Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 24, 2018, 15:55 (2073 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I’m examining the logic. Regardless of common descent, do you believe modern science’s findings that the earliest forms of life were single-cell organisms?

Yes, but it's in the phrasing. Life began with single cells, or single cells were the first life forms. The first implies common descent. I believe they were the first life forms, absolutely.

DHW: Lucy was hailed as a huge discovery, and we marvel that we now have about 300 fossils of Australopithecus afariensis, who existed for about A MILLION YEARS. But you expect to find the fossil of a one-off failure.

No, I expect to find mostly failures if the evolutionary process is happening all the time, as should you. The successes would tend to put themselves in places where fossilization is unlikely. And if you believe in punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian layer should absolutely be chalk full of them.

One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. From dinosaurs to us, far more than 2,100 samples, and not a SINGLE example of a failed evolutionarily isolate one-off. Not even ONE. Who cares about Lucy? Look at the big picture and notice what is NOT in it!

dhw: 2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

Similarity and differences are not evidence for genetic differentiation through inheritance. Similarity is evidence for similarity. Separate species are evidence for separate species. See, evidence of similarity and differences. There IS no EVIDENCE of morphological change from one thing to another.

There is no argument about microbial single celled organisms being the original life. I have said as much often. That is a straw man. The REAL challenge is in the second (bolded) part. Challenge accepted: The Cambrian Explosion. Punctuated Equilibrium.

DHW: I see evolution as a RESPONSE to changing environments (not prior planning)..Self-preservation at the most basic level is what drives most organisms, and it requires intelligence to cope with or exploit changing conditions. Most organisms have eventually failed....

You jump from bacteria straight to humans. Extremophiles on both ends of the spectrum both in terms of intelligence and their ability to exploit the environment. We are the outliers, as are they. On the bell curve, 'most organisms' fall within the bigger part of the bell curve, being neither as metabolically simple and thus resilient as bacteria, nor as intelligent and 'handy' as humans.

Creatures other than humans do not 'exploit' their environment as humans do; they are slaves to it. Show me a woodland creature that regrows a burned forest. If anything, the fact that 'most organisms have eventually failed' is a nail in Darwin's coffin. If they are so clever at modifying their own genetics, why aren't there more 'successes' for each major environmental shift?

TONY: The problem with your proposal is... it would either have to happen to two creatures at the exact same time, both of which had to survive, and in a single geographical area, so that there would be a breed-able pair.

DHW: Why is that a problem?...

It's a problem because: We have no evidence of morphological change. We have overwhelming evidence of creatures being UNABLE to adapt, and simply dying off. That's why, as you said, 'most organisms fail'. Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

dhw: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

I have expressed this thought repeatedly, also. I view it as: There is a grand design, of which we know only a minuscule fraction. Life has been used in furtherance of that design. The weather patterns are part of this design. They do need to be managed, but not micromanaged. The Sun, moon, geological processes, and life itself all contribute towards controlling the weather. Now, when we design a building, we design it with climate in mind. Ideal temperature and humidity. We might use some form of earth or wood for thermal mass(literally the earth and trees). We might put plants inside to help freshen the air, or an air conditioner (polar caps). That air conditioner would have an air handler/blower (oceans) We might use windows with curtains (atmosphere and clouds) to control heat intake. We might hire staff to clean, fertilize, and tend the home (Life). And if all do their part, the home thrives and is beautiful. God is the master of the house. He decides what the right conditions are and when. The staff implements. As needs change, sometimes the staff is replaced. We are like the evil butler killing off the house staff. Could he manipulate it himself, yes, but I do not think he does it directly the majority of the time.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.