Is evolution proven science or theory

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

And knowing your preference for the macro discussion that is exactly why I chose Margulis' work. We are going to start at the beginning and bring it forward ala Margulis. In the end, I think you will see evidence of how we humans are evolving. And by the way I am going to ask you to think of humans as complex symbiotic organisms (fact: most of our cells and our DNA is not human).

I believe we are 'evolving' as a species, we do that.....in my simplistic laymans mind I want to know when we will evolve into something non human...another species...as that is what Darwin suggested happens.

Going to go work out so I can continue (slow down) my evolutionary process (old )...
Good stuff guys.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

Why is that the case....there should be some linkage that is traceable, identifiable.
We can trace our ancestors back thousands of years yet not scientifically trace, identify a cross over pt.

Where is the link between prokaryotes and eukaryotes?
Why are there no 2 celled organisms?
Did vascular plants evolve from non-vascular plants, or vice-versa?
Where do insects fit in the evolutionary tree?

These steps would seem to precede mammals and humans.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

It sounds like your frame of reference is a relatively short span of time, and I don't think it exists. Time, and a lot of it, individuates one species from it's founding population.

Now we're getting somewhere.

How much time?
Roughly when were certain stages of evolution occurring?
(First amino acid, first protein, first cell, first multi-cell, first plant life, etc.)

[PRB]

Doc,
Cool chart...what does it say...diff species walked on two feet. Are they directly related by evolution thru macro DNA changes? Some evolved and others did not?
What?

just an example...most scientists have reclassified Neanderthal man as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis...a human, homo sapien...as can be all of the other 'guys' on that chart in the humanoid vein....evolution within a species...not a cross over of apes to man.

[PRB]

It is also 'funny' that that chart has 'Lucy' on it...the much heralded 'missing link of years ago.
It was claimed Lucy walked upright and had to be a link because the 'knee was slightly larger' than a normal apes knee (evolving) and its femur had the same angle to knee ratio as a human.
It is documented that knee size means nothing, many apes and humans have dif sized knees....most tree dwelling apes have the same femur to knee ratio as humans and Richard Leakey said that the skull was so incomplete that 'imagination' made up her skull (The Weekend Australian 1983) He also noted there was no firm conclusion what species she was.
Anatomists proved in 1987 she was just another ape of the australopithecines and she did not walk upright..

[Trapper John]

I think we need to bring this discussion down to some basics and let's start with the evolution of life itself. Key question is what is the origin of membrane bound microbes? Key to that is the evolution of membranes. The approach to answering this question is not biological, but from the field of physics.

We also need to ask how did eukaryotes arise? (See previous post about Lynn Margulis).

The next question is how did multi-cellular organisms arise?

I have attached some reading that will help frame a better understanding of these questions.

There have been a common misconception re: induce antibiotic resistance in bacteria as it relates to evolution. The point is that resistance is not "induced" in bacteria by antibiotics. It is selected. See "Antibitioc Resistance is Ancient" The bottom line is that bacteria have had the genetic capability for 30,000 years to produce the resistance factors to all known classes of antibiotics. Bear in mind that antibiotics are derived from natural products and read Gerry Wrights paper (attached). IMO this does not relate to evolution as a primary driving force.

What I am trying to do here is establish the basic underlying factors (natural laws) that drive evolution of life and am starting with the protobiotic environment from which life evolved. No fossil record for this period. My reasoning is that we need to see evidence that this environment has the necessary factors to form membranes to package the molecular machinery of life, that early unicellular organisms (known to exist from the fossil record) can form muticellular organisms, and that symbiotic relationships between prokaryotes can result in the appearance of the eukaryotes. Establishing the scientific basis for this leads to the next stage of complexity of life.

More later.

[T-Rock]

Since this had to happen thousands of times we must have lots of examples.

Evolution is just that, theory. For Darwinian Evolution to be presented as proven scientific fact it must be reproducible, repeatable, and verifiable.

Take Islam for example, its violence has been reproducible, repeatable, and verifiable for over 1400 years

No matter the theory, we are all reduced to one common denominator, faith - faith in whatever theory we believe in…

If Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation, how did things come to be in the first place - that’s what I wanna know. Miller Urey has since been proven flawed (Abiogenesis).

