Is evolution proven science or theory

[GratefulCitizen]

It all comes down to one question:
What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?

Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Although I know that it does happen, I don't know the chemical explanation.

Anybody find that yet? Curious.

Not sure about the downstream mechanism, but the initial mechanism (getting life's building blocks in the first place) has some problems.
It has implications for the downstream mechanism as well.

John R. Baumgardner did some math to illustrate the scope and scale of the problem.
An excerpt from one of his articles:

(All of the estimations and shortcuts are generously in favor of evolution)

Can random molecular interactions create life?

Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy.

This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.

Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 10^80 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos, 10^12 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10^110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about 1,000 protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1,000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible nonliving chemical environment.

Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3-D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20^100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1,000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.

In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process.

Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.

The numbers just don't work out for evolution.

[PRB]

Biology is ruled by the laws of chemistry.
Chemistry is ruled by the laws of physics.
Physics is ruled by the laws of mathematics.

The numbers just don't work out for evolution.

I agree, nor does the genetic science we know as supportable today under write it.
IOTW, Darwinian evolutionists rely on faith with anecdotal reference to a micro same species evolution process that is widely understood.
That is simply a huge leap of faith.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

What is the specific chemical mechanism through which new genetic information is created?

Once that question is answered, the mechanism can be tested against known physical laws.

Boy + girl = new genetic information.

Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

Support for evolution always devolves (pun intended) into attacking religion.
Religion is supposed to be off-limits for this thread.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by MR2

Boy + girl = new genetic information.

Don't they teach nuttn' in school these days?

Reassembly of information.
Not new information.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then? The explanation of why our bodies are machines for the propogation of the genes that built them?

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

I didn't mention religion at all....accepting a theory rift with postulation can only be done on faith....Darwinian evolutionists are simply the faithful....not the scientists they purport to be.

[plato]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

Chance? A strict Mendelian process?

Watching the Model T evolve into today's jeep, plants evolving into being hybrid and drought/insect resistant, and similar events can do that to a fellow.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by plato

plants evolving into being hybrid

Something tells me that this isn't a very good survival strategy.


It also illustrates the limits of variation.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Not to shift the subject nearer to the original question, but...

The illusion of intelligent design is an even huger leap, yet many (too many) out there just know its true.

What is the best scientific explanation for the process we observe to be evolution, species differentiation, and adaptation, then?

Chance?

Although I would agree, Doc, let's not bring up the question of intelligent design in this or any other thread. That will lead to an impossible conundrum, IMO.

I think it is important to explore the driving forces (natural laws) that led to the origin of life in the first place. That was the point of the previously posted references, not to provide evidence supporting Darwin's theory to explain the diversity of species. So, PRB, the wife is correct, but that is not why I referenced these references. Simply put, I want to begin to understand the driving forces that led to life. And, NO, I did not discover the origins of life

GC: Dr. Baumgardner's analysis, although statistically correct, is highly misleading and not germane to this discussion because the self-organization of the fundamental building blocks of life is not merely a statistical problem. The initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics profoundly alter the statistical probabilities. If that were true all chemical reactions could be predicted by statistical analysis. Rarely is this the case. I have attached a seminal paper on the subject of self assembly of biological molecules by one of the premier chemists George M. Whitesides. (My Whitesides trumps your Baumgardner ).

Kozy, et al., the origin of the building blocks of life are not established by the Miller-Urey experiment, although academically interesting, just not likely a realistic explanation. Recent evidence suggests that preformed amino acids, nucleic acids, and key intermediates may have been delivered to the early earth in comets and meteorites. See the following link from NASA and the PNAS paper also attached.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...eteorites.html

All- I realize that none of this directly addresses the question of Darwin's theory. What I have tried to do is put forth the natural basis for the origin of life. What is amazing to me is that it appears that given the right conditions life will emerge. Even on this earth we find life in places that were previously thought to be incompatible with life e.g., the geothermal vents at the convergence of tectonic plates on the ocean floor. Thus it would not be surprising that we ultimately find evidence that life once existed on Mars - all of the right conditions once existed there as on earth.

I believe the foregoing has established that multi-cellular life will happen given the right conditions and thanks to Lynn Margulis, we can even see how the two major Kingdoms arose.

[PRB]

Trapper,
That's interesting but not exactly germane to the thread and leads in a totally dif direction.
Honestly speaking, that should be a sep thread if you wanted to discuss that.
I was only interested in the aspect of dev after life existed and do not want to get into a religious discussion of any sort.
My comment on faith was a generic faith . If you believe in an unproven theory one must be taking it on faith....a belief in it for whatever reason.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

Trapper,
That's interesting but not exactly germane to the thread and leads in a totally dif direction.
Honestly speaking, that should be a sep thread if you wanted to discuss that.
I was only interested in the aspect of dev after life existed and do not want to get into a religious discussion of any sort.
My comment on faith was a generic faith . If you believe in an unproven theory one must be taking it on faith....a belief in it for whatever reason.

I am not getting into faith issues either. Only want to establish the initial conditions that give rise to life are governed by laws of nature, e.g. thermodynamics and that once established that symbiosis gave rise to the emergence of the multicellular eukaryotes. This sets the stage for the emergence of more complex life forms and diversity of life as we know it today. You have wanted hard scientific evidence, not speculation, conjecture, or theory. I am trying to provide that evidence and show how we go from the micro- to the macro-system analysis that you are looking for. We aren't there yet, but I hope that you see we are getting there.

