[Eclogite]

Thunderbird, I think you may be arguing against the common perception of evolution as held by lay persons, rather than the consensus view adopted by most palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists. The matter is dealt with extremely well by Stephen Gould in A Wonderful Life, in which he explores the significance of the Burgess Shale. This is the remarkable outcrop in British Columbia which demonstrates, as you point out, that we moved rapidly from simplicity to complexity; from two or three phyla to more than we have today.

While some professionals may still represent life as evolving towards ever increasing complexity since the Cambrian, it is not my impression that this view is held by many. However, I am not one of those professionals and I have formed this impression from reading text books, research papers and popularisations on the subject.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by kcl0341

I entirely agree with InfiniteNow that evolution is fact. The following message is quoted form my essay "Was the universe created by God?"
Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.

Common DNA does not necessarily mean a common ancestral species.

Originally Posted by kcl0341

Further evidents to prove the Theory : Evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves a resistance to an antibiotic which previously was lethal to that bacterium.

resistance does not mean the bacterium is a new species, we do not create new species.

Originally Posted by kcl0341

Charles Darwin ‘s theory of evolution by natural selection is satisfying because it shows us a way in which simplicity could change into complexity, how unordered atoms could group themselves into ever more complex patterns until they ended up manufacturing people.

Actually
Charles Darwin was very little to do with the science your suggesting here.

Originally Posted by kcl0341

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable. The universe is populated by stable things. A stable thing is a collection of atoms that is permanent enough or common enough to deserve a name. Salt crystals tend to be cubes because this is a stable way of packing sodium and chloride ions together. In the sun the simplest atoms of all, hydrogen atoms, are fusing to form helium atoms, because in the conditions that prevail there the helium configuration is more stable. A crystal such as a diamond can be regarded as a single molecule since its internal atomic structure endless repeated.

Stability is only half the equation when speaking about life and evolution. The other is instability. life operates at the edge of chaos.

Originally Posted by kcl0341

Before the coming of life on earth, some evolution of molecules could have occurred by ordinary processes of physics and chemistry. There is no need to think of design or purpose or directness. If a group of atoms in the presence of energy falls into a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way. The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and rejection of unstable ones.

King Lee (kcl0341)

Your correct that there is no need to have a designer, or God in a scientific process, however people should understand what Darwin did not explain about the evolution of life from non-life. You are incorrect in the assumption that this model can be utilized to explain the origin of the first cell.

This represents one of the major misinterpretations of Darwinian models, That they can be extended back to explain the origin of life, like you are suggesting here.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Thunderbird, I think you may be arguing against the common perception of evolution as held by lay persons, rather than the consensus view adopted by most palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists. The matter is dealt with extremely well by Stephen Gould in A Wonderful Life, in which he explores the significance of the Burgess Shale. This is the remarkable outcrop in British Columbia which demonstrates, as you point out, that we moved rapidly from simplicity to complexity; from two or three phyla to more than we have today.

I'm confused about the “as I point out about complexity“. When looking at the complexity of the Cambrian it appears to me the phyla level complexity of morphology started
at the highest level than began to drop off, later complexity expanded again on the level of the species and systems. The complexity could very well existed in the single cell before the Cambrian, this scenario just makes more sense given the evidence we have . The problem I have just to make things clear has to do with all the forms showing up at once. What I would like to see is a few forms linking all these other forms together from the fossil record. I think once you have a basic but complex phyla level morphology that you find in the Cambrian they stay fairly stable within a certain morphological mean. This is what I am observing.

Originally Posted by Eclogite

While some professionals may still represent life as evolving towards ever increasing complexity since the Cambrian, it is not my impression that this view is held by many. However, I am not one of those professionals and I have formed this impression from reading text books, research papers and popularisations on the subject.

I think complexity builds on one informational level and then very suddenly emerges into a whole new level when a threshold is reached. Our massive brains seemed to have show up suddenly. Look at our world in the past 5000 years, seemes like another leap to me.

[Not half, but whole!]

As to the original point of the thread, why evolution is still debated...
In the lay person's eyes evolution and biogenesis synonymous. While in reality they are two distinct and independent concepts (but there are some aspects of evolutionary theory that can help ion the examination and explanation of biogenesis).
Biogenesis is debated because it directly confronts the creation aspect. This is questioning the basics premise of most faiths. We came into being by the benevolence x,y,or z deity/ies, not some accident or coincidence. This can make people resistant to theories that conflict with personal beliefs, even more so when the individual is not scientifically oriented. They have very little desire to explore or examine a conflict between science and faith.

Another issue that seems to being confused is complexity and diversity. As life evolved into the "void" there was a massive explosion of diversity. There was no competition so a wide variety of lifeforms could "try it out". As the the oceans became more crowded, competition increased and the basic lineages that had evolved had the first "conflicts". Those more suited to their current environment eliminated those that were not. The first reductions in diversity... The remaining lineages then began the arduous trek and became more complex and refined for their particular environments.

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

resistance does not mean the bacterium is a new species, we do not create new species.

This is a bit ambiguous IMO. There is still no solid consensus as to what exactly constitutes a species. This is a interesting discussion though... perhaps a new thread.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Not half, but whole!

Another issue that seems to being confused is complexity and diversity. As life evolved into the "void" there was a massive explosion of diversity. There was no competition so a wide variety of lifeforms could "try it out". As the the oceans became more crowded, competition increased and the basic lineages that had evolved had the first "conflicts". Those more suited to their current environment eliminated those that were not. The first reductions in diversity... The remaining lineages then began the arduous trek and became more complex and refined for their particular environments.

Sounds very logical, the "void" creates diversity, and so does the opposite senerio that is popular that competition drove the engine of diversity.

In ether scenario there should be a archetypal precursor that is ubiquitous in the record and stable in form for a time prior to the arival of the major phyla showing up.

Something that had all the characteristics of cephalopods arthropods and chordates. Mammals, birds, snakes, these forms all came from one form. This is easily seen, why not in the Cambrian ?

[InfiniteNow]

Purple unicorns



So, yeah. Evolution is fact.


Has anyone posting here actually watched the entire dialog I posted?

Care to share your reactions? <definite thread killer, as clearly nobody has watched>

[ughaibu]

I dont see any reason to assume there was an original common ancestor, is there any reason that various forms of proto-life leading to distinct ancestral lines should be ruled out?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Purple unicorns



So, yeah. Evolution is fact.


Has anyone posting here actually watched the entire dialog I posted?

Care to share your reactions? <definite thread killer, as clearly nobody has watched>

I did, why do you think its a "thread killer"

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

I dont see any reason to assume there was an original common ancestor, is there any reason that various forms of proto-life leading to distinct ancestral lines should be ruled out?

Common ancestor of the phyla, not Proto-life.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Care to share your reactions? <definite thread killer, as clearly nobody has watched>

Actually some of us, at least one anyhow, have watched it. I particularly liked Richard's "Stork Theory of Reproduction" vs the "Sex Theory" and kind of wondered if someone might want to debate that in another thread...