Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[BoomBoom]

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

Adaptation and speciation that result in a physiological changes occur usually when a species' environmental conditions change. So whatever your definition of "lower" or "higher" life forms is, if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

 

[rcgldr]

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

More cells per individual? More complexity? Intelligience versus simplicity or redudancy or tolerance to a range of environments?

if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

Increasing the variety of lower life forms without ever creating a higher life form.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

 

[rcgldr]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the suubject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

 

[Gokul43201]

But those are the bacteria and insects that have survived till today. Perhaps there have been many more bacteria that died out along the way, giving rise to more sturdy organisms. I would expect those bacteria that have survived the last couple billion or so years to have evolved high resistance to environmental factors.

 

[rcgldr]

But those are the bacteria and insects that have survived till today. Perhaps there have been many more bacteria that died out along the way, giving rise to more sturdy organisms. I would expect those bacteria that have survived the last couple billion or so years to have evolved high resistance to environmental factors.

My point was bacteria or insects versus mammals. It would seem that bacteria and insects have an advantage over mammals in terms of being able to survive over time.

 

[Gokul43201]

My point was bacteria or insects versus mammals.

That is what I was responding to. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. But since I'm only speculating, I would rather not go over it again.

 

[hokie1]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

The point here is that evolution is a fact. Darwinism is the theory.

Let's suppose that I now claim that 'pop' the world came into existence and that everything that happened before you read 'pop' was a memory that was implanted by a pond stocking being to create a working universe. So all of the fossils and everything else is a fake memory as are your memories of your life since nothing existed before the 'pop'.

Well it's not impossible. It could have happened and I claim it did.

I don't have to prove WHERE it came from. Evolution is CHANGE.

 

[Moridin]

The terms "lower" and "higher" lifeforms are invalid and rests of the outdated, disproven and religious notion of the Great Chain of Being. Life is not a great chain of being, but a tree of life.

 

[Moridin]

Again, it's not clear what you mean by that, but we know a whole lot more than just that A and B shared some common characteristics.

Indeed, the same-genes-same-designer argument ultimately fails because it is not just the case that there are superficial similarities, but that converging lines of evidence from genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy and so on, show that fundamental similarities and difference exists in such a way that it can only be explained by common descent.

 

[vivesdn]

Someone in this thread said that evolution is a fact. And it was already a fact when Darwin was born 200 years ago. 150 years ago, Darwin published its own theory to explain that fact, and he was not the only one to reach to such a conclusion.
Nowdays, an slightly modified version of that theory is already a fact. Because new species appear in front of our eyes, in the wild as well as in the lab. And we now know that DNA is, by far, more labile, more mobile than thought on that time.

 

[baywax]

The terms "lower" and "higher" lifeforms are invalid and rests of the outdated, disproven and religious notion of the Great Chain of Being. Life is not a great chain of being, but a tree of life.

So, its the old ball and tree?

 

[baywax]

And we now know that DNA is, by far, more labile, more mobile than thought on that time.

What's your point?

Are you saying that all evolution could have taken place in 6000 years?

I hope not!

 

[NeoDevin]

Are you saying that all evolution could have taken place in 6000 years?

6000 years isn't even enough time to account for the genetic diversity within the human population, never mind all life on Earth.

 

[vivesdn]

The point is not that 6000 years is enough or not. The point is that mechanisms of change are far more powerful than Darwin expected. Of course there are punctual mutations, but there are also genes and chromosomes that can be moved, duplicated, rearranged...

One of the arguments against Darwinist speciation is the vision (or other complete and complex structures, for the case). It is hard to imagine how is it possible to accumulate enough point mutations for an eye to be created. The answer is simple: it is not a matter of accumulating point mutations, but mixing already existing genes.

 

[baywax]

It is hard to imagine how is it possible to accumulate enough point mutations for an eye to be created. The answer is simple: it is not a matter of accumulating point mutations, but mixing already existing genes.

Do you have reference for this?

