A question on Origin throughout Evolu...

A question on Origin throughout Evolution History

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Ranger88

Ascot Vale, Australia

#1 Sep 4, 2013
I am interested to hear peoples views on this question. There has always been a question amongst the debate about the origin of life in the beginning, but what about the origin of each stage of evolution?

It would seem that through every possible stage of evolution, from the first simple cells through to complex life, new elements were added to the life. New minerals, new genetics, new reactions.

My current example that I have been researching is bone development. The scientific reading I can find to explain bone trace it back to earlier cartilage and bone like developments, but no further. Bone requires calcium minerals, which means at some point these became present in life. I have read many articles that theorize the lineage back to earlier life, but no theory on how or where they began.

To make a very simplified example, if two starting simple cells reproduce countless times to grow their population, how is it that they can then add new information to their life form to evolve? I understand they can change what they already are, much like humans come in all shapes and sizes, but how can they add something they never previously had?

As for the bone example, no matter how far back you trace the evolution of minute changes leading to a complex bone, there still has to be a point where life has added the ingredient that it never previously had.

So my question is, how can that be?

I genuinely want to know some theories on this. Please don't reply with an anti-creation response not addressing the question!

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#2 Sep 5, 2013
Begin your research with how CaCO3 appeared in the environment. Then research how and why this was replaced by a phosphate based mineralization.
Then look into the expression of the RUNX proteins.

This will give you a good start in your research.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3 Sep 5, 2013
Katydid wrote:
Begin your research with how CaCO3 appeared in the environment. Then research how and why this was replaced by a phosphate based mineralization.
Then look into the expression of the RUNX proteins.
This will give you a good start in your research.
Yeah, the IDCers were pushing the same Cambrian explosion argument too on Amazon recently when Meyer's new book on apologetics came out. Matzke and Gary Hurd were both on hand to point out the same thing you did. It had the strange affect of making some of the creo's just switch to another thread and make the same mistaken argument all over again.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#4 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the IDCers were pushing the same Cambrian explosion argument too on Amazon recently when Meyer's new book on apologetics came out. Matzke and Gary Hurd were both on hand to point out the same thing you did. It had the strange affect of making some of the creo's just switch to another thread and make the same mistaken argument all over again.
Oh geez, been away too long and it appears I have been hoodwinked? I thought it was an honest question.

Do you have a link by chance to this debate? What is the name of Meyer's new book?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#5 Sep 5, 2013
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh geez, been away too long and it appears I have been hoodwinked? I thought it was an honest question.
Do you have a link by chance to this debate? What is the name of Meyer's new book?
I do believe it is "Darwin's Doubt". And like most books of that sort it was already debunked before it was released to the public.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#6 Sep 5, 2013
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh geez, been away too long and it appears I have been hoodwinked? I thought it was an honest question.
I could be wrong, but I thought I got a distinct whiff of Murinae.
Katydid wrote:
Do you have a link by chance to this debate? What is the name of Meyer's new book?
Yeah,'Darwin's Doubt' as Sub said. Easy to find on Amazon, although the comments on the reviews are far too numerous to narrow down much in particular. It's fair to say it's messy in there. I know Dr Hurd turned up in Dave Snoke's glowing review of the book, who if anyone may recall was Behe's partner in crime.
Ranger88

Ascot Vale, Australia

#7 Sep 5, 2013
Katydid wrote:
Begin your research with how CaCO3 appeared in the environment. Then research how and why this was replaced by a phosphate based mineralization.
Then look into the expression of the RUNX proteins.
This will give you a good start in your research.
I've gone through a number of articles on how CaCO3 appeared, but as you say that is in the environment such as limestone. I couldn't find anything that talked about how it appeared in a living organism.

The idea of mineralization hardening the calcium and other minerals into shell, cartilage, bone etc makes sense, but for that to occur an organism must already have the base minerals in their structure. This is the point I am struggling to find much writing on.

It seems to be the same with the RUNX proteins. The articles I found all trace it back to single proteins in early life, but none addressed how it first appeared.

The only possibility I came across was that an organism could pick-up new information from its environment. So the CaCO3 for example appeared, and was picked up by life. However for that to occur, it would have to happen in a single generation and be passed on. Life would either carry the base mineral or it wouldn't, there can't be any middle ground.

However such a sudden and sporadic change doesn't seem to fit with evolution. Is there anything else I can look into?

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#8 Sep 5, 2013
Ranger88 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've gone through a number of articles on how CaCO3 appeared, but as you say that is in the environment such as limestone. I couldn't find anything that talked about how it appeared in a living organism.
The idea of mineralization hardening the calcium and other minerals into shell, cartilage, bone etc makes sense, but for that to occur an organism must already have the base minerals in their structure. This is the point I am struggling to find much writing on.
It seems to be the same with the RUNX proteins. The articles I found all trace it back to single proteins in early life, but none addressed how it first appeared.
The only possibility I came across was that an organism could pick-up new information from its environment. So the CaCO3 for example appeared, and was picked up by life. However for that to occur, it would have to happen in a single generation and be passed on. Life would either carry the base mineral or it wouldn't, there can't be any middle ground.
However such a sudden and sporadic change doesn't seem to fit with evolution. Is there anything else I can look into?
Okay, so we are going to go back further than the RUNX proteins and skeletogenesis (remember that RUNX2 deficient mice lack bone).

