Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

And which, interestingly enough, was coded by intelligent design. Never in a million years would GM-NAA I/O have turned into AI if all of the changes had to be randomly generated and then selected because they were more suitable for conditions.

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

Is AI less complex than the basic building blocks that supposedly combined by chance to create the first single cell?

Well, the average animal or plant cell has about 100 trillion atoms which makes a single cell more complex than even the most complex supercomputer.

As for the early process of evolution. That is definitely not my area of expertise. But the typical geological time scale has the first very simple life forms emerging about 3.8 billion years ago and then for 3 billion years slowly gaining more complexity until the first multi-cellular animals emerged about 700 million years ago. So the process you are talking about took 3 billion years. That is an unfathomable length of time, especially for single-celled organisms that can reproduce in hours.

But it is also incorrect to think of it as a random process. Genetic variety is produced by random processes (mutations) but evolution by natural selection is not a random process. It is very much not random.

[Soloist]

Somehow humans have found the “missing link” between species, yet they still can’t even find foundational proof of cellular evolution such as a self replicating ribosome nor the environment a protocell supposedly evolved in.

I think man isn’t as smart as they think.

[Ken]

Somehow humans have found the “missing link” between species, yet they still can’t even find foundational proof of cellular evolution such as a self replicating ribosome nor the environment a protocell supposedly evolved in.

I think man isn’t as smart as they think.

Well, the amount we know after 200 or so years of modern science is just the tiniest fraction of all possible knowledge. And the the more we learn about something (like the genome or genetic code) the more we discover how much we don't know.

So yes, the evolution of complex structures within cells is something that would have happened a billion or more years ago in the timeline of life on earth, a period of time so long ago that it is difficult to even find rocks that old let along fossils of single cell organisms.

I guess I would say that science is comfortable with the fact that there are vast gaps in our scientific knowledge. And that applies to every area of science, not just early evolution. So pointing out what we don't know really isn't any sort of "gotcha". It is simply stating the obvious. There is far more that we don't know in science than we do know. And scientists will spend the next century slowly filling in some of the gaps only to discover that doing so only opens up more gaps. The "unknown unknowns" to quote Donald Rumsfeld.

[Soloist]

Well, the amount we know after 200 or so years of modern science is just the tiniest fraction of all possible knowledge. And the the more we learn about something (like the genome or genetic code) the more we discover how much we don't know.

So yes, the evolution of complex structures within cells is something that would have happened a billion or more years ago in the timeline of life on earth, a period of time so long ago that it is difficult to even find rocks that old let along fossils of single cell organisms.

As I said.
You speak of something unproven as though it was true.

[ken_sylvania]

Yes but AI is still less complex than a single typical cell. So AI has a long ways to go before equaling the natural world. And when it gets to that point, AI will most certainly be able to evolve on its own without human guidance. The guiding forces will be different and won't be natural selection. But they will be there. AI will optimize computation speed, or energy efficiency, or evolve in response to other pressures. But it won't be random. And neither is evolution.

Is AI less complex than the basic building blocks that supposedly combined by chance to create the first single cell?

Well, the average animal or plant cell has about 100 trillion atoms which makes a single cell more complex than even the most complex supercomputer.

As for the early process of evolution. That is definitely not my area of expertise. But the typical geological time scale has the first very simple life forms emerging about 3.8 billion years ago and then for 3 billion years slowly gaining more complexity until the first multi-cellular animals emerged about 700 million years ago. So the process you are talking about took 3 billion years. That is an unfathomable length of time, especially for single-celled organisms that can reproduce in hours.

But it is also incorrect to think of it as a random process. Genetic variety is produced by random processes (mutations) but evolution by natural selection is not a random process. It is very much not random.

I don't think it's any human's area of expertise.
The theory of evolution by natural selection still relies on random mutations to generate the changes to be selected. And if 3 billion years is an unfathomable length of time, the idea that enough random mutations sufficiently beneficial to be selected for would happen during that time to turn a bunch of chemicals into a human being is also unfathomable.

[Falco Knotwise]

Why the “mechanism” of natural selection cannot stand by itself:

“Lacking the teleology inherent in the instinct inherent in virtually all life to survive and propagate its kind, the presumed mechanism of evolution would not be present to begin with. In other words, the mechanism of evolution depends for its function and existence on something manifestly not mechanical but intentional, even if not consciously so.”

