Cellist : "Well now, if you're talking about probabilities .... I would say that the complexity we see in life coming from chance mutations is the most improbable explanation."
> Nobody has ever stated (besides the Watchtower) that life came from "chance mutations". Stanley Miller elegantly demonstrated in 1953 that amino acids could be spontaneously generated in primordial elements simply by applying pulses of light, thus mimicking the earliest state of the planet. Amino acids are the building blocks of all life. The probability of life spontaneously arising in such a primordial enviroment is, in fact, very HIGH. Your argument regarding "complexity" reveals a basic misunderstanding of molecular biology: complexity is an ILLUSION. All single and multi-cellular life forms exist as COMPOSITES of extremely simple biochemical and bioelectrical reactions. Complexity only arises when very simple "components" are layered and multiplied via very simple, reproducible molecular chain reactions.
Cellist: "When you consider that the mutation has to occur in the reproductive genes and that the vast majority of mutations will be harmful rather than beneficial, I just can't see it happening."
> Again, this is completely wrong. The vast majority of genetic mutations occurring randomly in a given population are NEUTRAL, i.e. neither beneficial NOR harmful. The only people still believing that most mutations are "harmful" is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and their "science" dept.
A neutralmutation is one that does not give an advantage or a disadvantage to the individual possessing the mutation. It doesn't change his or her probability of leaving descendants. Most mutations fall in this category.
Neutral drift is the concept that a neutral mutation can spread throughout a population, so that eventually everyone inherits it. There is nothing specific to cause this, but then again, nothing specific prevents it either. The chance of it happening is low if the population is large. but the chance is high if the population has very few individuals
Cellist: "How can a partial feather help a reptile? How would it give a lizard a reproductive advantage?"
Why should it? The point is irrelevant and the theory of evolution would never make any such claim. Reproductive "advantages" are merely one small component to evolutionary theory. Genetic mutations in the context of evolutionary theory only provide advantages to individuals within a population that have this mutation when the ENVIRONMENTAL demands change. To provide a simple example: Whales and dolphins once were land dwelling mammals. Once environmental pressures and conditions changed for a specific subpopulation within their ancestors, a select few of them possessing the genetic potential to adapt to an aquatic environment took to the water. The rest is history:
Cellist: "With the god angle, all you have to come up with is, "Where did God come from?"
LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!! Um, no, you have to come up with a hell of a lot more than that! To name a few extant issues with the "god angle":
1) Why would a supremely intelligent god create such miserably and POORLY "designed" creatures? Did he "design" CANCER, HUNTINGTONS, PARKINSONS, SCHIZOPHRENIA, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, CYSTIC FIBROSIS, ARTHRITIS, PNEUMONIA, VIRUSES, MENINGITIS, LUPUS, etc etc? If your god really did "design" this menagerie of incompetence, then he is only worthy of mockery and scorn, because he is an idiot!
2) Why would a supremely intelligent "god" have the need to "design" an earth full of carbon-based lifeforms to begin with? Was he bored? Tired of picking his nose in the heavens? Wanted to have some fun? THINK ABOUT IT. Does the entire PREMISE of some sky-god deciding to create this mess, make even one IOTA of common sense?
3) Your question is hardly "all you have to come up with". Its far more serious than that. Where did god come from? It always existed? What does that mean? You claim that the complexity of life DEMANDS a creator, well unfortunately you shoot yourself in the foot with this very same argument: If feeble little humans NEED a "designer", surely your "GOD" who is infinitely MORE complex, should of course, by logical extension, ITSELF require an even MORE complex designer? You cant have your cake and eat it too. If biological life is so complex that it requires some hypothetical designer, than ALL complexity within the universe requires a designer, including GOD. Now, where, prey tell, is gods designer?
Cellist: "With evolution, not only do you have to come up with the answer to "Where did the first living cell come from?" But you also have to answer that same question every step of the way with each new life form."
> Dead Wrong. Evolutionary theory makes no such claim. ALL carbon-based life on this planet SHARE THE SAME BASIC building blocks for life. We all use the same, identical biochemical reactions. Examining the phylogenetic tree reveals that there is gradual and OBVIOUS changes between forms over millions of years. The fossil record for homo sapiens is very nearly complete, with most of the transitional species having been identified. Not only do we have the ANATOMICAL and anthropological evidence for the evolution of the hominid form, we have reams of evidence for the CULTURAL evolution of humanity. To name a few, the Olduwai tools of Homo Erectus, the Mousterian traditions of the Neanderthals, the primitive stone tools created by Homo Habilis; all evidence pointing the gradual evolution of the human body and brain over millions of years. This does not even begin to describe our remarkable similarities, both in terms of genetics, behaviour and anatomy to our closest PRIMATE cousins, that still share the planet with us.
Cellist: "According to all the archaelogical and biology books I've ever read, the various life forms "appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record". Of course, they gloss that bit over with lots of speculation."
Very interesting. Please provide the citations and page numbers you refer to. What exactly is the "glossing over" and what exactly is the "speculation", can you provide us with your references and citations? The only explanation for such accounts would be 1) the book you are referring to was written by the Watchtower Society, or b) the book(s) you are referring to were written 40-50 years ago before the overwhelming appearance of new fossil evidence for TRANSITIONAL life forms. To name but a few, we now have a transitional life form between fish and land dwelling amphibious animals:
The transition from fish to amphibian illustrated by body form and skeletons, with details of skulls and vertebrae. (A) Osteolepiform fish Eusthenopteron; (B) panderichthyid fish Panderichthys; and (C) labyrinthodont amphibian Ichthyostega. (From Ahlberg & Milner [1994], reprinted with permission from Nature, copyright © 1994 Macmillan Magazines Limited, and from Per Ahlberg.)
And from reptiles to birds, SEE the following references for a small sampling of the evidence:
- Chen, P., Z. Dong and S. Zhen, 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391: 147-152.
- Chiappe, L. M., 2002. Osteology of the flightless Patagopteryx deferrariisi from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). In Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 281-316.
- Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
- Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2001. A new skull of Gobipteryx minuta (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert. American Museum Novitates 3346: 1-15. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-346-01-0001.pdf