Osteoblasts secrete ECM proteins. Hydroxyapatite crystallized on the proteins (calcium carbonate, which had been used over millions of years to build all forms of marine exoskeletons, was replaced by calcium phosphate, mostly in the form of calcium hydroxyapatite)(and there is tons of info out there as to why).

Most of the genes for the mineralizing proteins arose from a common ancestor by gene duplication to form the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein (SCPP) family. The SCPP family though arose from the SPARC family and SPARC was critical for initial mineralization. Research shows that SPARC and SPARCL1 initially arose by gene duplication, and subsequent tandem gene duplications generated the many SCPP genes.

There are literally dozens of peer reviewed articles out there on the SCPP and SPARC families, do some research.
Ranger88 wrote:
<quoted text> However such a sudden and sporadic change doesn't seem to fit with evolution. Is there
Tens of millions of years is hardly sudden, nor was it sporadic. The period of diversification during the Cambrian Period is no longer referred to as the Cambrian "Explosion" due to the misconception of "sudden". It is now called the "Cambrian Diversification".

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#9 Sep 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe it is "Darwin's Doubt". And like most books of that sort it was already debunked before it was released to the public.
Thank you SZ.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#10 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong, but I thought I got a distinct whiff of Murinae.
<quoted text>
Yeah,'Darwin's Doubt' as Sub said. Easy to find on Amazon, although the comments on the reviews are far too numerous to narrow down much in particular. It's fair to say it's messy in there. I know Dr Hurd turned up in Dave Snoke's glowing review of the book, who if anyone may recall was Behe's partner in crime.
Holy Cow, Donald Prothero's review had over 2000 comments! I see that Casey Luskin also reviewed it, a glowing five stars. 8^)

Anybody here read it?
Ranger88

Ascot Vale, Australia

#11 Sep 5, 2013
I wasn't specifically trying to get bogged down in bones, I was really trying to use that as an example for my point. Your response is a good summary of what most of the articles point out, but they all seem to make the assumption that the required building blocks are already there.

If the calcium carbonate molecule already existed on Earth before life, then is it right to say that life picked it up from the environment? Or does the theory say that it evolved from life as a protein over millions of years independently of what already existed on Earth?

It is these stages of how life added new information to its DNA that I am interested in, rather then the process of how it turned the calcium to bone over time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#12 Sep 6, 2013
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy Cow, Donald Prothero's review had over 2000 comments! I see that Casey Luskin also reviewed it, a glowing five stars. 8^)
Anybody here read it?
Nah, I'm too fond of my brain cells to lose that many. Luskin and the rest of Meyer's pals all got advance copies, but strangely enough no advance copies were sent to anyone in the scientific community.

And in all those comments there was still nobody who could tell us what the scientific theory of ID is.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#13 Sep 6, 2013
Ranger88 wrote:
.
If the calcium carbonate molecule already existed on Earth before life, then is it right to say that life picked it up from the environment? Or does the theory say that it evolved from life as a protein over millions of years independently of what already existed on Earth?
Calcium carbonate is not a protein.
Ranger88 wrote:
It is these stages of how life added new information to its DNA that I am interested in, rather then the process of how it turned the calcium to bone over time.
I showed you how the information was added.

You can read about RNA world, or read about the more recent research by chemists whom are about a breath away from showing that the building blocks of DNA formed spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth or about the newly created synthetic genome that is able to self-replicate.

Then you can read about how environmental stressors, chemical reactions and mechanisms are able to modify a base pair in the DNA strand to create a mutation, and this modification can lead to the creation of a new protein or enzyme.

You cannot relay one or two terms of biochemistry and then genetics into one or two posts on TOPIX.
Ranger88

Ascot Vale, Australia

#14 Sep 6, 2013
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
You can read about RNA world, or read about the more recent research by chemists whom are about a breath away from showing that the building blocks of DNA formed spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth or about the newly created synthetic genome that is able to self-replicate.
What a silly paragraph that is! That's no different a comment then the anti evolution comments people make that get people on this forum so upset. No matter how close research is to 'showing' something, with one tiny gap in the answer it might not be possible to solve.

Nothing you wrote explains where the building blocks come from, it only explains the theory of what is happening once they are there.. Clearly this forum is not the right place for the question. Perhaps some aspects of evolution have been physically shown, but so much of the theory is based on assumptions. The data available and loose time frames can be rearranged so many different ways to still end up with what appears to be a logical answer. It is so frustrating that evolution has become a man made religion. Observation is one thing, but people have confused hypothesis with fact!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Sep 6, 2013
Man I hate being right all the time.
Ranger88 wrote:
What a silly paragraph that is! That's no different a comment then the anti evolution comments people make that get people on this forum so upset. No matter how close research is to 'showing' something, with one tiny gap in the answer it might not be possible to solve.
You are under the mistaken impression that any gaps of knowledge mean that well established scientific theory could crumble at any minute. In actual fact it is your paragraph here that is rather silly.

