Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In three podcasts at Vox:

How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)

The three mysteries they offer are:

Where did Earth’s water come from?
How did life start in that water?
What is life anyway?

About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”

Comments

Darwinists claim, that mutations are random — can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN’T LIGHT. And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case).
Don't overlook the soma/germ line distinction. Only heritable variation in the germ-line (strictly speaking, the phenotypic expression of the germ-line, an individual in a breeding population) is available for selection to act on. And selection works with rearrangements of existing variation that happen at meiosis, as well as on novel mutations.Alan Fox_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

JVL
You’re missing my point: the allele frequency in the population changes based on which DNA configurations have some advantage OR, at least, aren’t fatal.
I think that you don't understand what I am saying (because of my bad English) or you don't want to understand.... Please confirm that I got the following right
Darwinists claim, that mutations are random — can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN’T LIGHT. And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case).
Is this how your theory works or not ? further:
Why would it start on the surface where there is light?
Why? Because random mutations can occur anytime, anywhere, that is why it is called random. Or do DNA copying errors only occur in caves where is no light ? JVL, seriously, you don't seem to understand your own theory ...martin_r_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Es58 @63
Does that go for the cuddle fish and chameleon as well?
or does that go for rabbit's seasonal fur color change too ? or does that go for rapid adaptive color change in crustaceans. (e.g. crabs, shrimps etc) There is a 500-pages book on adaptive color change. Adaptive color change AKA camouflage is an ultimate proof of design/engineering. Not to mention, that to design such a adaptive color change feature is a very complex engineering problem, no wonder that military engineers struggle to replicate this feat. Darwinists have to have a very high level of faith to believe that an adaptive color change evolved repeatedly and independently in so many evolutionary unrelated species. But we here on UD already know, that Darwinists believe in miracles ...martin_r_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Es58: Does that go for the cuddle fish and chameleon as well? I don't know as I couldn't find the reference to those cases. But I would anticipate it's something similar.JVL_{March 13, 2023
March
03
Mar
13
13
2023
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

Jvl wrote:To be clear: the idea is that moths whose colour is highly contrasting with the background are easy to spot by predators so that the ones who blend in better have a higher chance of survival and therefore produce more of the next generation. It’s a very simple concept but you seem to have completely missed it. Does that go for the cuddle fish and chameleon as well?es58_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

I think I can make an analogy that will clarify the logical aspects of the arguments here although I have almost no understanding of the biology involved. Imagine that you're looking at a printout of the iterations of a Dawkins-type weasel simulation. You've settled down expecting to see how the computer grinds away at letters that don't match the target string. You are surprised though to see that instead of grinding away, the target phrase is reached in one or two iterations. Now, if you're a confirmed materialist, should you be happy with this result or not? You could say "well I guess evolution is more powerful than we thought." But at the same time you would know that this was not a demonstration of the feedback mechanism that is supposed to be the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Certainly if it happened more than once you would realize that you were looking at a process where the creative part had essentially already been done - sort of like when the oak tree produces an acorn. This would be something to be explained and not something that would have explanatory power in itself. The analogy should hold unless there are many more generations involved than what I'm hearing about here.hnorman42_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Martin-r
In real life, if you put these species into a cave, where is no light, they will lose its eyes. EVERYTIME. NO LIGHT enviroment triggers this change. EVERYTIME. THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTS ON SURFACE. (...) the result is, that all these species (fishes, shrimps, spiders, beetles) lost their eyes … everytime when there wasn’t light. In one or two generation. How would YOU interpret these results ?
Pre-programmed response to the environment. This has nothing to do with random mutations. Clearly.
As a final example, fish residing in cave environments display distinctive traits such as reduced eyes and pigmentation. The standard evolutionary story is that these traits gradually developed through natural selection. But experiments over the past decade on the effects of exposing fish to cave-like conditions are changing the narrative. Rohner et al. in a 2013 study raised A. mexicanus embryos in water with low conductivity mimicking cave conditions. The embryos developed into adults with significantly smaller eyes. Corral and Aguirre in a 2019 study raised A. mexicanus in different temperatures and different levels of water turbulence. The variant conditions resulted in adult fish differing in vertebral number and body shape. For instance, fish raised in more turbulent water displayed more streamlined bodies and extended dorsal and anal fin bases that improved their mobility in that environmental condition. And Bilandžija et al. in a 2020 study raised the same species in darkness, and the fish developed many cave-related traits such as resistance to starvation and altered metabolism and hormone levels. [source]
Origenes_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: Darwinists claim, that mutations are random — can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN’T LIGHT. You're missing my point: the allele frequency in the population changes based on which DNA configurations have some advantage OR, at least, aren't fatal. And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case). IF a particular DNA configuration incurs a benefit that leads to more offspring then it will have a better chance of growing in number in the population. In real life, if you put these species into a cave, where is no light, they will lose its eyes. EVERYTIME. NO LIGHT enviroment triggers this change. EVERYTIME. THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTS ON SURFACE. Why would it start on the surface where there is light? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ? I understand what I am saying. let’s pretend, that I already made these experiments … the result is, that all these species (fishes, shrimps, spiders, beetles) lost their eyes … everytime when there wasn’t light. In one or two generation. How would YOU interpret these results ? But you didn't run those experiments so we don't know what you would get.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