 

[Mr. Paradox]

What I have been wondering is, if humans "evolved" in a way that didn't affect us noticably but it was classified to be evolution would we cease to be human and instead become a different species. For example such as the change from neanderthal to human.

 

[BoomBoom]

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the suubject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others. An insect is adapted to be well suited for it's environment (based on heredity), just as a whale is to its environment. Is a whale "higher" evolved because it is larger? It's not "higher", but just different...along a different hereditary path in a different environment.

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

 

[LowlyPion]

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

If you were a blue whale, then you'd agree with that.

 

[vivesdn]

Do you have reference for this?

I was pretty sure to have read about that in Scientific American, but I do not find it now. But I can offer you another reference that analyzes the origin of larvae, an even more complex case than appearance of specific organs:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/zij/education/ocn201/willamson_vickers.pdf

 

[WhoWee]

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others. An insect is adapted to be well suited for it's environment (based on heredity), just as a whale is to its environment. Is a whale "higher" evolved because it is larger? It's not "higher", but just different...along a different hereditary path in a different environment.

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

They certainly have the "biggest mouths"...

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/bluewhale/Loudest.shtml

 

[rcgldr]

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the subject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

With the same ratio of ethanol or bleach solution to mass, either would drown.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others.

I never claimed "more evolved", just "higher" versus "lower". From what I read the claim is "higher" life forms evolved from "lower" life forms. Why wouldn't evolution involve cycling back and forth between higher and lower along a branch of a "tree"?

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

 

[NeoDevin]

I never claimed "more evolved", just "higher" versus "lower". From what I read the claim is "higher" life forms evolved from "lower" life forms. Why wouldn't evolution involve cycling back and forth between higher and lower along a branch of a "tree"?

But mammals didn't evolve from modern bacteria, they have both evolved from some earlier single celled organism.

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

Given the difficulty of creating life in the lab, the assumption is that it is an unlikely incident. So it is more likely that it was successful only once. Add to this the fact that it appears all life on the planet is related, and it is almost certain there was only one abiogenesis event (if there were more than one, we should see 2 or more `groups' of life with no relationship to each other at all).

 

[BoomBoom]

...it is almost certain there was only one abiogenesis event (if there were more than one, we should see 2 or more `groups' of life with no relationship to each other at all).

I don't know about that. "Certain" is a strong word here.

While all life on Earth show strong similarities between many genes of basic function, I'm not sure I'd call it undeniable proof of one abiogenesis event. We see evidence of merger events that happened early in the history of evolution on Earth that resulted in very different life forms (plants and animals for example), and if such events were common, then it is possible different abiogenesis events could have merged and exchanged genetic information over a long period of time to appear to all be related.

The ocean sequencing project being conducted by Craig Ventor is discovering millions of new genes and proteins we never knew existed. http://http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/more-than-six-million-new-genes-thousands-of-new-protein-families-and-incredible-degree-of-microbi/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=67&cHash=79c14dbd09"
For all we know abiogenesis could be an ongoing process that has never ceased.

If it was just a freak one time accident that life appeared on this planet, then it is probably very unlikely that life on other planets will ever be found...but that's another subject.

 

[vivesdn]

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

Given the difficulty of creating life in the lab, the assumption is that it is an unlikely incident. So it is more likely that it was successful only once.

In the lab, we have spent a ridiculous amount of time, while life had eons to try. But as one event was successful, it is less likely that other events could have succeeded after that, as the environment is already full of the first attempt. Of course, this argument is not absolute, it is just that once there are some living beings currently fitted for the existing environment, the result of new events will have to fight for the resources against already established life.

 

[BTC]

Here's my own theory questioning evolution:

Let's talk about programming (instinctive behavior) in living organisms. According to the theory of evolution, life evolved from simple life forms such as bacteria, and over millions of years through genetic mutations, these simple life forms became more complex.

