Environmental News

hill, I am very much aligned with your thoughts. The notion that humans, with lifespans, might figure out how life sprang through 100's millions years is daunting. More so because conditions then (liquid phase, solid phase, energy supply) are not well known.

We might never know, really.

We could just take it as a given that life exists, and thence ran from simple to complicated. Latter has much observational support. We might not care to closely question whether this requires an external agent (deity). Because we are not well equipped to consider if it could not happen without that.

We might just say "Here we humans are, among many biologicals on earth, and our actions ought to be directed towards even more biological goodness". Those thought could proceed with or without an external agent.

 

It is very uncomfortable to consider bacteria as ancestors!

Protozoans and amoeba are a bit more comfy in that they have complex structures within their cells. That happened, and if it happened by way of Divine Intervention, well, good. Further complexity by many cells within organisms doing different things, I applaud that as well. Thusly complex marine organisms were followed by complex terrestrial organisms, and after a few 'nice tries', led to primates and then, you know who.

Any Deity overseeing all that ought to be praised for extreme patience! We're talking about 600 million years of slow development. And if faulted in any way (risky), it would be about not informing us humans about how, being now so many, to manage this planet.

 

Biochemical, mechanical and genomic details of bacterial flagella (motors) have been examined in great detail. Interested parties would wish to inform themselves of these details.

Arguments concerning flagella "irreducible complexity" appear to be based on ideas that no components of this system have (been shown to have) functional utility. Those arguments appear to be inconsistent with recent research. What remains is, indeed, a remarkable system. But not one built of separately useless pieces.

Such evidence does not prove that flagella evolved. I suppose such proof might not be obtainable by human research. Rather they suggest that flagella could have evolved, and that may be as far as we can go.

Richard Dawkins may or may not know about all this. He is certainly an outspoken critic of theology in general. We are mistaken to suppose him at the center of this topic IMHO.

Cross-membrane transport proteins are at the center of this topic, I would suggest. Examine those in detail. Explore whether exactly those proteins, or close analogues, have distinct functional roles. Some have already been found and others may exist.

 

Bacteria are prokaryotes. Simple cells lacking much internal structure. Flagella may be their pinnacle of complication - I'm not sure.

Eukaryotic cells (some of them) possess entirely distinct motors which appear to me to be even more complex. So, as they are asserted to have also evolved, they may be even better examples of "blind watchmaker", or "climbing Mt. Improbable", or whatever phrase is most appealing.

In their case, the same approach could be taken. Identify all components and see which if any can be shown to have functional utility in absence of entire motors. All that could be done. Some may already have been done. Such research might be useful, separate from attempting to adjudicate evolution vs. intelligent design. That I do not know. But, on the face of it, eukaryotic motors might be a better example to cite in favor of intelligent design.

Until and unless separate functions are identified there as well.

==
Fossil records are pretty much all we have to reconstruct earth's evolutionary history. Even for bones, they are vexingly incomplete. Macroscopic structure (e.g., leaves and feathers) leave 'impressions' in sediments. Also very helpful. But small, squishy, individuals cells seem to have taken most of their secrets to the grave. Too bad, but that's the way it is. In light of all these limitations, it seems well to realize that "impossible" and "evidence is lacking" do not mean the same thing.

 

That is an excellent image. What are described there as rotor and stator are energy-transducing proteins of most interest to me. Those I wrote about earlier.

Other components are certainly difficult to imagine in earlier forms. I could not hope they could be found in fossil records. Seems like an impasse.

The intelligent design take on this entire machine is that its components cannot have any separate functions. For some components, that assertion has already been refuted. For others it would depend on interest, funding, and how things turn out.

==
Just between us I am at least as amazed by polypeptides with looped structures that block membrane ion transporters. Some of most deadly small molecules known. If they were looped just a little bit differently they would have no toxic effects (already been studied). So, I just wonder how that happened...

I am not at all equipped to speculate why a Deity might equip certain organisms with such specialized tools to kill other organisms. Biological world is an amazingly complicated place, and that's all I can say.

 

Musk makes me think of flamethrowers. Flamethrowers make me think of beetles that mix incompatible chemicals and emit hot irritating sprays from their butts. It is another example where prior subsets are challenging to put in an evolutionary context. Only the completed gadget would seem to function.

But as it turns out, I am not paid by 'creation scientists' to stock their shelves with 'whataboutthis?' items.

 

Post@514 presents an important aspect of 'early modern' Darwinism. That which does not lower reproductive fitness is not disallowed. Late modern Darwinism is much more cloudy, where epigenetics makes trouble. That which is not 'expressed' is not accessible to children (grandchildren) snuffing.

Separately stands whole-organism energetic economy. Lovely if this could be described, but I see it as an aspirational goal. A few small plants and animals are well-enough known to attack details and stable isotopes are at the ready. Some funding agency might $tudy this.

 

Very surprising to me:

Bird strikes by airplanes tied record in 2018, FAA data shows

graphic show >7-fold increase in bird strikes since 1990. During which time, US commercial aviation has increased ~2.5-fold. General aviation has been about flat AFAIK.

No evidence known to me that there are more appropriately sized birds. Author Korte suggests planes are quieter, which may very well contribute.

No one is claiming that aviation is having a major bird crisis, but what is really going on?