JVL
Why don’t you do your proposed experiments and see what you get?
let's pretend, that I already made these experiments ... the result is, that all these species (fishes, shrimps, spiders, beetles) lost their eyes ... everytime when there wasn't light. In one or two generation. How would YOU interpret these results ?martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

JVL
The whole idea of unguided evolution is that allele frequency will change partially influenced by environmental conditions such as lack of light.
wrong ... you don't seem to understand your own theory. Darwinists claim, that mutations are random -- can occur anytime, in various DNA locations, and it DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN'T LIGHT. And then, your natural selection allegedly kicks in, and allegedly selects those mutations that can help survive in no light conditions (in our model case). I hope you agree with this ... This is the main idea of your theory. But this is not what is happening in real life. In real life, if you put these species into a cave, where is no light, they will lose its eyes. EVERYTIME. NO LIGHT enviroment triggers this change. EVERYTIME. THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTS ON SURFACE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ?martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: the process of sight loss started in a cave – where is no light. This process did not start on the surface. This process was triggered by lack of light. Nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. This process will always start over and over again when there is no light. That’s how it is indicative of design. The whole idea of unguided evolution is that allele frequency will change partially influenced by environmental conditions such as lack of light. I don't see what not being on the surface has to do with anything. Eyes are 'expensive' organs to have; they consume lots of resources. IF they are not being used then an individual with defective eyesight will not have a disadvantage finding a mate and creating offspring AND, in fact, may have an advantage if they have more bodily resources to commit to other things. Slowly, over generations, IF there is an advantage to NOT having sight, the sightless organisms will outcompete the sighted organisms. This is all really simple and easy to understand. AND it makes sense. You don't need to hypothesise some unfound programming or an unfound programmer; by Ockham's razor the unguided hypothesis is the most parsimonious, i.e. it has the fewest unknown processes. Why don't you do your proposed experiments and see what you get?JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

JVL, forget about everything I wrote so far. Focus on the following:
the process of sight loss started in a cave – where is no light. This process did not start on the surface. This process was triggered by lack of light. Nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. This process will always start over and over again when there is no light. That’s how it is indicative of design.
martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: I don’t. But I don’t think that it is that important — whether this change will happen in 1, 2 or more generations. You don't think having evidence is important? obviously, these epigenetic marks can be or are reset by the cross-breading process. The article (which is not the actual research paper) describes genetic changes, NOT epigenetic 'marks'. What are epigenetic 'marks'? How do they affect the genomic expression? What chemical structure do they have?JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JVL
Two of these subterranean species aren’t just blind, they’ve lost their eyes entirely. The other five still have eyes, but they’re degenerated. How is that indicative of design? Some have no eyes anymore. Some have degenerated eyes. How long did it take for the eyeless spiders to lose their eyes? One generation? Any evidence for that?
How is that indicative of design? It is simple - the process of sight loss started in a cave - where is no light. This process did not start on the surface. This process was triggered by lack of light. Nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. This process will always start over and over again when there is no light. That's how it is indicative of design.martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

JVL
when cross-breed, can create offspring who can see. In other words, some of the offspring will NOT have the genetic changes which led to blindness. How is that controversial?
obviously, these epigenetic marks can be or are reset by the cross-breading process.martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