A bacteria's instinctive behavioral programming can be broken into 3 main functions:
- swimming around (flagella motor propelling the filament)
- finding a host, shedding the necessary filaments prior entry of host, eat the cytoplasm, release proteins, and exit the host.
- leave the host, grow back it's filaments and continue swimming

Let's compare this programming to the programming of a basic calculator:
- Idle (waiting for users inputs)
- adding, subtracting, multiplying, etc...
- clearing inputted data and starting over again

Now let's say we take the programming of this basic calculator and install it to a scientific calculator. The program will not recognize the new functions such as sin, cos, tan, etc... It will only be able to perform what it was pre-programmed to do. But I'm getting ahead of myself here, so let's go back to the basic calculator. Let's say we add a "sin" button/function to it, the program will not recognize the new function and will discard it, and will only be able to perform its original functions. The sin button/function might cause an error in the calculator, causing glitches or the entire function of the calculator to cease . Now we could update the programming of this basic calculator to recognize the new "sin" button/function, but the calculator would not be able to perform this function on its own, it would require a more advanced program/machine to update and improve it's programming. We could add as many buttons and new chips to this basic calculator as we want to improve it, but the calculator will not be able to perform functions outside of what it was pre-programmed to do.

As bacteria multiply and genetics are thrown into the hat, the same problem exists. A bacterium has certain instinctive behavioral programming that is unique to its own survival in nature. The instinctive behavioral programming of a bacterium can become more efficient as its own unique tasks through genetics and adaptation, but will not take on new tasks. If mutations occur, the instinctive behavioral programming may not recognize the new part or it may recognize the new part (if it has functions similar to other parts in the system ) and cause a displacement between the programming, weakening the bacterium in whole or causing it to die.

Saying that humans evolved from bacteria is like saying MS-DOS can turn into Windows Vista, if we update it enough.

 

[vivesdn]

Saying that humans evolved from bacteria is like saying MS-DOS can turn into Windows Vista, if we update it enough.

Honestly, if DOS was to survive in the wild, it would be extinct by now, and we would be working on evolved versions of mac or linux or HP-UX or whatever, but of course not MS variants.

Even the simplest bacteria is far more complex than you point. To follow your model, the calculator of course accepts user input and outputs the results but also includes detailed instructions on how to create another calculator and also the tools to do so. And every time the calculator decides (as part of its program) to create a new one from scratch, which at its turn will have its own copy of the building instructions and tools, it may introduce some errors on those instructions, sometimes it may duplicate a chapter, sometimes it will include a new passage that the user typed for pleasure, ...

The key point for evolution is that every living being carries its own master plan and it is able to use it to create copies of himself including a copy the master plan. And take care: the copy of the master plan has no checksums, no error correction, no validation, no redundant bytes so there is nonzero probability that the copy is not 100% accurate.

 

[BTC]

Honestly, if DOS was to survive in the wild, it would be extinct by now, and we would be working on evolved versions of mac or linux or HP-UX or whatever, but of course not MS variants.

Even the simplest bacteria is far more complex than you point. To follow your model, the calculator of course accepts user input and outputs the results but also includes detailed instructions on how to create another calculator and also the tools to do so. And every time the calculator decides (as part of its program) to create a new one from scratch, which at its turn will have its own copy of the building instructions and tools, it may introduce some errors on those instructions, sometimes it may duplicate a chapter, sometimes it will include a new passage that the user typed for pleasure, ...

The key point for evolution is that every living being carries its own master plan and it is able to use it to create copies of himself including a copy the master plan. And take care: the copy of the master plan has no checksums, no error correction, no validation, no redundant bytes so there is nonzero probability that the copy is not 100% accurate.

You have missed my point completely, please read it again with a more open mind. A bacteriums instinctive behavioral programming is much more complicating than I stated above, but I'm trying to keep things simple.

 

[vivesdn]

I think I did not missed your point. I accept the simplification of a bacterial life but what you cannot forget is the possibility to multiply as it is the key point in life.

 

[vivesdn]

Let me be more precise: bacteria will not just fine tune its genetics to better perform on its environment. It can acquire new functionality. Bacteria can really take on new tasks. You can see it happen on a petry dish.