So go back 20 generations to your great(x18) grandpappy and tell me what he had for breakfast dinner and tea every day of his life. If you can't provide us with that then the theory that you are ultimately the product of his loins is in serious doubt. After all no-one has considered the possibility that your great(x17) grandpa came off an assembly line. Or maybe even you did.
Ranger88 wrote:
Nothing you wrote explains where the building blocks come from, it only explains the theory of what is happening once they are there..
If you're referring to abiogenesis the theory is in no way affected by not explaining its origins because it doesn't have to. If you're referring to the development of hard-bodied shells just before and during the Cambrian explosion life gets its material from the environment that surrounds it, same way we get our food.
Ranger88 wrote:
Clearly this forum is not the right place for the question. Perhaps some aspects of evolution have been physically shown, but so much of the theory is based on assumptions.
Same as EVERY scientific theory. But THEN those assumptions are TESTED. And evolution has been passing those tests for over 100 years.
Ranger88 wrote:
The data available and loose time frames can be rearranged so many different ways to still end up with what appears to be a logical answer.
This is wrong. When we find a new hominid fossil and find it goes on a different hominid branch to what we originally thought that's not really a problem for the hypothesis of common ancestry. However if we find a fossil with feathers with three middle-ear bones then we would have a SERIOUS problem.

For some reason you boys haven't found one of those yet.
Ranger88 wrote:
It is so frustrating that evolution has become a man made religion. Observation is one thing, but people have confused hypothesis with fact!
The hypothesis is then tested. Look here, I can prove it to you:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

This is why Darwin became possibly the most famous man in biology. Not for inventing a religion, but because he turned out to be mostly correct. Most educated people on planet Earth consider this common knowledge.

If you noticed when you first posted I said I smelled a rat, and that was just from your first post. Certain sentences made kittens nervous. On the same day I checked you out and found that on another forum you were also skeptical of another piece of anti-kitten propaganda that cannot be named (has the initials GW, and we shall speak no more of it here), but it is telling since anti-meteorology and anti-biology more often than not appear to go hand in hand. I was waiting for you to finally drop the charade.

So you'll have to excuse us if no-one takes you seriously in your claim that ALL science is wrong because you say so when you didn't even know that calcium carbonate was not a protein.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Sep 6, 2013
Oh, and uh, I haven't even mentioned ERV's yet.

You got a LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOT of work to do before you can demonstrate that all of science and biology in particular is flat wrong just because you think the Almighty didit differently.

Frankly I don't think He cares about the petty limitations you try to place on Him.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#17 Sep 6, 2013
Ranger88 wrote:
There has always been a question amongst the debate about the origin of life in the beginning, but what about the origin of each stage of evolution?
Ranger88 wrote:
Nothing you wrote explains where the building blocks come from, it only explains the theory of what is happening once they are there.
Yes, that is correct, I explained what happened "once they are here", BECAUSE that is what you asked, "what about the origin of each stage of evolution?" Your exact words.

Oh please, you are so disingenuous. In your first post you clearly asked how mineralization occurred. Why all of the pretense? Your first post should have said, "Where did the chemicals come from that formed the building blocks?" You never asked me that until this last disingenuous post. If you had in your first post, instead of playing games and pretending you were interested in mineralization I would have clearly said that you are speaking of abiogenesis.

Did water soluble phosphorus arrive via meterorites from Mars? There is a lot of evidence that supports a yes. Do martian meteorites on earth contain boron? Definitely Yes.

No one knows with certainty where or how the chemicals arrived.

Does this change the fact that evolution is the reason for the diversity and complexity of life on earth today? Absolutely not.

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#18 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong, but I thought I got a distinct whiff of Murinae.
Touché. Those olfactory powers were spot on.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#19 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude abides.

;-p
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#20 Sep 6, 2013
Ranger88 wrote:
no matter how far back you trace the evolution of minute changes leading to a complex bone, there still has to be a point where life has added the ingredient that it never previously had.
So my question is, how can that be?
An honest view of science demands that a gradual creation of a skeletal structure via the Darwinian hypothesis could be impossible.

Darwin wrote:

"Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps." — Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Darwin's faith that all life descended from a single cell belongs with all the other non-theorems in science. Clearly, at this moment, the Common Descent Postulate only has faith to support it and not a shred of science. "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman. Where is the sensible model from confirmed experimental evidence showing that a gradual transition from invertebrates to vertebrates is possible?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 28 min Zog Has-fallen 51
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 35 min ChristineM 164,954
Creationism is a Fantasy 43 min Zog Has-fallen 7
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Dogen 3,302
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 83,943
Time 14 hr Beagle 3
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
More from around the web