JVL
My beMy bet is, that it will happen in 1 generation. Do you have evidence that any such transition has happened within one generation?
I don't. But I don't think that it is that important -- whether this change will happen in 1, 2 or more generations. What matter is, that the 'energy saving process' has been triggered and is in progress ...martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: yes, perhaps I should. And with spiders, shrimps, beetles as well … I think you should. I agree, however, it shows that such a change is “technically” possible in one generation. That is all what I wanted to say. The article describes how different collections of fish who lost their site owning to different genetic modifications, when cross-breed, can create offspring who can see. In other words, some of the offspring will NOT have the genetic changes which led to blindness. How is that controversial? Two of these subterranean species aren’t just blind, they’ve lost their eyes entirely. The other five still have eyes, but they’re degenerated. How is that indicative of design? Some have no eyes anymore. Some have degenerated eyes. How long did it take for the eyeless spiders to lose their eyes? One generation? Any evidence for that?JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

JVL here you go, 2023 article
Eyeless Spiders and Other Arachnids New to Science Discovered in Israeli Caves. Seven species of spider previously unknown to science have been discovered in caves in Israel. Two of these subterranean species aren't just blind, they've lost their eyes entirely. The other five still have eyes, but they're degenerated.
like I said ... a designed feature ... It can't be more obvious ....martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

JVL
You should do that experiment then.
yes, perhaps I should. And with spiders, shrimps, beetles as well ...
Genetic engineering is not an epigenetic change though is it
I agree, however, it shows that such a change is "technically" possible in one generation. That is all what I wanted to say. Anyway, and like I said many times, you Darwinists have been misinterpreting the reality for 150 years. Blind cave fish or peppered moth is just one example ...martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: I would like to supervise it. Because I don’t trust Darwinists. They cheat all the time … You should do that experiment then. It wouldn't be that expensive. Buy some guppies at your local pet shop and have a go. The study suggests that genetic engineering can override, at least in part, half a million years of evolutionary change in one generation. Genetic engineering is not an epigenetic change though is it? Also, what does 'in part' mean? Have you actually read the article? You do realise that most of the link you published is not necessary. And that no epigenetic conditions were invoked.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

JVL
AND it would say that the lose of eyes happened over long periods of time not suddenly, by force of will.
long period of time :)))) here you go - 1 generation... like I said ... and I swear I wasn't aware of the following paper:
Progeny Of Blind Cavefish Can 'Regain' Their Sight The study suggests that genetic engineering can override, at least in part, half a million years of evolutionary change in one generation. Blind cavefish whose eyes have withered while living in complete darkness over the course of evolutionary time can be made to see again
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm#:~:text=The%20study%20suggests%20that%20genetic,evolutionary%20change%20in%20one%20generation.&text=Blind%20cavefish%20whose%20eyes%20have,be%20made%20to%20see%20again.martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

JVL, one more note regarding the mentioned blind cave fish experiment. I would like to supervise it. Because I don't trust Darwinists. They cheat all the time ...martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Sandy: You seem to be lost. Science doesn’t help to improve your morality, science brings you vanity and imorality…and the delusion of knowing the truth. I'm not lost; I was making a sardonic comment. I guess you missed that.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: The evidence for this designed feature is, that many evolutionary unrelated species lost their eyes the same way independently. E.g. blind cave beetles, blind cave spiders and the famous blind cave fish. And who knows what other species have this ability. This can be explained only by design. No, it can also be explained by the ability to see not being highly favourable to generations upon generations of whatever species. AND it would say that the lose of eyes happened over long periods of time not suddenly, by force of will. So, what evidence do you have that the lose of eyes happened quickly by force of will? My bet is, that it will happen in 1 generation. Do you have evidence that any such transition has happened within one generation? At low or zero light, this light sensitive sensor triggers an epigenetic change — it puts epigenetic marks on DNA to silence gene/genes responsible for eyes development. Like how? What kind of 'epigenetic mark' could turn off the production of eyes in one generation? If you have the evidence that what you suppose happens then we can talk. Do you have such evidence? Also, you do realise that by claiming that epigenetic changes change cause radical morphological changes you are undercutting one of the basic ID premises: that major morphological changes require too many genetic changes to have come about naturally, they must be designed by an outside designer. If epigenetic changes can, say, eliminate eyes in one generation then can epigenetic changes, willed or not, create new body plans? Also, if force of will can eliminate eyes in one generation then why can't humans, via force of will, become taller or faster or smarter in one generation? Can I 'will' my offspring to have green eyes? Can I will my offspring to have blonde hair? Can I will my offspring to be immune to polio?JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Especially if the Saints didn’t do science.
:) You seem to be lost. Science doesn't help to improve your morality, science brings you vanity and imorality...and the delusion of knowing the truth.Sandy_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

