A billion years to evolve

[The Galatian]

Take the gene buisness for instance. You tell any logical, rational layman who has no background in science, that there is more difference in one sort of single cell animal and another sort of single cell animal than there is between either of them and a human being and he's going to greet you with a shipload of skepticism.

The key word is "no background in science". Ignorance is always a handicap in understanding anything.

Just realized how that sounds. My comment about not using random numbers meant that I had a reason for the relationship between using "one billion" and "trillions"...both numbers are "pulled out of the air" but their relationship to each other is not meant to be random.

But numbers "pulled out of the air" are worthless. If youi can't substantiate them, it's a waste of time.

One other thing I forgot:

Barbarian, regarding why evolution of the cell took longer than other things:
The cell is more complicated a structure than anything else in your body.

Agreed.

So why is it so hard to realize that it took longer to evolve than those other things?

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread my recognition of the vast complexity of the cell. This, of course, fuels my skepticism thaat it arose from Natural processes.

That's been investigated. Go back and read the links I posted for the evidence for that. It's compelling.

Helen, for example, was skeptical of photosynthesis evolving, yet we have evidence of simpler photosynthesis in bacteria (which show evidence of being the ancestors of bacteria with modern photosynthesis, and of plants). And we can show that the use of the porphryn ring evolved from oxidative phosphorylation, and uses many of the same enzymes and pathways.

BTW, go here:

http://www.rvt.com/~lucas/school/cyanotree.gif

for a look at the way living things are related to each other. Note that the archaea (formerly called archaebacteria) are more like eukaryotes than they are like other prokaryotes. There is a larger genetic difference among prokaryotes, which reflects the fact that the greatest evolutionary progress was in evolving eukaryotes.

[ June 07, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[WillRain]

IF I bought into evolution, I'd be quite open to the idea that it took a single cell longer to evolve than anything else. That wasn't the point at all.
But it seems to me that you are arguing about a long time AFTER the first cel to get to a different form of cell.

IF we are postulating that due to the complexity of the cell it took the longest time to "evolve" then why doesn't it follow that from DNA to prokaryote took at least as long as from proaryote to eukaryote?

Taken together, that well on towards half of the supposed age of the earth right there.

Further, there is, in my estimation, a fundamental flaw in your argument in that you have said:

"the cell is the most complex"

which is true, but it is ONE item (with many parts).

To go from the single cell to the human involves not just the development of a single organ but many many diverse organs, each of which often have many different parts and functions.

It's not a direct path where the human is simply a bigger and better cell. From that cell must arise all the diverse things in my list above and hundreds more, and the great majority of those have individualized specialized parts which complicate things.

Oh, and the key phrase about "no background in science" was included purposly knowing that it was "loaded."

It is not ALWAYS so, but it is OFTEN so (as in any other field from history to theology) that:

"background in" = "indoctrinated in"

To be trained in a field is often to be trained in how to see the pet canards and "trueism" in the field as fact in spite of common sense.

All of us are libel to fall victim to this phenomena along the way.

 

[The Galatian]

IF I bought into evolution, I'd be quite open to the idea that it took a single cell longer to evolve than anything else. That wasn't the point at all.

A pre-existing bias to evolution would make it difficult to get to the truth.

But it seems to me that you are arguing about a long time AFTER the first cel to get to a different form of cell.

Right.

IF we are postulating that due to the complexity of the cell it took the longest time to "evolve" then why doesn't it follow that from DNA to prokaryote took at least as long as from proaryote to eukaryote?

If the evidence is correct, it wasn't DNA first.

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

Taken together, that well on towards half of the supposed age of the earth right there.

It seems it took a very long time for the first cells to show up too. I'm not surprised.

Further, there is, in my estimation, a fundamental flaw in your argument in that you have said:

"the cell is the most complex"

which is true, but it is ONE item (with many parts).

To go from the single cell to the human involves not just the development of a single organ but many many diverse organs, each of which often have many different parts and functions.

It's not a direct path where the human is simply a bigger and better cell. From that cell must arise all the diverse things in my list above and hundreds more, and the great majority of those have individualized specialized parts which complicate things.

That, however, happens by variation in DNA. Which is much simpler, and much faster. Hence, it doesn't take as long as getting the system up in the first place.

It's like asking whether it takes longer to build a factory or to change the production line.

Oh, and the key phrase about "no background in science" was included purposly knowing that it was "loaded."

It is not ALWAYS so, but it is OFTEN so (as in any other field from history to theology) that:

"background in" = "indoctrinated in"

To be trained in a field is often to be trained in how to see the pet canards and "trueism" in the field as fact in spite of common sense.

If you're trying to argue that scientists can't be rational about their work, then you're demonstrably wrong. They wouldn't be able to make any new discoveries that changed old theories, if that was the case. Yet they do that, all the time.

All of us are libel to fall victim to this phenomena along the way.

Because of the way science works, scientists are a particularly skeptical bunch.

 

[WillRain]

Okay, I don't have time to verify this at the moment but gonna put it on the table and if it's wrong it will be easily discredited.

I was on another board this morning and someone quoted directly a Greenpeace article which said the EARTH was believed to be about 4.2 MILLION years old.

Is this the going theory? Million not billion?

Is so it destroyes the "billion years to evolve" comment.

But it's possible the writer screwed up his figure. I simply don't have time to check it out.

Helen, if you'd be so kind, I'd want your take on the age of the Earth as well, not just Galatians.

 

[The Galatian]

I was on another board this morning and someone quoted directly a Greenpeace article which said the EARTH was believed to be about 4.2 MILLION years old.

The evidence is that the Earth is 4.2 billion years old. Almost all scientists are in agreement on that. There are many different sources of evidence for that finding.

Is this the going theory? Million not billion?

No, that's an error. Nobody believes that now, unless they have a religious objection to science.