Evolution versus Creationism

[AngryZealot]

Bollocks. Your body contains more bacterial cells than human cells. There are about 40 million bacteria in a single gram of soil. One estimate puts the number of bacteria on the planet at 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and if we count viruses, there are about 10 virions for every bacterium. The most common and diverse animal is the nematode; if every other living thing disappeared, you could still see the outlines of every creature left by nematodes. Complex life is an artifact of perception: this is a microbial world.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bollocks. Your body contains more bacterial cells than human cells. There are about 40 million bacteria in a single gram of soil. One estimate puts the number of bacteria on the planet at 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and if we count viruses, there are about 10 virions for every bacterium. The most common and diverse animal is the nematode; if every other living thing disappeared, you could still see the outlines of every creature left by nematodes. Complex life is an artifact of perception: this is a microbial world.

I didn't say there was more complex life than cellular since clearly all complex life is made up of less complex components. But nature has repeatedly built complex life out of less complex life. Complex life must be beneficial to the survival of less complex life.

If you want to talk about "perceptural bias" and say that it is a "microbial world", then I would say that more than a "microbial world" it is simply an electrochemical world and microbes are merely one manifestation of that and a minor one too boot.

 

[AngryZealot]

I was responding to your statement "life seems to favor 'more complex' rather than 'less complex' forms". Life favors simplicity wherever possible. If you took away every bacterium, nearly all other life on this planet would perish. If you took away all multicellular life, bacteria would continue to thrive. We are mere guests on this planet. Perhaps that's what creationists are so afraid of.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was responding to your statement "life seems to favor 'more complex' rather than 'less complex' forms". Life favors simplicity wherever possible. If you took away every bacterium, nearly all other life on this planet would perish. If you took away all multicellular life, bacteria would continue to thrive. We are mere guests on this planet. Perhaps that's what creationists are so afraid of.

How about if I reword it to say: life is persistent in using bateria and simple cellular life to create more complex life forms?

If evolutionary history is any guide, if you took away all multicellular life and left only bacteria, evolution would recreate the multicellular life and proceed to then evolve into more complex forms.

Why did/does life persistently evolve past bacteria and single celled life forms? Could it be because a more complicated environment involving more complex life forms is a better environment for the survival of bacteria and single celled life? Bacteria and singled celled life may be more apt to survive as part of a more complex entity than not.

 

[AngryZealot]

I see what you mean now. I guess I would agree with it. Macroscopic life opens up many new niches for microscopic life, and in that sense it's beneficial, but I think it's too anthropomorphic to say that complex life evolves because it's better for simple life.

 

[Perfection]

The most common and diverse animal is the nematode; if every other living thing disappeared, you could still see the outlines of every creature left by nematodes.

I've heard that's an exaggeration.

I think I heard it from Dawkins, but it could be Dennett.

 

[AngryZealot]

I've heard it from several sources. Maybe it's one of those things people hear and never question because it sounds so good.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I see what you mean now. I guess I would agree with it. Macroscopic life opens up many new niches for microscopic life, and in that sense it's beneficial, but I think it's too anthropomorphic to say that complex life evolves because it's better for simple life.

Its not just people--all plants and animals are more complex life forms.

Would complex life have evolved if it wasn't a "better" environment for simple life?

 

[AngryZealot]

Yes. Organisms evolve in the direction that's beneficial for them. If it helps others then so be it, but that has no effect.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes. Organisms evolve in the direction that's beneficial for them. If it helps others then so be it, but that has no effect.

So one might say that the evolution of life has been multi-layered in that as life becomes more complex, the more complex organisms evolved along with the cellular/bacterial life in them did also. Human evolution is in reality a combination of the evolutionary path of thousands of different organisms.

Is it anthropomorphic perceptual bias that leads us to claim that a person is a single entity when in fact we know it is not and that 90% of our cells are visitors who have taken up permanent residence?

 

[Perfection]

So one might say that the evolution of life has been multi-layered in that as life becomes more complex, the more complex organisms evolved along with the cellular/bacterial life in them did also. Human evolution is in reality a combination of the evolutionary path of thousands of different organisms.

Is it anthropomorphic perceptual bias that leads us to claim that a person is a single entity when in fact we know it is not and that 90% of our cells are visitors who have taken up permanent residence?

While this gets into heavy semantics, I wouldn't say so. The reason: humans are their own by-and-large genetically distinct unit. Bacteria do not undergo the human meiosis and conception cycle to propagate.

Highly linked evolutionary paths is not something that only mutuilistic parasites enjoy, deer change, wolves change, wolves change, deer change.

 

[AngryZealot]

So one might say that the evolution of life has been multi-layered in that as life becomes more complex, the more complex organisms evolved along with the cellular/bacterial life in them did also. Human evolution is in reality a combination of the evolutionary path of thousands of different organisms.

Is it anthropomorphic perceptual bias that leads us to claim that a person is a single entity when in fact we know it is not and that 90% of our cells are visitors who have taken up permanent residence?

If you mean person as physical entity, then I would say so. We co-evolve with our companions. They defend us against more hostile organisms and produce compounds we can't make on our own, and our evolution is irrevocably coupled to their presence. Perfection is right that we're not the same genetically, but evolutionarily I would consider it one unit. I guess it depends on the scale you're talking about. But again as Perception says, this opinion can extend to other interactions. It's complicated . I think the concept of an organism falls apart at the molecular level or in the dimension of time, but that's getting a little too philosophical for this thread.

