views on evolution

But the statement purporting to be made by Francisco Ayala is actually made by Roger Lewin.

That is happened which way? That the fossils were laid down in order of increasing complexity? That much is proven, isn't it?

There are pieces of the puzzle demonstrated. Here's one:

The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA.

The illustration I gave was to ask if you propose to alter the science curriculum. As I'm sure you know, some US school board officials, representing Creationists, still resist some of these materials.

Also, do you say there is no proof of evolution, or of abiogenesis, or both?

I guess that depends on the standard of proof. As a starter, I would offer the observations of microbes evolving in vitro and the synthesis of amino acids under the simulated primordial conditions. It's something more than just pictures. And some of this can practically be done at home.

Pasteur was late in the game, as he himself began to realize the existence of microbes, and the cause for what ancient Greeks might have assumed was "spontaneous generation". Pasteur is one of many who contributed to the obsolescence of the Law of Biogenesis.

But it has nothing to do with evolution, or abiogenesis.

Or do you say that it does?

Theories fall out of evidence. Evidence up on the shelf is not sacrosanct. It's only the best evidence. Tomorrow some jar is coming down and a better one is going back up. I think that the people who bring innovation will often be qualifying, if not discrediting, an older study. Cross checking is an essential feature of the sciences. It can take monumental effort, a lot more than just "for shit and giggles".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it was disproved when a bacterium was synthesized.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that's a syllabus for a course in evolution, which only considers our neck of the woods.

Several hundred million years per phase isn't enough time? Seems like things were percolating and incubating right here pretty well. Imagine what it took to lay down all these deposits. Imagine the earth covered in a mat of cyanobacteria, for what you might think was an eternity. Yet it finally crashed, and in a relatively short time, adaptation was running fast and hard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i am not proposing anything.
i simply pointed out the facts as i know them.
like i told trippy, make of them as you will.

 

bits and pieces?
add this to the bin:
http://www.genetics.org/content/175/1/267.full.pdf

 

Why I go for an incubator planet is that I believe the Earth has never been suitable for abiogenesis here. OK it was suitable for sustaining cyanobacteria but not to produce the cyanobacteria.

Look at the conditions in the laboratory experiments where touches of the abiogenesis theory are tested. Do you think Earth ever provided similar conditions for the millennia required? I don't therefore introduce an incubator planet. Panspermia is just about proven as a viable possibility. Therefore rather than one common ancestor there could well be multiple common ancestors each tending to its own resulting species.
The thought of multiple common ancestors keeps popping up. Is that a possibility? Maybe viruses which were able to infect a range of cells kept swapping sections of DNA so we all end up looking similar DNA wise but really different throughout the entire time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

along with evolutionists interpretation of the fossil record it seems.

 

i want you to prove these allegations against me by posting the article in question in it's entirety.

 

All you have to do is look up stephen gould fossil record poor evidence. You will be directed to sites that show how he is taken out of context to to use a propeganda for the evolution deniers, which is exactly what you did.

You should take responsibility for your dishonesty. I suppose it is possible that you just lifted that information from a fundy christian site, assuming that a christian site would be honest and have integrity... BBBWWWAaaaaaaaaa

 

Of course, even if we didn't have any fossils at all there would still be more than enough evidence to validate evolution by natural selection. The genetic record is really all we need, but having the other evidence really is a boon.