Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution and Imagination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An interesting exercise is to read through a brief introduction to the origin of multicellular organisms, such as the Wikipedia article linked here.

Although a more rigorous analysis of the issues of the origin of multicellular organisms would be found elsewhere, Wikipedia, with its naturalistic predilection, still makes it plan that a scientific explanation is lacking.

When we consider the system-level functionality of even the simplest animals, we can use our imaginations to propose scenarios that might lead to their origin.  The Wikipedia article mentions several imaginative proposals:

“Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells.”

“One hypothesis for the origin of multicellularity is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit.”

“A unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism, which could later develop specialized tissues.”

The symbiotic “theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each with different roles.”

“The colonial theory of Haeckel, 1874, proposes that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism.”

The oxygen availability hypothesis “suggests that the oxygen available in the atmosphere of early Earth could have been the limiting factor for the emergence of multicellular life.”

“The snowball Earth hypothesis in regards to multicellularity proposes that the Cryogenian period in Earth history could have been the catalyst for the evolution of complex multicellular life.”

All of these imagined scenarios, and others not mentioned, fail to fill in the void with any mechanism consistent with known laws of physics explaining how unguided natural processes resulted in functional biological systems that had never been seen (or imagined) before on Earth.

Imagine a world in which the existence of anything other than single-cell organisms is absent from reality.  What natural process, consistent with the action of the laws of physics, would cause single cells to move towards the unimagined goal of differentiating themselves into all of the needed types of cells that then organize themselves into an creature that possesses a digestive system, or a circulatory system, or a nervous system, or an immune system, or a reproductive system?

Does the committed evolutionist unconsciously impute their imagination into the supposed biological outworkings of the laws of nature? Should scientists imagine that a higher partial pressure of a certain gas can cause the origin of complex functional biological systems? 