JVL,
Do you know what ‘get in’ means in Britain?
A typo. I meant "do you get it JVL" ?
In reality, these species can switch off their eyes development “at will” — to save energy. Well, I’d like to see your evidence for that. Plus: how can an organism turn off its eye development ‘at will’? I mean, what is the mechanism? How is it done? Can you create, in a lab, the exact conditions so as to trigger that reaction?
The evidence for this designed feature is, that many evolutionary unrelated species lost their eyes the same way independently. E.g. blind cave beetles, blind cave spiders and the famous blind cave fish. And who knows what other species have this ability. This can be explained only by design. Speaking of a lab experiment -- I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SUCH AN EXPERIMENT. AND I AM 100% SURE HOW IT WILL END. ALL THE MENTIONED SPECIES WILL LOSE THEIR EYES "AT WILL"... and most probably, if there is light again, they will regain the sight. The only question is, if it will happen in 1 generation, 2, or more generations. My bet is, that it will happen in 1 generation. And what is the mechanism for that ? From an engineering point of view, it could be as follows: First, there has to be some light sensitive sensor(s). Most probably that sensor(s) is located in cave fishes' eyes. Or on its body (like in peppered moth's caterpillar case). At low or zero light, this light sensitive sensor triggers an epigenetic change -- it puts epigenetic marks on DNA to silence gene/genes responsible for eyes development. This is from an mainstream paper:
Loss of eye tissue in blind cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus), which occurs within a few days of their development, happens through epigenetic silencing of eye-related genes, according to a study led by the National Institutes of Health
I have also mentioned the other example of "phenotypic plasticity". The peppered moth caterpillar. The mechanism is pretty simple ... from a mainstream paper
The ability of larvae of the peppered moth has surprised scientists. A new study has shown that the caterpillars of the peppered moth are able to slowly change colour to match the twig they sit on, a phenomenon known as phenotypic plasticity.
or
In a new study, researchers of Liverpool University in the UK and the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Germany demonstrate that the caterpillars can sense the twig's color with their skin. Caterpillars that were blindfolded changed the color of their bodies to match their background.
... I BET, THAT ADULT PEPPERED MOTH CAN CHANGE THE COLOR "AT WILL" THE SAME WAY ITS CATERPILLAR CAN DO ... no Darwinian evolution, no natural selection needed ... just design. When the background color changes for some reason (e.g. industrial pollution), adult peppered moth will change its wings color "at will" to match the new color. (Are you aware of, that during that industrial pollution, other 100 moths species changed their wings color to dark too ? It wasn't only the peppered moth. Such a coincidence :)))))) Again, all these features have nothing to do with natural selection or Darwin's evolution. This change will happen anyway. With or without natural selection. It is a designed feature - an adaptive camouflage. You people (Darwinists) have been misinterpreting the reality for 150 years. That is why you had to invent that "phenotypic plasticity" term. Because you were surprised by the ability of these species -- but all these abilities can be only explained by design. PS: you posted a definition of "phenotypic plasticity". One may ask, what is the difference between the definition of Darwinian evolution and the definition of "phenotypic plasticity". To me it sounds entirely the same :))))))))martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1: Haploid. That’s why his middle initial is H. Ah, I thought that was for Harold. You know: Our father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

PM1 writes:
Haploid. That’s why his middle initial is H.
Then he was born a biological female. Perhaps he self-identified as male at an early age and Mary, being the progressive she was, arranged for testosterone shots to prevent breast development and permit facial hair. Jordan Peterson would be appalled.Ford Prefect_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

@25
A better question would be, was Jesus haploid or diploid?
Haploid. That's why his middle initial is H.PyrrhoManiac1_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply