at odds with a generally-accepted framework" reminds me of the sickening and academically dishonest approach used by Ben Stein.

Well, lots of folks went along with the crowd that were (eventually) not held in high regard. Most forms of bigotry (Nazis, racists, classists, etc.) fall in this category. On the other side, some significant folks went against the crowd and were rewarded kindly by history. Einstein comes to mind. Maybe Hawking too.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

We have only found one. This leaves three possibilities:

1) It only happened once
2) It happened more than once, but all were identical
3) Some other life model occurred, but died out (or we have not found it)

4) It happened more than once, but they merged at some point later.