[Ken]

Well, the amount we know after 200 or so years of modern science is just the tiniest fraction of all possible knowledge. And the the more we learn about something (like the genome or genetic code) the more we discover how much we don't know.

So yes, the evolution of complex structures within cells is something that would have happened a billion or more years ago in the timeline of life on earth, a period of time so long ago that it is difficult to even find rocks that old let along fossils of single cell organisms.

As I said.
You speak of something unproven as though it was true.

Not at all. I don't think you will ever find anywhere here were I have spoken about any part of evolution as being "proven" or "true".

All I have ever said is that the theory of evolution by natural selection is currently the best and most powerful explanation (i.e. theory) to explain how life on earth changes. We see change all around us in every aspect of biology. Evolution is currently our best explanation for how that change happens. There is a tremendous amount of evidence from a wide variety of fields of science that supports and collaborates evolution.

Is it possible in the future that some more advanced and sophisticated theory will replace evolution as the main explanation of biological change in our world? Sure. That sort of thing happens all the time. It would be revolutionary. But no more so than any other big discovery in science. So if you want to question evolution, have at it. That is how science works. But if you want to base your criticisms on science and not religious dogma, then find a better and more powerful scientific explanation for the constant biological change and diversity that we see all around us.

For example, in the 1940s the consensus was that our genetic code was protein-based since proteins have 20 different amino acids (or letters) and DNA only has four nucleotides. It was thought that complicated genetic instructions had to come from proteins since combinations of 20 different letters is better for making complex code than just 4. Now we know different and our current theory of molecular genetics suggests that DNA is the genetic code of life. In 50 years might we discover something new? Sure. Our knowledge of molecular genetics will continue to advance.

[Ken]

Why the “mechanism” of natural selection cannot stand by itself:

“Lacking the teleology inherent in the instinct inherent in virtually all life to survive and propagate its kind, the presumed mechanism of evolution would not be present to begin with. In other words, the mechanism of evolution depends for its function and existence on something manifestly not mechanical but intentional, even if not consciously so.”

I'm not exactly sure what this quote is supposed to mean. But if it implies the need for intent, it is wrong. There are all sorts of selection processes that happen all the time in nature without there being life or any sort of intent. Nor is there any "intent" behind evolution either.

For example, look at a beach. Most sand is silicon dioxide crystals (quartz). But there is an optimum-sized quartz crystal that makes up beach sand. If they are too small they lack the gravitational force to stay in place and get washed away. So grains of sand that are too small are dissolved and carried away by the waves and tides. On the other hand, if they are too large, the constant washing action of the wind, wave, and tides, breaks them apart until they get down to the size of sand particles. So the natural processes that exist on every beach strongly select for sand particles of a very specific size, that is why every beautiful beach around the world is basically the same. And beach sand from Costa Rica looks very much the same as beach sand in Bali. You would never in a trillion years produce a beach simply through random chance of billions of the exact same size quartz crystals all accumulating in the same place. There must be some selective force at play to produce a beach.

We could come up with hundreds upon hundreds of examples in nature where there are selective forces are constantly at work to create complex structures that are not random.

Evolution is no different from the formation of a beach. It is a natural selective process that over time results in something that is more organized and complex than what we started with.

[ohio jones]

I saw on Hacker News today that there’s a project underway to do a full simulation of a human brain, slated to go online next year.

How difficult that is depends on whose brain they are simulating, of course.

[Soloist]

So yes, the evolution of complex structures within cells is something that would have happened a billion or more years ago in the timeline of life on earth, a period of time so long ago that it is difficult to even find rocks that old let along fossils of single cell organisms.

Not at all. I don't think you will ever find anywhere here were I have spoken about any part of evolution as being "proven" or "true".

Change your wording to

So yes, the theory of evolution of complex structures within cells is something that could have happened a billion or more years ago in the theorized timeline of life on earth, a period of time so long ago that would make it difficult to even find rocks that old let along fossils of single cell organisms.

Stop playing word games.
You have accepted it as more likely then God creating life.
You find it easier to accept a hypothesis with no supporting evidence that is testable, repeatable or observable then to accept/believe/support God designed a fully functional cell.

Evolution is no different from the formation of a beach. It is a natural selective process that over time results in something that is more organized and complex than what we started with

When you can show me a naturally spontaneous occurring Sandcastle with a moat towers and windows… I will concede your point.