Origin of Species: Proven?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Darwin's ideas, after having been fleshed out, are pretty good. We can even model mathematically evolution from single-celled organism to sentient being and do it in a way that makes sense to the layman.

My problem is that evolution works ok, even when you need to bring in all sorts of references from outside of biology to make it work,(all sorts means archaeology and geology mostly, but may include medicine if considered a different field entirely) but it fails to answer the titular statement put forth in Darwin's book.

How did the first living thing come to be?

I have heard plenty of theories. Protein in crystals, electrified soup, God, ET. ET is my least favorite because it begs the questions of where did THEY come from? God, people don't like that one as it is unprovable(unfalsifiable?) and by nature has no true evidence to support it. Electrified soup sounds easy enough to replicate though, as do crystals. I have to imagine that someone is trying to duplicate these situations, but have thus far been unsuccessful.

I'm not trying to attack evolution itself. Not even Darwin despite the unfortunate title of his work. I would just honestly like to know.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

We don't know the origin of species.

The lightweights try to pretend they/we do know.

Darwin's work was the single largest breakthrough in this area in the history of man. Such fantastic work it still blows my mind. He was the Einstein of this stuff.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I wonder then, if we do not know the origin of species, why is there this debate about teaching it to children? Do they really have time for more than an overview of biology during their high school education? Perhaps this is more of an ethical question, but perhaps it pertains to the field of biology. Are Biologists concerned about how the first life occurred on Earth? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[(Q)]

Most likely, Ham, if you knew anything about evolution, you wouldn't be asking those questions.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Evolution =/ Abiogenesis

Might as well ask why the theory of gravity does not explain photon quanta! Might as well not teach about gravity because it does not care about light! and why don't or do quantum physicists care about cosmology?

Evolution is limited to things that already reproduce, mutate, populate and have selective environment pressures (evolution does not even care if those pressure are sentiently manipulated or not), asking how these requirements came about it outside the scope of evolution and requires different theories.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

So evolution and the origin of species are two different things, correct?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So evolution and the origin of species are two different things, correct?

basically.

 

[John99]

I wonder then, if we do not know the origin of species, why is there this debate about teaching it to children? Do they really have time for more than an overview of biology during their high school education? Perhaps this is more of an ethical question, but perhaps it pertains to the field of biology. Are Biologists concerned about how the first life occurred on Earth? If so, why? If not, why not?

what else are they going to teach them? if you are in the majority then being wrong doesnt seem to matter but it makes it so much easier to grade a subject if you can have a set formula and sequence. its no different with religion except just follow the sequence and there will be no problems for you but dont follow the sequence and it can sometimes be dangerous...well sometimes. Luckily we dont have that problem so at least we should be thankful for that. if not passing and working at walmart is ok then who is to argue because at least they dont kill you.

I think that Darwins 'origin of species' is specifically stating origin of A species and not origin of THE species. in that case it is a viable theory but biologists admit they dont know for certain how first life began and only surmise that there was a soup with all the ingredients and then some electrical activity.

i hope i didnt leave anything out.

 

[Ophiolite]

So evolution and the origin of species are two different things, correct?

By Darwin's time Linnaen classification was well established. The variety of life was being systematically classified. A key component of that classification was the species. While definitions did and do vary, organisms are members of a species when they routinely interbreed. Darwin was trying to establish how the diversity in general and the process of speciation in particular occured.

It had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the origin of the first species.

I think that Darwins 'origin of species' is specifically stating origin of A species and not origin of THE species.

It is neither. It is species in the plural.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Wait. So this is mostly a misunderstanding of the choice of words? The whole ID vs evolution debate is stupid because it's like having an argument about whether hens are better than chicken eggs? Really?

I mean if we accept evolution as a process like photosynthesis, and put musings of how the first seed/cell came to be into the realm of "Well, maybe, we may never know..." then intelligent people would be able to put themselves to more useful pursuits? Or at least give more honest reasons for their choice of pursuits?

Damn. Maybe we need to put out a pamphlet or something.

 

[John99]

right so i said 'A' species and 'the' was meant to imply the first whereas every other species followed along the same pattern. it is like making one penny and then you dont have to go into detail as to how every single other penny is made.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

What the hell? What was the first species, anyway?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Wait. So this is mostly a misunderstanding of the choice of words? The whole ID vs evolution debate is stupid because it's like having an argument about whether hens are better than chicken eggs? Really?

I mean if we accept evolution as a process like photosynthesis, and put musings of how the first seed/cell came to be into the realm of "Well, maybe, we may never know..." then intelligent people would be able to put themselves to more useful pursuits? Or at least give more honest reasons for their choice of pursuits?

Damn. Maybe we need to put out a pamphlet or something.

Yes, but ID proponents are not simply arguing about how life started they argue that there was no evolution. Now if you want to believe some god started life and has worked though evolution via a manipulation of destiny over billions of years by all rights believe in that, but don't argue that there was no evolution that denying the facts and reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

Wait. So this is mostly a misunderstanding of the choice of words? The whole ID vs evolution debate is stupid because it's like having an argument about whether hens are better than chicken eggs? Really?

No. You, again, have completely the wrong idea.
If we take the more extreme creationist viewpoint - and this is the one with which the majority of differences arise - that of the Young Earth Creationists (YEC), then they have a take on evolution that is more encompassing than the biological usage.