[PRB]

What I am trying to do here is establish the basic underlying factors (natural laws) that drive evolution of life and am starting with the protobiotic environment from which life evolved. No fossil record for this period. My reasoning is that we need to see evidence that this environment has the necessary factors to form membranes to package the molecular machinery of life, that early unicellular organisms (known to exist from the fossil record) can form muticellular organisms, and that symbiotic relationships between prokaryotes can result in the appearance of the eukaryotes. Establishing the scientific basis for this leads to the next stage of complexity of life.

You've discovered the manner in which life began? That, I suspect, is another theory based upon supposition not so?
If not, then it could be reproduced yes?

And, to speed things along, lets say I see merit in her supposition on molecular ideas as to non membrane organisms....that then leads to Darwinian evolution in what manner

[PRB]

some of your examples of evolution are still of the same species, not a creation of another species.
Making a single cell yeast organism into a multiple cell yeast organism under 'unusual circumstances' to speed it along does not another species make....it is yeast.
Did the author create exactly the environment required simulating, in his words 'millions of years', and if so, how does he know that?
Do you see what I'm getting at?

and as one author wrote

The assumption of optimization of physical properties via evolutionary processes
cannot be proven for cell membranes at this time. Then he postulates onward.....

[GratefulCitizen]

"Antibiotic resistance is ancient."

So it makes sense that bacteria could be naturally selected for this pre-existing trait.
This is not the creation of new genetic information.



From "The evolution of membranes."

"The physical properties are governed by the structures formed when these molecules aggregate in a manner dictated by the normal laws of physics and physical chemistry. Although the feedback leading to genetic control can be one or more stages removed from protein synthesis that is controlled directly by nucleic acid sequences, we assume that evolutionary processes still lead to optimization of the physical properties of biological materials because of the almost unimaginably long time scale available. This assumption is the motivation for our examination of membrane evolution in this chapter.
The assumption of optimization of physical properties via evolutionary processes cannot be proven for cell membranes at this time."


This assumption has two parts:
-Small changes are, on average, beneficial.
-A large period of time is available.

A few questions:
What are the changes that occur at the chemical level?
What is the probability that the change is beneficial?
How often do the changes occur?
How much time is available?

[kosty]

Hello,

For those arguing pro-evolution I have a question. What caused the the first amino-acids, RNA & DNA? Replication requires something to replicate.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by kosty

Hello,

For those arguing pro-evolution I have a question. What caused the the first amino-acids, RNA & DNA? Replication requires something to replicate.

It was lost forever when capitalist pigs warmed GAIA.

[PRB]

Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.
I think we all get the micro in species evolving...but that is a totally different deal that new species creation from another.
What I've noted so far, and in other discussions, is the micro evolution process
( dna replication/stacking and dna mutation within a specific species) to support the theory that new additional dna (not duplicate of existing parent dna and including new HOX creation) is possible ergo macro evolution or new species creation exists. That is a great leap scientifically....and not scientifically proven...postulating at best.
The 'charts' we've all seen of apes walking to manhood etc are of the same genre.
The 'assumption' is 'they kind of look like us' have similar dna (as does a pig btw) so it follows we developed from them. The dna barrier/mutation/natural selection process in that high order of developed species would argue directly against that.
The barrier/mutation/nat selection process is observable and quantifiable....there is no species jumping dna in that catagory....none.
The charts also rely on 'time testing' that is very 'objective' extremely so as stated in "The Anthropological Journal of Canada" R. Lee, radiocarbon, Ages of Error comments
"The troubles of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious....half of the dates are rejected...there are gross discrepancies...accepted dates are ""selected dates"".
So whomever made the monkey chart lined his primates up in order to support his thesis time wise and that is not science but science fiction.
The 'geological column' has also proven to be about as scientific as the date it was first put forward...the late 1700's.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by PRB

Gents,
I still see no scientific explanation in support of the Darwinian theory....since so many accept this as 'science' you'd think there was more than postulation.

Nope. No different than global warming.

[PRB]

Trapper J...that was some heavy stuff you ref. A bit much for me so I had my wife read it. She has a Biology degree from Boston U, she use to teach the subj and a Dr. of Pharmacy degree...after her run thru she said there was no direct linkage to any Darwinian theory except on wanting to believe there was...again some serious extrapolation. Her opinion only.