Comments
Related @145, Yeah, apparently sorta what happened on Mars . . . -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
Querius at 138, Thanks for the link. A catastrophic, global flood occurred, resulting in rapid burial of plants and animals.relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
JVL at 142, A message from a trench across from your barricade: "Hey! Keep it down! We're trying to listen to the Beach Boys over here!"relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Querius at 136, You're welcome. There are 'fossil graveyards' around the world. These creatures were buried in clusters, suggesting a catastrophic event with water that swept them into a final location. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Alan Fox: It must be difficult being an ID proponent. There seem to be very few cards to play with never a new one, and the old cards are looking a bit curly at the corners. Kind of like one of those bands from the 60s with maybe one original member that keeps on touring and playing all the old hits. And the venues get smaller and smaller . . .JVL
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
@ JVL It must be difficult being an ID proponent. There seem to be very few cards to play with never a new one, and the old cards are looking a bit curly at the corners.Alan Fox
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: I’ve noticed you have retreated from defending your assertions to ignoring responses altogether and just repeating the same assertions as if you had not received any. I'm feeling neglected, I offered to address any of the topics listed and 'he' ignored me. Uncommon Descent is a heartbreak.JVL
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Querius:
“Vestigial” organs, “junk” DNA, and “living fossils” are all examples of the failed predictions of Darwinism.
They are not. I've noticed you have retreated from defending your assertions to ignoring responses altogether and just repeating the same assertions as if you had not received any. I't's quite dishonest, really. I'm disappointed.Alan Fox
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Relatd @ 137, I would have no problem with evolution if it followed scientific evidence or socialism (such as was practiced by early Christians for the first couple of hundred years after Christ) if it worked. Really. But it doesn't follow scientific evidence and is just wishful thinking. After reading your link to polystrate fossils, I found this link that goes into much more detail, especially about polystrate fossils including dinosaur footprints, leaves, and jellyfish lying intact and undisturbed for millions of years. https://kgov.com/list-of-the-kinds-of-polystrate-fossils -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Querius at 134, There is a connection with believing in evolution and ideas like Communism. From a Christian perspective, man has only two choices: He either chooses himself or he chooses God. When he chooses himself, vain imaginations start. He begins to believe the following: "Man is the measure of all things." A statement by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. "Man invents himself." Jean-Paul Sarte. So what you are seeing here is not new and similar to these statements. Life creates itself. No God is required. Life is not designed. It just looks designed. So - to anyone with eyes to see - the 'conflict' is invented, along with claims about "evolution."relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Relatd @133, Great article--thanks. I've also read somewhere that the contorted skeletal remains of many fossils resemble the death position of chickens when they drown. Recently, I read a book on the Missoula floods where a uniformitarian geologist finally admitted that the evidence pointed to catastrophism. http://columbiariverimages.com/Regions/Places/missoula_floods.html There have been quote a number of other events along the same line such as the filling of the Black Sea (entombing ancient encampments) and ancient "supervolcanos." https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-some-examples-supervolcanoes -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Querius: Another content-free trollbot response. It was true though wasn't it? Why waste content on you? It seems likely that it’s because you cannot deal with the evidence against against the so-called but falsified terms: * “Vestigial” organs – not vestigial after all. * “Junk” DNA – not junk after all. * “Living fossils” – A miracle of halting evolutionary change for dozens of millions of years. Sigh. Fine, you pick one of those topics and I'll give you my take on it. But I'm sure you will just say anything I say is rubbish so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. Go on, pick one.JVL
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Related @131, For some, these inconvenient facts are "inconceivable." As to your analogy, socialism, is a good example. It's never worked in history, nor is it currently working anywhere in the world. Even Sweden pulled back from what was fossilizing their businesses and bankrupting their country. Nevertheless, the ideologues insist that all these failures weren't TRUE socialism and we should keep trying it over and over again (with them in charge, of course) until it works. Science fantasy and political fantasy. -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Querius at 132, Yes, trans-strata fossil trees. Tree trunks that penetrate through rock strata representing long periods of time. Evolutionists ignore this, but a tree exposed to the air would have rotted away long ago if the rock enclosing it was laid down gradually. So quick burial explains it. https://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Relatd @129,
The scientific evidence you referenced is compelling.
It is indeed. When cracks widen in a theory, when predictions fail, when surprises emerge that involve greater amounts of imagination in trying to explain then (multiple and repeated convergent evolutionary changes come to mind), the TRUE BELIEVERS such as JVL grimly hang on to their faith. On the other hand, a number of open-minded evolutionary biologists are suggesting such things as a much greater role for epigenetic adaptation and alternative dynamics in the face of the evidence. And then we get accused of being closed-minded. What a joke. I once believed in Darwinism until I was confronted with more and more anomalies. * Trans-strata fossils * Modern fossils mixed in with ancient ones. * Rapid stratification such as with Mount St. Helens and Surtsey. * Stratification experiments at the mouths of major rivers. -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Querius at 130, Changing your mind? About scientific evidence? You have to understand the evidence gathered from the posts of the people you're dealing with. 1) Evolution is a fact. It cannot be challenged. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Which makes no sense. 2) Alleged facts for evolution are presented as actual facts, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Which makes no sense. 3) Like a wooden dummy manipulated by a controller, and Communists, evolution is real, like Communism. And just as useful. 'The truth must be repeated daily to combat the lies being spread among the people.' Like Communism and evolution.relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
JVL @127,
Like I said: you’ve already decided and will not change your mind so I’m not going to bother answering your questions which I would do if I thought you really were interested. But, clearly, you’re not.
Another content-free trollbot response. It seems likely that it's because you cannot deal with the evidence against against the so-called but falsified terms: * “Vestigial” organs - not vestigial after all. * “Junk” DNA - not junk after all. * “Living fossils” - A miracle of halting evolutionary change for dozens of millions of years. Mainstream biology has quietly replaced these terms, but still refuses to let go of random mutations as the primary driving force. Apparently, you don't accept discussing the issues challenging a racist 19th-century theory used to justify colonialism and oppression of the "less evolved" humans as Charles Darwin believed them to be. I guess you have no problem with this perspective and accuse me instead of "not changing my mind" despite all the mounting evidence against Darwinism. -QQuerius
