Rapid Evolution Of Early Life May Have Been Horizontal, Not Vertical

It is fascinating to read about the emerging role of physics in our evolutionary history. The physicist in the link argues that early forms of life change rapidly because of cells transferred survival characteristics from one kind of a cell to the other rather always from “parent” to offspring. Those that were eaten by one cell gave characteristics to the victory and then back again.

Physics contributes to understanding evolution because it is directed toward systems. Biologists plot what happens while physicists build models of systems that include biology.

The link physicist wants to know what preceded cells. Before the were cells there was no DNA. He concludes this left much chemical activity going on simultaneously. Transfer of better characteristics went on horizontally. This is an entirely different concept than our traditional one of plotting the DNA from previous creatures to us of today.

He finds through experiments horizontal passing of development traits takes place quite rapidly in the very simplest forms of life. As living beings become more complex this horizontal passing slows to a crawl. This is why it appears life showed up on earth not so long after the earth itself came to be.  Once complex beings developed the pace of evolution slowed.

While I’m sure there is not complete agreement within the scientific community with this line of reasoning, the laboratory work surrounding it continues.

There has been for more success in the study of evolution than there has been in creationism.

24 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    I believe the Physicist makes an important point. The principles and processes of evolution as we know it today may be completely different than its early beginnings with networks instead of developed organisms. I also believe science disciplines collectively must work together in order to accomplish great advancements in Science and Technology. Interesting article!

  2. Rob

    Great article. Since evolution makes zero sense especially when the time element is calculated, nice to see they’ve figured out a different way to guess at the beginnings of life.

  3. Evolutionists must keep coming up with new models as the old ones are disproven.\

    “There has been for more success in the study of evolution than there has been in creationism”

    Is that why creationism must be kept out of the public discourse?

    1. Juan Ruiz

      “Is that why creationism must be kept out of the public discourse?”

      I have no problem with creationisms being discussed, as long as those of all religions are given an equal hearing.

      1. Juan 6:43 I have no problem with creationisms being discussed, as long as those of all religions are given an equal hearing.

        Maybe only one could chosen by lot. All the creation myths could be put in a hat, the one drawn would be covered.

        1. Juan Ruiz

          When Christians demand creationism be taught, they mean only the Genesis version. I am all in favor of including the Enuma Elish, the Popol Vuh, the Mahabarata, American Indian stories, and those from all over the world. Of course, Christians would vomit over that.

  4. Rob

    Seems a little backwards to demand scientific facts from faith, while accepting “scientific” theories that are not provable.
    I guess we all have our religions.

    1. Rob 10:25 Seems a little backwards to demand scientific facts from faith, while accepting “scientific” theories that are not provable.

      We’re all struggling here and you could help us out. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of creation myths now being taught in the U.S. The one from Christianity is among them. Which ones should be excluded, or, should all be included?

        1. Chuck Z 12:45 Yeah, there’s one theory of evolution that’s ever been taught….:sarcasticrollyeyehead:

          Maybe you could help us. We’re trying to decide which of the dozens or maybe hundreds of religious myths about our origins to teach children in schools.

          1. Rob 1:12 Evolution is being taught. That it is being taught is not a theory but a fact. So, the complaint from believers here is that creationism should be taught. The question is, which version of creationism? We don’t seem to be getting very far with the solution here.

          2. Rob

            I should have known my point would be unacceptable to you.
            The fact that evolution is being taught, does not make evolution a fact.
            The ‘fact’ is, we are all pre conditioned and biased on this subject based on our being a believer, or a non believer.
            Jinx being a perfect example. Look at her/his first comment; it’s all on board with this new theory presented in your link. Forget that he/she thought just yesterday that evolution was the answer; but now we have something new to add to the convoluted story, so as long as it’s nothing to do with creationism, it must be fact, right? If he/she believes in global warming, he/she would’ve more than likely been the first in line cheering on Al Gore’s famously fake hockey stick temperature graph. He/she/it is completely gullible to accept any idea, as long as it isn’t faith based, all the while claiming intellectual superiority over the rest of us. lol
            If you’ve got just one thing right Jon, it’s that you know how to create an entertaining blog. Thanks for the laughs Jinx!

          3. Chuck Z

            When I was in school, humans were direct descendants of apes! Fact! Now that FACT is incorrect. The teachings of evolution have changed with the times, but Jon has no problem with that. He’s a believer in evolution, so whether it’s factual or not, he’s fine with it being taught as fact as long as he can change his mind on the facts tomorrow. I’ll give you credit, Jon, you have no problem putting your blatant hypocrisy on display for everybody to see. Bravo.

          4. entech

            chuck @ 4:43 pm When I was in school, humans were direct descendants of apes!
            If that is what you learned at school it goes a long way to explaining the abysmal level of knowledge of you and Rob.

