Evolution of complexity/information

This is confusing the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.The facts are that once the earth was populated with single celled organisms. Later by somewhat larger forms. Later by others and so on. As the time gets closer to the present they are more like what is extant today.The fact is that life on earth has changed over time.Now how did it manage to do that? One explanation is the ToE. It seeem to be the only one that deals with the near totality of all that we observe. So it may not be "proven" but there aren't any contenders in the ring with it right now.

Reading back through the thread I found this statement and it raised a question in my mind. How do we know that bacteria are any more complex today than they were three billion years ago? If no organelles are fossilized, then what evidence is there that bacterial complexity has increased? What IS the simplest bacteria to ever live?

Hi Hangdawg, I think you should be careful not to confuse 'leaps in faith' with 'gaps in knowledge'. One of the great strengths IMO of the scientific method (and what I percieve as one of the major problems with fundamentalism), is that it ever packs up and says "right, we know everything about that now!". In other words, there will always be gaps in our knowledge, and the only thing we can say is that "judging by the evidence, this is the most likely explanation"So (he says trying to swing back on topic), what does this mean regarding the evolution of information and complexity?1)We do know that information can increase (contrary to many creationist's claims), and we have a pretty good idea of how it would do that. Pink Sasquatch has done a good job in summarising the mechanisms (duplication, rearrangement etc).2)We know that these increases in information (ie mutations) can cause the kind of changes required if evolution is to explain the origins of all of the species alive today.3)However we do not know everything! If the only thing that will convince you that evolution occurred is a DIY mutation-by-mutation guide from primordial soup to man then you will be waiting a while.I must admit that if all we had to go on was the evidence summarised above I would find it hard to accept that life just 'found a way', but it doesn't stand on its' own. As with everthing that gets discussed here, it is just part of a larger framework of facts that support evolution (which probably explains why it is so easy to drift off-topic). Therefore by taking everything together I can confidently say that the most likely explanation is that the complexity that is me is a result of mutation and natural selection. To say that evolution can't be right because it can't explain the exact evolution of the eye is to do the rest of the evidence a great disservice.I hope that was roughly on-topic and of interest As for the other things that you mentioned in your last post: Feel free to start another topic that addresses these issues - I'm sure you won't be short of people willing to discuss them. This is touching on another topic: using DNA sequences to find common ancestry. It is true that a mitochondrial eve can be traced, but unfortunately for the creationists you mentioned, it also can be traced back even further to a 'mitochondrial Ooook'. I started a thread a while ago that kind of deals with the issues you're raising, you're welcome to join me in EvC Forum: The "common creator" myth ('the "common creator" myth'.)Shamelessly trying to drum up interest for my own topic I know but the only people who have posted anything there so far are me and Nosy (in his various guises). This message has been edited by Ooook!, 07-18-2004 08:50 PMThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 07-18-2004 09:04 PM

Thank you for your reply. I agree. I guess what I'm thinking is that when people claim evolution is fact, then they automatically make these leaps of faith, whereas if it remains theory, these things are simply lack of knowledge.I can see how the evolutionary theory is VERY persuasively the most likely explanation as no other accepted theories are in the ring. It almost makes me want to devote myself to studying the hydroplate theory to see if it really is true or astrophysics to see if light really has slowed down, so that an alternative might be offered... anyway... I still haven't been convinced that natural selection and mutation can overcome these obstacles... but yes a mutation-by-mutation guide would go a long ways to convince me. OR if I accepted the common view that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, I would find it hard if not impossible to deny that the ToE is right. I understand. However, I am also not convinced of these other things that when added to evolutionary biology make it seem altogether an impregnable theory. If I were convinced of everything together, I would also have the same view as you. I'll take a look.

I don't agree that these are facts... but if I did, then I would find it hard if not impossible to deny the validity of the ToE. Oooo... all this is almost a life changing experience... I almost want to forget Mechanical engineering and be a scientist just to find out for myself what is right and put a new theory in the ring...

You're in a great area to investigate. During the Cambrian period much of what is now Texas was a reef system and shallow sea. Do a search for Cambrian sites in Texas and head out for some exploration. I think once you find a few limstome bands that are several hundred feet thick you may well change your mind. Who knows, you may just get to find a few trilobites on your own.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Darwin did it with a degree in theology. Who knows what you might do? Science isn't something that requires a degree; it just requires a degree's-worth of education in order to truly understand the methodology.

I've been out to my grandparents farm around Abilene and found tons of fossilized corals and shells and stuff just laying around on the ground. It is pretty cool. And I've definately got to go down to glenrose and check out those dinosaur & human footprints for myself. The pictures I saw had five toes a heel an arch! If these are real, I would without a doubt devote myself to investigating the hydroplate theory.Anyway... enough dreaming about the possibilities.

Well, you won't find any human foot prints at Glen Rose.So how quickly do you think limestone forms?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Way off topic, but I'll humor you with a reply. Keep telling yourself that, and maybe it will come true. Less than 20 years. I've seen pictures of a 20 year old basement laden with stalagtites and a picture of a spring in someone's front yard that developed a stalagmite taller than the house in a few years. If you want to talk about this, start a new topic and I'll attempt to participate although I won't be able to add my own knowledge based on the hydroplate theory, but only the knowledge of Walt Brown's discussion of how he thinks limestone formed, which you can read at the website Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood And of course I will be able to ask my own questions and possibly poke my own holes in the "millions of years" hypothesis. But whatever

Nah, we've been over Walt's stuff and the hydroplate theories way, way too mant times. There are plenty of threads on those dogs already.But take the time to travel around Texas and look at the limestone formations. Then see if you think they could be laid down in less than a few hundred millions of years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I hardly thing that the earth being old is enough on it's own to convince anyone of the ToE. It is a necessary not a sufficient condition. However, if the Earth were really 6,000 years old I'd have a heck of a time thinking that the ToE was right.Perhaps you should just hussle over to the dates and dating forum and read up on the "correlations" thread there. Age Correlations and an Old Earth

quote:

---

How do we know that bacteria are any more complex today than they were three billion years ago?