 

[Perfection]

Well, Angry, I'd clearly say it's not one unit. A strain of intestinal fauna, may be helpful for humans, and tend to stick around us, so its fate and ours are quite linked, but it's not at all impossible to think that it might migrate to another species of mammal or that another bacterial strain will invade and out compete it. Evolutionarily the fate of the two are linked, but not inextricably so.

 

[Birdjaguar]

While this gets into heavy semantics, I wouldn't say so. The reason: humans are their own by-and-large genetically distinct unit. Bacteria do not undergo the human meiosis and conception cycle to propagate.

Highly linked evolutionary paths is not something that only mutuilistic parasites enjoy, deer change, wolves change, wolves change, deer change.

If you mean person as physical entity, then I would say so. We co-evolve with our companions. They defend us against more hostile organisms and produce compounds we can't make on our own, and our evolution is irrevocably coupled to their presence. Perfection is right that we're not the same genetically, but evolutionarily I would consider it one unit. I guess it depends on the scale you're talking about. But again as Perception says, this opinion can extend to other interactions. It's complicated . I think the concept of an organism falls apart at the molecular level or in the dimension of time, but that's getting a little too philosophical for this thread.

Well, Angry, I'd clearly say it's not one unit. A strain of intestinal fauna, may be helpful for humans, and tend to stick around us, so its fate and ours are quite linked, but it's not at all impossible to think that it might migrate to another species of mammal or that another bacterial strain will invade and out compete it. Evolutionarily the fate of the two are linked, but not inextricably so.

I don't disagree with either of you. I would add that the internal and external co-evolution of living things is part of what drives greater complexity. A more complicated world requires more complicated adaptation.

 

[Perfection]

I don't disagree with either of you. I would add that the internal and external co-evolution of living things is part of what drives greater complexity. A more complicated world requires more complicated adaptation.

Definitely, the reason trees grow big and tall is to drown out other trees.

 

[Flying Pig]

But even after repeated evolutionary setbacks (masss extinctions) life seems to favor "more complex" rather than "less complex" forms.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Oh, and by the way; you're wrong! Just look at the numver of species of bacteria next to the number of species of human - billions to one; or billions of billions to about ten in history.

 

[Smidlee]

The language you use illustrates that you simply aren't following the counter-arguments we've put forth: There is no guide, no search, no intent, no consciousness: nothing that implies a directionality to evolution, excepting that those individuals that are built from a genetic code that results in more offspring producing more offspring will, with time, dominate the population. The outliers in the population - both geographically and physically, will tend to drift further and further from the 'average middle', and eventually will not be able to interbreed. This is the essence of natural selection and speciation. There is nothing controversial about it.

This is an statement of faith so there not much to debate here. It's been stated that today even most biologist realizes you need more than a blind search even with the almighty "natural selection".

Novel body plans, physiological features and processes, and ways of living don't appear overnight (in reality, nor in the fossil record) - as far as I know there is no irrefutable evidence of a structure that appeared with no antecedent; nothing that can't be explained by extrapolating backwards in time, through small changes from one successful individual to another.

You can always explain it as incredible dumb luck no matter how small the odds are. This does not mean it's the most reasonable nor likely explanation.

I intentionally chose an old example because it seems that many of the ID and Creationist folks resort to them. Also, my personal library is heavy on the Steven Jay Gould essays, so it's easy for me to find fairly quickly. But speaking to Muller Cells specifically, I'm not sure why you think they are counter-evidence to the natural origin of the human eye
If anything, it reinforces the idea that evolution builds upon the structure or template that's already there. In this case, individuals that had glial cells that enhanced the propagation with light were better off... There's no evidence of intent, design, engineering, or UFOs.

The argument is to find flaw with our inverted retinas and called it bad design. As Dawkins put it no intelligent designer would have done it that way. Muller cells themselves address the issue of the so called disadvantages of the inverted eye. Muller cells was discover after Gould death so he arguments can be likely become outdated as our knowledge of living cells increase.

Exactly how does the "Blind Watchmaker" create the complex eyes so everyone can see?

 

[Flying Pig]

I can explain that one!

• Some fish evolves a cell which can detect the prescence of light. This cell gives it a small advantage, since it provides a benefit at no cost, and so over millions of years it becomes dominant
• One of this new breed of fish evolves a modification to it's cell so that it can detect the levels of light. This works a fair advantage, letting it sense depth, and since there is no extra cost involved to maintain it it becomes dominant. We now have a population of Fish MkIII.
• One of these fishes evolves a modification to its bunch of cells (it probably would be by now) to eneble it to detect the frequency of light - ie; colour, and this lets it see the world like we do when we squint. This gives a huge advantage, so this Fish MkIV becomes dominant
• The process repeats like that, with small modifications that give a small advantage at a smaller cost, until the Fish MkXX has an eye like ours, millions of years after the first Fishius Blindius evolved.

I rest my case.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's a term used to describe natural selection, based on one of Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the Existance of God fused with Dawkins. There should not be any consciousness implied.

 

[Flying Pig]

What people need to understand is that Natural Selection is not random. If it was random then of course it wouldn't work - how would you get a 747 by blowing a hurricane through a scrapyard? But by sticking all of your scrap together randomly a billion times, and by dismantling everthing that didn't fly, maybe...