DNA Analysis proves evolution

I want to try something different for a moment (different at least for me) let�s pretend for a moment that I do not believe in God or �intelligent design�.

 Earlier, when I wrote of some �primordial pool of soup� I was only being a little sarcastic (had I used my original wording �primordial sludge� then that would have been really sarcastic J). However, since that time I have been reflecting on the concept. In all seriousness, I should have said Primordial Ocean, because that is now pretty much how I envision the start of life on this planet. This primordial ocean was a vast body of water teaming with raw matter, ripe for life to begin.

I would also like to amend my use of the word �chance�; not necessarily in favor of �natural selection� (I�ll get to that later) but in favor of the idea that the emergence of life, when conditions are just right, is almost inevitable. Life is aggressive, it fights to take hold and survive. Even in some of the most inhospitable places on earth, miles underneath the ocean surface or at sub-zero temperatures imbedded in rock, life persists, even thrives.  Look up �Riftia pachyptila� (Giant Tube Worms), and �Green Algae� in Antarctica. LIFE HAPPENS! Stopping it from happening might actually be the real challenge� the weeds in my backyard are proof of that. J

The significance of all of this is the idea that I do not think that it was just one super organism, stronger than all the octillion failed organisms, that crawled up onto land, sprouted legs, and then became the common ancestor of all life on this planet. I think life would have just exploded from that ocean with countless organisms thriving, taking hold and developing. Many things would have emerged from that state. They would have all been similar, made of the same basic raw elements, and all related (for the exact same reason why they are similar).

Evolutions does not have to mean all species are descended from any one common ancestor. The vast number of species that call this planet home are varied and complex. To me at least multiple ancestors make more sense. I don�t think there is much plant DNA in me (aside from perhaps the salad I had last night) and I would like to think I�m not too closely related to cockroaches. I Don�t have much of a problem with the thought of being related to chimp or a bear (the bear part would explain much of my appetite). Were I to subscribe to the theory of Evolution I would most definitely lean towards an opinion of multiple ancestors not all directly related to every other species.  

OK, pretend time over� back to being a close minded Creationist J.

For me it has always been a question of design or not? Did life emerge and evolve simply because that is what life does (which is quite plausible), or was there a higher intelligence who planned, orchestrated, and guided the formation of life here?

My vote is for the higher intelligence.

Always sincere�. sometimes serious,

John B

I will have to venture into the whole �survival of the fittest/natural selection� aspect of things come Monday or Tuesday. THE WEEKEND IS HERE� AND I AM NOT!!!!

As I understand it �natural selection� is all about adapting, developing, persisting, and surviving�. �Survival of the fittest.� Simply put, those life forms that are the best at adapting, best at developing and changing, they are the ones that survive. Those species (or sub-species) that don�t adapt well enough don�t survive; and the opposite of survival is extinction.

My thoughts:

There are myriads of different life forms on this planet. The number of species and subspecies within just the insect world is staggering. Now let�s combine that with all the different forms of life that thrive in our oceans. If that is not overwhelming enough yet let�s add birds to that mix, reptiles too, mammals, primates, etc.. The numbers of species that call this planet home is mind blowing.

Of all the species that have had any kind of existence on this planet, how many do you think have gone extinct? How many species have we seen go extinct in the past few hundred years (after all, as humans we are pretty lousy caretakers)? I would venture to say that, percentage wise, the number of species and or sub-species that have gone extinct is low. Furthermore, many that have gone extinct (such as dinosaurs) may have done so because of some catastrophic event and not as a result of �natural selection.� I think that the traditional model of only the strongest or fittest species thriving and surviving is inaccurate.

Consider for a moment Canines; I am not even going to venture a guess at the number of species and sub-species there are, but that number would be massive, and likely still growing. Which breed would most consider more �fit�, a German Shepherd or a Chihuahua? How about a Pit-bull or a Pomeranian? Each of these breeds is just as prolific as the other� actually the Chihuahua is likely more prolific then them all (does that actually make Chihuahuas the FITTEST?!� J). If only the strongest survived I do not imagine there would be nearly as many dog breeds in the world today as there are now.

The prevailing opinion in relation to �Natural Selection� and �Survival of the Fittest� seems to be that life is ever looking for new ways to improve; essentially engaging in a near endless loop of trial and error, failure and success (actually it is thought to be more like failure, failure, failure, failure, success, failure, failure, success, failure, failure, failure�.). I don�t think that that is quite how it works.  

I think life is stubborn and doesn�t ever give up easily. I think that the vast majority of life on this planet is strong and very resistant to extinction. I do not believe that just the fittest survive. I do not believe that nature is as cutthroat as man is; indeed I think that the whole concept of �survival of the fittest� may very well be a result of us projecting our own thinking on the natural world around us.

The more I ponder over the world with all of its amazing life, beauty, and strength, the more I am convinced that there is a power behind it all. A creator and an organizer.

Always sincere�sometimes serious,

John B