Like the study of Islam, evolutionary biology is not going to be done in one or two posts on this forum. You've exposed me to a whole new area of study (Islam) and I am returning the favor by exposing you to a whole new way of thinking about the origin of life and evolution of life's diversity.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I am not getting into faith issues either. Only want to establish the initial conditions that give rise to life are governed by laws of nature, e.g. thermodynamics and that once established that symbiosis gave rise to the emergence of the multicellular eukaryotes. This sets the stage for the emergence of more complex life forms and diversity of life as we know it today. You have wanted hard scientific evidence, not speculation, conjecture, or theory. I am trying to provide that evidence and show how we go from the micro- to the macro-system analysis that you are looking for. We aren't there yet, but I hope that you see we are getting there.

Like the study of Islam, evolutionary biology is not going to be done in one or two posts on this forum. You've exposed me to a whole new area of study (Islam) and I am returning the favor by exposing you to a whole new way of thinking about the origin of life and evolution of life's diversity.

I get that...and wether we are 'getting there' is also supposition based upon another theory of extrapolation...but go for it.
My issue with Darwinism is that it is accepted and presented by so many as 'Fact'...science...proven...and that is simply not true on a scientific level.
That was my point with this thread....as to wether we 'get there', only time will tell.
Darwinism is a very popular theory that must be taken on 'faith'....until we 'get there' or do not get there.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

I get that...and wether we are 'getting there' is also supposition based upon another theory of extrapolation...but go for it.
My issue with Darwinism is that it is accepted and presented by so many as 'Fact'...science...proven...and that is simply not true on a scientific level.
That was my point with this thread....as to wether we 'get there', only time will tell.
Darwinism is a very popular theory that must be taken on 'faith'....until we 'get there' or do not get there.

I have stipulated at the outset that Darwin's theory of natural selection and the divergence of species is only a theory, not scientific fact. I have also said that we cannot logically "prove" that a theory is correct, we can only disprove it. If evidence is brought forward that is not consistent with the theory then it must be modified to accommodate the new evidence or be discarded altogether. Therefore, the correct question to be asking is can Darwin be disproved.

I have also presented an example of how Darwin's original theory has been modified, endosymbiosis proposed by Margulis. In a subsequent post, I will provide references to further modifications to the original theory and discuss some of my graduate research in this context. Finally, I hope to provide you some recent direct evidence of speciation.

In the end I hope that I will show you that simply accumulation of mutations in a genome is not sufficient to account for the diversity of life. It is far, far more complex than that. You see Darwin's theory is evolving too.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

GC: Dr. Baumgardner's analysis, although statistically correct, is highly misleading and not germane to this discussion because the self-organization of the fundamental building blocks of life is not merely a statistical problem. The initial conditions and the laws of thermodynamics profoundly alter the statistical probabilities. If that were true all chemical reactions could be predicted by statistical analysis. Rarely is this the case. I have attached a seminal paper on the subject of self assembly of biological molecules by one of the premier chemists George M. Whitesides. (My Whitesides trumps your Baumgardner ).

Constructed components self-assembling.

A few questions:
Is directed energy input required to construct the components?
How much energy does it take to disassemble them (both the assembly and the components)?

If greater energy is required to disassemble, then they are at a lower energy state and obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
This is not comparable to DNA.

DNA is highly unstable and left to itself degrades rapidly.
Most chemical environments speed the degradation process.

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Kozy, et al., the origin of the building blocks of life are not established by the Miller-Urey experiment, although academically interesting, just not likely a realistic explanation. Recent evidence suggests that preformed amino acids, nucleic acids, and key intermediates may have been delivered to the early earth in comets and meteorites. See the following link from NASA and the PNAS paper also attached.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...eteorites.html

Transpermia - the shell game of evolution.

How did those critical components develop elsewhere?
The laws of physics shouldn't be any different elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Trapper John

All- I realize that none of this directly addresses the question of Darwin's theory. What I have tried to do is put forth the natural basis for the origin of life. What is amazing to me is that it appears that given the right conditions life will emerge. Even on this earth we find life in places that were previously thought to be incompatible with life e.g., the geothermal vents at the convergence of tectonic plates on the ocean floor. Thus it would not be surprising that we ultimately find evidence that life once existed on Mars - all of the right conditions once existed there as on earth.

I believe the foregoing has established that multi-cellular life will happen given the right conditions and thanks to Lynn Margulis, we can even see how the two major Kingdoms arose.

FWIW, I believe that we will find traces of life on Mars and on comets/asteroids/meteorites.
Furthermore, those traces will be very similar, if not identical, to what is found on Earth.

This is predicted by an alternative origins theory, but I won't go into it per the conditions of this thread.


Concerning comets, no comet has ever been observed with a distinctly hyperbolic incoming trajectory.
(i.e. Every comet has passed through the inner solar system at least once/ none have been observed coming from outside the solar system)

Also, the odds of a comet/asteroid/meteoroid making it from some distant place to here -and- be captured within a reasonable time frame are infinitesimal.
-Inverse-square law dispersion (shotgun scatter) works against anything "hitting" the solar system.
-The motion of the solar system tends to expel objects, not capture them.
-Earth's gravitational sphere of influence is relatively small due to the sun and Jupiter making it yet more difficult for anything to "hit" the volume where capture might be possible.
-Capture is a very difficult event, almost impossible without an atmosphere.
-The speed necessary for a comet/asteroid/meteoroid to make it here within a reasonable time scale precludes the already difficult event of capture.

Concerning plate tectonics, the theory has massive flaws, among them:
-Granite is less dense than basalt, it cannot subduct (there are other problems with subduction)
-There are three points in the Pacific where ridges and trenches intersect (can't be going both up and down)
-There is a pressure point where magma becomes denser than solid basalt (at the "crossover depth", pressure is such that the magma above will go up to the surface and the magma below will go down to the outer core -- it cannot "circulate")


There are problems in many areas of science.

One area of science will reference another for support.
If the support science is flawed, it undermines both.

On some issues, one area of science will be incompatible with another.
Such disagreements mean one, the other, or both must be wrong.