YECs object to the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe, and of the subsequent formation of matter, the first stars and galaxies, the synthesis of heavy elements in those first generation stars, the subesquent formation of planetary systems, and - on this one at least - the emergence of life. They see all that as part and parcel of the subsequent biological evolution.

They have something of a point since scientists would argue that that sequence, including the evolution of complex life, is a consequence of the basic laws of the universe.

So simply clarifying your confusion over what Darwin's work was about will do absolutely nothing to eliminate the differences between creationist and scientist.

Wait. I mean if we accept evolution as a process like photosynthesis, and put musings of how the first seed/cell came to be into the realm of "Well, maybe, we may never know..." then intelligent people would be able to put themselves to more useful pursuits?

But creationists, except the most liberal kind, do not accept evolution. So there we are.

What the hell? What was the first species, anyway?

We have absolutely no idea. It was a very simple prokaryote, probably much simpler than any that are extant today. Moreover, the use of the word species for asexually producing beasties that engage in extensive gene transfer between 'species' is probably not very meaningful.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

What I find upsetting is that between people's condescending attitude towards whatever they do not understand and neither side apparently knowing what the discussion is about, intelligent scientists are distracted from important things. I mean, not being a biologist I'm not mixed up in the joy of evolution. The story I have been shown of late is that this ID thing is a big deal to biologists.

Answer me this my banal scientist friend, why don't the scientists get together and just allow the deniers to have their forum(not here, out in academia) to pursue their ideas based on whatever they want. Give it creedence and let it disprove itself so to speak.

I mean the evidence is so obvious that even some non-scientist like me should be able to see and understand if they just see it, right?

 

[Idle Mind]

Answer me this my banal scientist friend, why don't the scientists get together and just allow the deniers to have their forum(not here, out in academia) to pursue their ideas based on whatever they want. Give it creedence and let it disprove itself so to speak.

Because it cannot be disproven, and it is therefore not science. Scientists object to ID being taught in science class (this is key) as an alternative to evolution. We have no problem with it being taught as part of theology or other religious studies; people are free to believe what they like. But if it is taught as science then it is overstepping its bounds.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I find upsetting is that between people's condescending attitude towards whatever they do not understand and neither side apparently knowing what the discussion is about,

I know what the discussion is about and so do the majority of scientists. Any apparent confusion resides either with the creationists, or with yourself.

The story I have been shown of late is that this ID thing is a big deal to biologists.

No, it is a very small deal. However, when a persistent attack is mounted against logic and against the scientific method it finally gets ones attention. This is akin to being bothered by a small snapping poodle, rather than savaged by a lion. (When I used this analogy on another thread recently some dickehead went off on a rant about it, but it's a good analogy here, so I'll use it.)

Answer me this my banal scientist friend, why don't the scientists get together and just allow the deniers to have their forum(not here, out in academia) to pursue their ideas based on whatever they want.

And should we allow astrologers to deliver lectures in astronomy. Should clairvoyants be allowed to give their version of history. As Idle Mind has pointed out ID is not science, so it has no place in a science environment. It is a cynical, morally corrupt attempt to introduce creationism by the back door.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Perhaps the "basic" education should be streamlined. Does Josie "I want to cut hair" NEED to know, well, much of anything? Maybe some math for accounting and some English for communication, but what more?

The acknowledgement of these alternatives are bad? Are we so sure that there is nothing to astrology? How about clairvoyants' history? If what they say lines up with archaeology, then where's the problem?

Do you prefer new scientists to find out about this "rogue" theory and find it more worthy of attention because of it's "forbidden" nature?

I know this is more about the tactics of the argument than it is about the science(pseudo- as necessary). But if Joe christian/anti-evolutionist is quiet about what he believes, and comes into your organization to compete with you, won't he be able to out himself at some really inopportune time? Why not invite them in and "help" them?

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps the "basic" education should be streamlined. Does Josie "I want to cut hair" NEED to know, well, much of anything?

Maybe not, but whatever Josie is taught should be well founded and accurate. ID does not fit the bill.

Maybe some math for accounting and some English for communication, but what more?

Howabout something that conveys the wonder of the universe? Don't you think that would be appropriate? How about a few simple principles of science so they can get a better idea what political position to vote for when issue like global warming come up?

The acknowledgement of these alternatives are bad? Are we so sure that there is nothing to astrology?

Completely sure.

How about clairvoyants' history? If what they say lines up with archaeology, then where's the problem?

It doesn't line up. That's the problem.

Do you prefer new scientists to find out about this "rogue" theory and find it more worthy of attention because of it's "forbidden" nature?

If someone is trained as a scientist they will trained in objectivity and the scientific method. The 'rogue theory' will soon be seen for the rubbish it is.

But if Joe christian/anti-evolutionist is quiet about what he believes, and comes into your organization to compete with you, won't he be able to out himself at some really inopportune time?

No. A dickhead is a dickhead at any time.

 

[spidergoat]

It's been done. Creationists are ideologically driven. Their faith will not let them accept the science.

When we look for the first life form, what we are really seeking is the first mechanism of heredity. The first life would not be a cell, but rather exposed molecules that can form copies, possibly as an autocatalytic process, (a reaction that can accelerate itself). There are several good theories about abiogenesis, none of them confirmed. Creationists would first have to disprove these valid, naturalistic theories before any supernatural ones could be considered plausable. It is relatively easy to spot the remains of large animals and plants in the fossil record, but little remains of the chemical environment of some 3.5 billion years ago.