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Querius at 126, The scientific evidence you referenced is compelling.relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
JVL at 127, I see you continue to follow orders and man your side of the barricade. Oh well.relatd
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Querius: No, if there were any actual scientific EVIDENCE, I would follow that line of inquiry. Like I said: you've already decided and will not change your mind so I'm not going to bother answering your questions which I would do if I thought you really were interested. But, clearly, you're not.JVL
November 4, 2022
November
11
Nov
4
04
2022
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
JVL @125,
Since you’ve already made up your mind there’s not much point in pursuing the issue is there?
This is a baloney trollbot response that can be applied in virtually every discussion or argument. No, if there were any actual scientific EVIDENCE, I would follow that line of inquiry. Currently, the evidence against “vestigial” organs, “junk” DNA, and “living fossils” is great enough that these initial terms are being replaced in mainstream biology. -QQuerius
November 3, 2022
November
11
Nov
3
03
2022
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Querius: You’re saying that they are extremely well-researched and data-driven conclusions . . . namely that they are still entirely clueless and have to resort to vacuous speculation instead. Since you've already made up your mind there's not much point in pursuing the issue is there?JVL
November 1, 2022
November
11
Nov
1
01
2022
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
JVL,
But the suppositions are based on research and work and data.
I see. You're saying that they are extremely well-researched and data-driven conclusions . . . namely that they are still entirely clueless and have to resort to vacuous speculation instead. -QQuerius
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
JVL @122, Scientific reasoning does not rest on suppositions but on experimental data. Hypotheses are based on observation and speculation, but ultimately must be able to successfully predict future discoveries. "Vestigial" organs, "junk" DNA, and "living fossils" are all examples of the failed predictions of Darwinism. Furthermore, Darwin's The Descent of Man exposes his theory as a racist justification of colonialism and slow genocide of the "inferior races," which is hardly scientific. Or do you still think it is? -QQuerius
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Querius: Looks like JVL has left the discussion. Your reply to me made it pretty clear that you cannot accept any kind of scientific reasoning trying to explain historical events that cannot be observed or recreated precisely. I refer to this comment made by you: The Wikipedia article you referenced is complete speculation with lots of “mighta” and “coulda” statements. Of course it uses those terms when you can't know for sure how things came about. But the suppositions are based on research and work and data. But you just look at the sensible qualifiers and say it's all rubbish.JVL
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
Looks like JVL has left the discussion. -QQuerius
October 27, 2022
October
10
Oct
27
27
2022
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Sandy @118, Exactly! You nailed it. -QQuerius
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
JVL @114, 117,
Good lord, you are lazy. Don’t you even know how to use Wikipedia?
Ad hominem noted. Do you think there’s a reason why academia and technical journals don’t accept Wikipedia citations for papers? The Wikipedia article you referenced is complete speculation with lots of “mighta” and “coulda” statements. Any examples of molecules that replicate by themselves without depending on other molecules? What is currently needed for RNA to replicate itself? Lazy me, here’s a reference: https://www.microbiologybook.org/mhunt/rna-ho.htm The Wikipedia article suggests that evolutionary processes (i.e. undirected, random changes AND natural selection) involving non-living entities gave rise to life! Any examples of these non-living entities? Would you be skeptical if I told you that I have a really, really simple pre-automobile (i.e. an 1818 velocipede) in my garage that’s so simple that it can replicate itself? What if I told you that over the years it became more complex through evolutionary changes and that now it’s evolved up to the motorcycle level? What if a motorcycle was found preserved in strata hundreds of millions of years old? Ok, you’re skeptical but is it even remotely possible? But let’s assume that some version of single-strand RNA could replicate. How did this original RNA come into existence? Random chance in a highly concentrated, extremely pure solution of a nitrogenous base, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate? Where do you get the sugar from? How was it purified, concentrated, filtered for chirality, and kept pure in a tide pool? The article referenced by the NIH website cheats by starting with bovine mRNA in high-purity conditions. The steps are given as . . . 1. "Any DNA sequence with an RNA/DNA subtrate" + 2. “In Vitro evolution" + 3. "Mutations resulting in an RNA-cleaving catalytic DNA" There! It’s as easy as 1 2 3! Apparently, the starting point and in-between gaps are left as an exercise for the reader. But the paper still serves as a great example of employing a Darwin-of-the-Gaps approach to science. -QQuerius
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
we have arbitrarily chosen a 50-nucleotide DNA fragment encoding for the Bos taurus (cattle) albumin mRNA
I didn't know that Bos Taurus was classified as inorganic chemicals and then the scientists fail to tell us all the story about the utility of that "enzyme" in the test-tube. I missed also the part where scientists explain us the jumping gap from an enzyme to the first working cell. Maybe you clarify because certainly you wouldn't post a link that you don't read first . :)Sandy
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Whistler: People can’t be curious without reason and conscience and these abilities can’t be explained by materialism. Other opinions are available. Proof is non-existent. ,stick to hard scientific evidences and let go the just so stories. “General consensus” and “the prevailing scientific hypothesis” are nonsense. Hard scientific evidences or just button it. Would you concede to looking at some of the papers the above, derided, opinions are based on and show where there is a mistake or flaw? Here try this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473686/ From the abstract:
The mechanism by which enzymes arose from both abiotic and biological worlds remains an unsolved natural mystery. We postulate that an enzyme can emerge from any sequence of any functional polymer under permissive evolutionary conditions. To support this premise, we have arbitrarily chosen a 50-nucleotide DNA fragment encoding for the Bos taurus (cattle) albumin mRNA and subjected it to test-tube evolution to derive a catalytic DNA (DNAzyme) with RNA-cleavage activity. After only a few weeks, a DNAzyme with significant catalytic activity has surfaced. Sequence comparison reveals that seven nucleotides are responsible for the conversion of the noncatalytic sequence into the enzyme. Deep sequencing analysis of DNA pools along the evolution trajectory has identified individual mutations as the progressive drivers of the molecular evolution. Our findings demonstrate that an enzyme can indeed arise from a sequence of a functional polymer via permissive molecular evolution, a mechanism that may have been exploited by nature for the creation of the enormous repertoire of enzymes in the biological world today.
JVL
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply