Another Evolution Question

[Ekstasis]

A few minutes on the internet led me to literally thousands of articles delving into what is obviously a fairly complex issue.

I really could not be arsed to discuss it with you, because your objective here is clearly to poke holes, rather than try to educate yourself. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I am officially tired of this type of attitude, more often than not from people who revolve their entire lives around one book, based on nothing but faith. Yet, you still have the temerity to suggest parts of evolution are not 'proper science, without even, it seems, having an understanding of how the basic scientific method works.

To demand that there should be no gaps in knowledge, when trying to figure out a mystery that took place billions of years ago, is sublimely absurd. What you should do, is look at the evidence that we currently have, and then decide on the weight of that evidence what is most likely. There is much information on this subject, but I suspect you have not really read and digested even one well written article on the subject?

What could make me cry tears of frustration about all this, and I'm being serious here, is that if you applied the same importance towards evidence with regards to the bible and it's veracity, you'd reject it out of hand. There is no evidence, at all, anywhere outside the bible, for the miraculous happenings therein. Yet you take this as fact, but yet are so monumentally sceptical when it comes to matters scientific, you end up rejecting notions for which there is far more evidence than, for example, the virgin birth.

I'm sorry, I hope this did not come across as rude, this was not the intention, I'm just trying to illustrate how frustrating it is sometimes having to deal with this type of attitude.

What this whole discussion has to do with the religion I belong to, is also beyond me! If I'm poking holes where there are holes , then I'm poking holes. So what?
The best current explanation might also be very very far from the truth is what I'm getting at. The assumptions being made, to my mind are just too big.
It's like the expansion of the universe - fact as we all know. So now going back in time it's assumed the universe reached a singularity with the minute size of whatever......I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it cannot be sold as the truth. The same case for evolution of life from a universal common ancestor.

 

[RanzB]

What this whole discussion has to do with the religion I belong to, is also beyond me! If I'm poking holes where there are holes , then I'm poking holes. So what?
The best current explanation might also be very very far from the truth is what I'm getting at. The assumptions being made, to my mind are just too big.
It's like the expansion of the universe - fact as we all know. So now going back in time it's assumed the universe reached a singularity with the minute size of whatever......I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it cannot be sold as the truth. The same case for evolution of life from a universal common ancestor.

Poke holes all you want. Just stop pretending you'll actually listen to the answers instead of pushing your own agenda.

 

[Ekstasis]

Poke holes all you want. Just stop pretending you'll actually listen to the answers instead of pushing your own agenda.

It's not an agenda mate, it's a fact.

 

[copacetic]

What this whole discussion has to do with the religion I belong to, is also beyond me! If I'm poking holes where there are holes , then I'm poking holes. So what?
The best current explanation might also be very very far from the truth is what I'm getting at. The assumptions being made, to my mind are just too big.
It's like the expansion of the universe - fact as we all know. So now going back in time it's assumed the universe reached a singularity with the minute size of whatever......I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it cannot be sold as the truth. The same case for evolution of life from a universal common ancestor.

Point utterly missed, as expected.

You say the assumptions made are too big, and you honestly don't see the parallel to your religion? Really?

In any case, as mentioned, I very, very much doubt you have read up on the subject to any meaningful degree, am I wrong?

Most importantly though, science doesn't sell anything as truth, it does the best it can with the available information. If evidence turned up, that falsified the notion of LUCA, it would be accepted, and the theory would change.

That this is perceived as a weakness, is to display a tragic misunderstanding of how scientific progress is made.

*edit*

Just to underscore my point again, you talk so much about truth, and how we are unable to know it (despite the fact that there are mounds of evidence to support the contentions [which does not mean it's true, but is as close as we can know, given the available evidence, which is all anyone can hope for rationally]), yet firmly believe in a god, for which there is no empirical evidence at all. How. do. you. not. see. the.double.standards?

 

[Techne]

Therefor, with respect to the argument that all life evolved from a common ancestor (a single cellular organism), how much of it is speculative. How is the scientific method applied in this regard?

Ok, I see you want to focus on the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).

First of all, there is no physical evidence of anything that resembles such a thing. It is a hypothetical organism or group of organisms that is hypothesized to have changed over time (a few billion years) to all the life forms we observe today.

In other words, there is no fossil or sample that has been discovered that can be claimed to be the LUCA.

However, as already pointed out, the evidence that suggests there might have been a LUCA is the near universal genetic code. There are small variations in the code but they all work essentially the same.

You can make an argument for the LUCA as follows:
1) The evidence suggests that the first life on earth was about 4 billion years ago (bya).
2) Bacteria and Archaea emerged about 3.3-3.8 bya.
3) Bacteria and Archaea have very similar codes (see here) and replication machinery.
4) Therefore the most parsimonious explanation for this is that there was a common ancestor for archaea and bacteria.

This does not prove that there is actually a LUCA. And at present there is basically only speculation what the LUCA might have been like. For example:
Last universal common ancestor more complex than previously thought


EDIT:
I suppose you can make the same time of argument for houses. E.g.
1) The evidence suggests that the houses on earth was about 20 000 years ago .
2) Greek houses and Roman houses emerged about 3 000 years ago.
3) Greek houses and Roman houses have very similar building styles and use similar building material.
4) Therefore the most parsimonious explanation for this is that there was a common ancestor for Greek houses and Roman houses.

The only problem with this is that houses do not replicate. Life does. So one can't use the same argument and logically claim that the most parsimonious answer is that archaea and bacteria had a common builder or where made by aliens with similar plans etc.

 

[copacetic]

I find it interesting that it took bacteria around 450 million years to evolve while it took humans 3.8 billion years to evolve. It is remarkable that it took only around eight times as long for human life to evolve as it did for bacteria to evolve.

Why is it remarkable?

 

[porchrat]

I find it interesting that it took bacteria around 450 million years to evolve while it took humans 3.8 billion years to evolve. It is remarkable that it took only around eight times as long for human life to evolve as it did for bacteria to evolve.

This is like saying "I can't believe it took 5 years to build a sharpened rock but 5000 to build a space shuttle".

Bacteria are simple and have a relatively short lifespan. Of course they are going to evolve fast. Viruses evolve even faster than that. However these aren't the only factors at play here.

 

[Techne]

I find it interesting that it took bacteria around 450 million years to evolve while it took humans 3.8 billion years to evolve. It is remarkable that it took only around eight times as long for human life to evolve as it did for bacteria to evolve.

Everything about life on earth is remarkable . The mere fact that there are and where all these life forms makes it interesting and worthwhile to study.

 

[copacetic]

I find it remarkable because bacteria are so simple and humans are so complex. It took around 450 million years for something as simple as bacteria to evolve while it took only eight times as long for something as complex as humans to evolve.

Bacteria didn't have much to work with, as life became more varied and complex, there was more preceding diversity to build from. It stands to reason the process would accelerate.

 

[porchrat]

I find it remarkable because bacteria are so simple and humans are so complex. It took around 450 million years for something as simple as bacteria to evolve while it took only eight times as long for something as complex as humans to evolve.

It was even shorter. There are many animals far younger than humans that are pretty damn complex. We tend to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution, the most complex thing around, this is not necessarily true.

 

[Techne]

What makes us different is not our complexity but our intellects.