      1. Chuck Z

        Where did I say that’s what I “learned”? You and Jon have an undeniable need to twist words to mean what you need them to mean. If you don’t think that it was being “taught” that humans were direct descendants of apes, then you simply, again, don’t know what you’re talking about. And it’s not surprising. I’m certain if you put an iota of effort into it, you’d find the graph that was in every textbook, in every school, in America.

        1. entech

          Not so much twisting as misinterpreting what you said “If you don’t think that it was being “taught” that humans were direct descendants of apes, then you simply, again, don’t know what you’re talking about

          1. Did we evolve from monkeys? “

          Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn’t evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
          5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

          What you say is not true, the only people that were claiming such distortions of the theory were the Creationists and others with a strong personal need for evolution to be false that they twisted and misrepresented what was being taught. Expression and idea that has never changed “involves a common ancestor” – descent from a common ancestor. That this comes about by mutation says that it is nor “direct” but is a gradual change a diverging from the common ancestor.

          Quite obviously I was wrong suggesting that you learned this at school; you consistently demonstrate that you learned nothing,

          1. Chuck Z

            Do retain anything that you read? “WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL…”. When you were in school, did you hop on the nearest computer and verify your info on pbs.org? Again, so maybe it sinks in this time…..WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH WAS TAUGHT AS FACT, STATED THAT HUMANS WERE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF APES. NOW, THE FACTS HAVE CHANGED. HOW CONVENIENT.

            Do.
            You.
            Understand.
            Now.

            Or should I write it out in your favorite crayola crayon color to give you a little help?

            It’s simply amazing that you mock anybody’s level of intelligence.

          2. entech

            All I can say is it may have been taught as a fact that humans were direct descendants of in schools with which you were familiar. But it was never, NEVER, taught as part of evolutionary theory that humans were direct descendants of apes, NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY YOU SHOUT IT, IT IS not True.

            I am afraid it is you and Rob that do the intelligence mocking thing. I merely comment on your level of knowledge:

            noun knowledge Definition of knowledge
            1.
            a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
            __(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
            b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
            __(2) : the range of one’s information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge
            c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning

            2 the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

            From this definition one can suggest that knowledge may real or it mayb in doubt or it may be false. A newer version, in line with modern America could be that there is Fake Knowledge or even Alternative Knowledge. I think the last one applies strongly:
            The knowledge of how evolution works is scientific knowledge, like all scientific knowledge it must be thought of as being the best of our knowledge at the moment, bit tautological perhaps but definitely the best of our knowledge at this time.

            The knowledge purveyed from a religious view point, especially a seven creationist viewpoint is really alternate knowledge (check Whitehouse spokespersons for their version alternate facts). Another phrase popularised by today’s Whitehouse – “Fake news” which could be legitimately used in such terms as “the good news” which is the text of a collection of books, most of it while not actually Fake is certainly not true and reliable.

            Anything creationism has to say about evolution is knowledge that has been made into an “alternate knowledge” to science knowledge about evolution – as that nice spokes person for Trump demonstrated alternate facts are actually lies. It is “fake news”.

            To clear the air:
            I do believe Evolution is currently the best explanation of the development of life on the planet. I know that evolutionary theory as propagated and developed By Darwin is correct as based on the best knowledge Darwin had to hand. That it has developed with increasing knowledge is true. That it has never tried to explain the origin is true – that creationist knowingly lie about this and say its failing is because it can’t explain is a huge. lie.
            I do believe that there the creator God (Trinitarian version) does not exist. From the lack of belief in the Christian God it follows that “The Bible” a collection of books supposedly written, quoted or inspired by a non-existent entity can have no validity, cannot be read as literal truth – or even claim to have truth within it. As far as it is claimed to be a historical document it is only very small sections which may be considered historical and even those need some scepticism when checking the chronology.

            And finally, I would repeat what I often say:
            All that I believe in this sense could be wrong.
            All that you believe in this sense could be wrong.
            It is all speculation and there is no direct evidence for or against much of what is in the Bible.

            I would not go as far as to say anything or everything I believe is false or even open to doubt is true. I have no doubt of the speed limit in the street outside my house; I saw the sign as I drove past. As the presupposition apologist would have it – could be a brain in a vat. how do you know you’re not? As I cannot say without a doubt then that proves the existence of God ???
            By the same token I could, of course, be wrong about speed limits too. The council may have had a secret off hours meeting and secretly change the limit but not yet notified anyone, (as it is now Saturday afternoon and a major football match is be played), I would suggest that this is more likely than the existence of God.

  5. Jinx II

    Ignorant posts flood the page in RRFT today, no wonder we are dropping in ranks of Science and Technology compared to the rest of the world,,,,,,in fact we are 4th now. We were first for decades.

Comments are closed.