 

[BoomBoom]

You have missed my point completely, please read it again with a more open mind. A bacteriums instinctive behavioral programming is much more complicating than I stated above, but I'm trying to keep things simple.

That's the problem with your analogy, in which you conclude: "Saying that humans evolved from bacteria is like saying MS-DOS can turn into Windows Vista, if we update it enough.".

Life is not simple, so why try to make it so in a misguided analogy?

 

[baywax]

Someone mention the evolution of the eye.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

 

[wildman]

I believe God created the Universe using evolution. I don't believe that anything is an accident, but the math works out if you assume it is. This means that the science of evolution describes what God did very well.

I think the intelligent design people assume a dumb God who is not capable of making a Universe that can run itself so he has to keep jumping into fix his mistakes. My God doesn't make mistakes so he doesn't need to jump in.

 

[baywax]

I believe God created the Universe using evolution. I don't believe that anything is an accident, but the math works out if you assume it is. This means that the science of evolution describes what God did very well.

I think the intelligent design people assume a dumb God who is not capable of making a Universe that can run itself so he has to keep jumping into fix his mistakes. My God doesn't make mistakes so he doesn't need to jump in.

Some believe Batman and Alfred put together the whole design and mechanism of evolution. They just don't have any plausible evidence to prove it. No Bat signal, nothing.

 

[mplayer]

Here's my own theory questioning evolution:

Let's talk about programming (instinctive behavior) in living organisms. According to the theory of evolution, life evolved from simple life forms such as bacteria, and over millions of years through genetic mutations, these simple life forms became more complex.

A bacteria's instinctive behavioral programming can be broken into 3 main functions:
- swimming around (flagella motor propelling the filament)
- finding a host, shedding the necessary filaments prior entry of host, eat the cytoplasm, release proteins, and exit the host.
- leave the host, grow back it's filaments and continue swimming

Let's compare this programming to the programming of a basic calculator:
- Idle (waiting for users inputs)
- adding, subtracting, multiplying, etc...
- clearing inputted data and starting over again

Now let's say we take the programming of this basic calculator and install it to a scientific calculator. The program will not recognize the new functions such as sin, cos, tan, etc... It will only be able to perform what it was pre-programmed to do. But I'm getting ahead of myself here, so let's go back to the basic calculator. Let's say we add a "sin" button/function to it, the program will not recognize the new function and will discard it, and will only be able to perform its original functions. The sin button/function might cause an error in the calculator, causing glitches or the entire function of the calculator to cease . Now we could update the programming of this basic calculator to recognize the new "sin" button/function, but the calculator would not be able to perform this function on its own, it would require a more advanced program/machine to update and improve it's programming. We could add as many buttons and new chips to this basic calculator as we want to improve it, but the calculator will not be able to perform functions outside of what it was pre-programmed to do.

As bacteria multiply and genetics are thrown into the hat, the same problem exists. A bacterium has certain instinctive behavioral programming that is unique to its own survival in nature. The instinctive behavioral programming of a bacterium can become more efficient as its own unique tasks through genetics and adaptation, but will not take on new tasks. If mutations occur, the instinctive behavioral programming may not recognize the new part or it may recognize the new part (if it has functions similar to other parts in the system ) and cause a displacement between the programming, weakening the bacterium in whole or causing it to die.

Saying that humans evolved from bacteria is like saying MS-DOS can turn into Windows Vista, if we update it enough.

A bacterium is not a calculator.

You cannot use a misguided analogy to arrive at a conclusion that equates biological evolution to human-built computational tools. These devices are not highly prolific, they do not replicate. These devices have no anabolic properties whatsoever. These devices do not have an inherent plasticity in their informational content that is subject to random mutation with subsequent non-random selection.

It would be best to learn about biological evolution by reading about biological evolution rather than constructing flawed analogies to human-built technologies. A bacterium is orders of magnitude more complex than a calculator, and organized in a way that (as of now) eludes full comprehension and understanding. I would agree that life is similar to a machine - but nothing like any machine we can build.