---

We see bacteria today gaining new enzyme function, new metabolic pathways, new surface proteins, new everything. There is no reason to believe that the same thing wasn't happening 3.5 billion years ago. In fact, I would hypothesize (using my imagination from a base of knowledge) that the rate of speciation was much higher 3.5 billion years ago than it is now. I say this because there were many open niches during that time. So, in my hypothesis, I have human observations of bacteria gaining complexity today and quite a few open niches 3.5 billion years ago. From this, I would conclude that it is very possible that bacteria were substantially less complex than they are today. Take the bacterial flagella, for example. This would have been one of the greatest advantages within the bacterial world. It allows motility, or the ability to beat other bacteria to a new food source. This is a huge advantage, and would have been selected for.

quote:

---

What IS the simplest bacteria to ever live?

---

No one knows, nor will they ever no (barring time travel). This has allowed practitioners of pseudo-science (eg Behe) to insert theories that are not supported by testable hypotheses or insert their favorite diety into this gap of knowledge. If you study up on your scientific history you will learn the dangers of inserting a diety into a scientific gap of knowledge. For example, Zeus is no longer credited with producing lightening. This is why science relies on natural mechanisms for natural phenomenon, because of it's testability and it's proven track record of finding the truth.PS. I am going back through the thread to try and answer your questions. I think I have some very important pieces of evidence, so stay tuned.

quote:

---

I agree. I guess what I'm thinking is that when people claim evolution is fact, then they automatically make these leaps of faith, whereas if it remains theory, these things are simply lack of knowledge.

---

Within the sciences, the TOE is so well supported that most scientists that aren't directly involved in the evolutionary sciences assume that it is true until shown otherwise. When a scientist says something is true, it usually means that it is true given the evidence collected up to this point. "True", "Fact", and "Proven" are used in science as a sort of shorthand, and probably to their detriment at times. Yes, ToE is still a theory that is being worked on today, and is still tested on a daily basis. There are gaps in our knowledge, but most have come to the conclusion that methodological naturalism is the best way to find those answers. Finding natural mechanisms for natural phenomena has a great track record and this mindset continues to allow scientists to make new discoveries.

quote:

---

I can see how the evolutionary theory is VERY persuasively the most likely explanation as no other accepted theories are in the ring. It almost makes me want to devote myself to studying the hydroplate theory to see if it really is true or astrophysics to see if light really has slowed down, so that an alternative might be offered... anyway...

---

Please do. There used to be a creationist named "True Creation" that was very much a YEC. Through his studies he moved more and more towards an old earth. Many feel that this kid will make a great geologist because he is able to look at ALL of the evidence and come up with well supported conclusions. However, in doing so he had to drop a young earth because of the evidence. That is all we ask, come to a conclusion that takes into account ALL of the evidence.

quote:

---

OR if I accepted the common view that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, I would find it hard if not impossible to deny that the ToE is right.

---

Once this thread dies down it may be time for you and some of us to start a discussion on the evidence that supports an old earth, especially now that we are all having a conversation instead of an "Am not" "Am too" school yard shouting match.

quote:

---

What I don't understand is the mechanics of how it gets there. In other words, how would a lens form?

---

I don't think anyone has posted this yet, so here is a great site that is simple and easy to understand. It lists the steps necessary to form a lensed eye from an eyespot. On the website, they calculate that it would take 1,829 steps (each step giving a 1% improvement) and 350,000 generations to go from an eyespot to a fully functioning lensed eye. Click on the hyperlinks as well.As far as a lens, it is made up material that is found elsewhere in the body (keratin I believe). Take the skin, for example. The top layers of skin are actually translucent, this is what gives skin its "shine". The top layers of skin are mostly keratin, a protein that creates a layer that stops bacteria from going through the skin. The body already had the right material for making a lens, it only took the right genes to be turned on in the right areas to get a lens.

quote:

---

What doesn't make perfect sense to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) is how the system of metamorphosis evolves by small steps because I can't imagine any possible way that it could happen by small steps.

---

Check this abstract out: What they are saying is that ancient insect species had three stages: pro-nymph ("baby"}, nymph (adolescent), an adult. These three stages developed into the three stages of insect metamorphosis that we see today. The authors also state that this is regulated by changes in the endocrine system (hormone levels). This is supported by the abstract below, where changes in hormone level accompany the changes seen in metamorphosis. This is not surprising since hormonal changes seem to accompany changes in morphology among most multicellular organisms today. It does take some imagination, but the evidence is there. So, the cells change in both their expression of hormones and the expression of the proteins that bind these hormones. Over time, the genes that were under the control of these hormones changed to what we see today. So instead of having development not unlike mammalian development, today insects have a more exaggerated development due changes in the genes that are controlled by these hormones. The physical mechanism is there, all that is required at this point is a selective pressure that pushes each stage of life to such an extreme. As Crashfrog mentioned, having your children eat a different food source than yourself is a good feature to have. So the adults can eat the stems of plants while the larvae eat the roots. Not a bad idea, if you ask me.