Redwood Trees Can Evolve Into Squid!

[Air-run 12]

In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale painted a picture of an impossible experiment - one that he was positive of the outcome.

 

He said that if you could clone the planet earth about 10 million times and place just one species on each planet (with a sufficient food supply) - and that if you came back to the planet after 5 to 10 billion years, you would find each planet filled with a wide variety of life similar to what we find here on our own native planet.

 

He went on to state:

 

"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."

 

That settles that, I guess.

[Ron 10]

I am speechless! I simply don't have the words.

[ikester7579 20]

And they call us crazy fanatics.

 

They complain we say: God did it.

 

Now they say: Trees turn into squid?

 

LOL

 

I thought about making a flash animation of a fishing boat and a whale. The whale surfaces and goes MOOO. The one guy says to the other: Hey, was that a cow? The other guy says: No, it was a whale. That one has not finished evolving.

[Ron 10]

And they call us crazy fanatics.

63885[/snapback]

Indeed... But look at what those crazy fanatics say below!

 

They complain we say: God did it.

63885[/snapback]

And the entire time, they say “Evolution did it!†or “Nature did it!†And most of the time making personal pro-nouns out of each by capitalizing the first letter of each in the middle of sentences by saying things like “look what Nature didâ€ÂÂ, or “see what Evolution is doingâ€ÂÂ. Which is a far more silly and fanatical proposition than anything theists promulgate!

[Geode 2]

In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale painted a picture of an impossible experiment - one that he was positive of the outcome.

 

He said that if you could clone the planet earth about 10 million times and place just one species on each planet (with a sufficient food supply) - and that if you came back to the planet after 5 to 10 billion years, you would find each planet filled with a wide variety of life similar to what we find here on our own native planet.

 

He went on to state:

 

"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."

 

That settles that, I guess.

63874[/snapback]

It appears that Dr. Stearns uses such a discussion in his 7th lecture out of 36 lectures. What he actually says in lectures, or at least said during a lecture on January 28, 2009 is as follows:

 

Development is not easy to evolve, and I think this gets across one of the reasons that it's not easy to evolve changes in development. Every organism has to function and reproduce in order for a gene to get transmitted, and you can't tweak its development around too much or you'll make it fall apart. It's like you're driving down the road and you want to turn your Volkswagen into a Mercedes Benz, and so you get out your tools, and you're going sixty miles an hour, and you want to modify it, but you can't crash. Okay? So that causes constraints; there's only certain things that you can do while you're moving down the road.

 

These developmental constraints are not permanent. The genetic control of development does change more slowly than many other things, but I would submit to you that if we wiped out everything on the planet--let's first duplicate earth ten million times, and then let's go through and wipe out everything on all of those ten million planets, except for one species, and we leave it some food. Okay? It's the only thing that's there.

 

But on some planets all you've got is fruit flies. On other planets all you've got is redwood trees. On other planets all you've got is butterflies, and on other planets you've got albatrosses; but they have a food supply, they can live. Give them long enough, go away in your spaceship, come back, five billion, ten billion years later. I would submit to you that every one of those planets is going to have highly diverse life on it, and that many of the things that we see on this planet you will see on each one of those other planets.

 

They will contain a signature, probably a very interesting signature, of this huge disturbance that has been created on them. But I think that it's possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid. I just think it takes them a very long time. [Laughter]

Yes, that last comment elicited laughter from the students attending his lecture, who already had the vantage point of six previous lectures plus what he had already presented in this same lecture. This included comments about how different plants and animals are in terms of genetic history:

 

Now the neat thing about the MADS genes is the way they control flowers. And we're going to see that evolutionary developmental biology has a lot to do with the production of beauty. [Chuckles] Two of the best understood examples in evolutionary developmental biology are flowers and butterfly wings. Okay? So this is an area where researchers who go out to give talks get to use a lot of neat slides.

 

The ABC model of flower development goes like this. If only a gene from Group A is turned on, make a sepal; if only A and B are turned on, make a petal; if only B and C are turned on, make an anther; if only C is turned on make a pistol and an ovary. So the regulation of B and C is controlling male and female organ development. This is combinatorial. Okay? It's the same general logical principle.

 

However, it's with a completely different set of genes, and plants evolved multi-cellularity independently of animals, which means that plants invented development in evolution independently of animals. They both hit upon combinatorial control as a simple, logical way to control development. That probably means it's a very good idea. Okay? It's a very simple and economical way of expressing information.

Evolution Lecture

 

Does he think it possible that something like a squid could evolve from a redwood tree? I suppose he threw this comparison out for humorous shock value and thinks it would be very unlikely, given his earlier comments about the differences between animals and plants and how they developed which took up much of the lecture. I think what he really was stressing was his point that major changes in life forms are possible, yet difficult to bring about, but that great diversity would come about given enough time for it to develop.

 

I find it interesting that his entire course appears to be available here. Agree with what is presented or not this does present quite a learning opportunity that is rather different than just reading a textbook, for those of us unable to attend university lectures.

[Cassiterides 1]

Note how Geode is inserting [laughter] in the script to make it seem as if Dr. Stearns was joking about this.

 

However this is not in the original script or from the lecture you can watch.

 

But that's typical evolutionist dishonesty for you. Of course, evo's now can only resort to claiming this was a joke to play it down.

[Geode 2]

Note how Geode is inserting [laughter] in the script to make it seem as if Dr. Stearns was joking about this.

 

However this is not in the original script or from the lecture you can watch.

 

But that's typical evolutionist dishonesty for you. Of course, evo's now can only resort to claiming this was a joke to play it down.

63888[/snapback]

Did you actually read the transcript that I linked or watch the video? Anyone that does so will find that I did not insert the word "Laughter" but simply left it intact in a direct quote right where it appeared in the original. The laughter is also heard in the video, so it was not inserted wrongly by whomever transcribed the lecture.

 

Yes, I actually read a large part of this and watched a fair piece of the recorded lecture. I am not in the habit of quote-mining or altering what I quote in any way.

[MamaElephant 20]

I see no need to unfairly disparage someone in order to defend creation. It seems now with the context provided that it is quite clear to me that it was said in jest in order to make the lecture more interesting.

 

Now, the rest of the lecture still contains plenty of nonsense though.

[Cassiterides 1]

Did you actually read the transcript that I linked or watch the video? Anyone that does so will find that I did not insert the word "Laughter" but simply left it intact in a direct quote right where it appeared in the original. The laughter is also heard in the video, so it was not inserted wrongly by whomever transcribed the lecture.

 

Yes, I actually read a large part of this and watched a fair piece of the recorded lecture. I am not in the habit of quote-mining or altering what I quote in any way.

63889[/snapback]

You wrote the following:

 

What he actually says in lectures, or at least said during a lecture on January 28, 2009 is as follows:

Stearns did not laugh in the video though, the audience did. Maybe the audience found it funny, but there is no evidence Stearns did.

 

From what this lecture actually shows is that Stearns believes squids evolved from trees.

[Javabean 2]

You wrote the following:

Stearns did not laugh in the video though, the audience did. Maybe the audience found it funny, but there is no evidence Stearns did.

 

From what this lecture actually shows is that Stearns believes squids evolved from trees.

63896[/snapback]

 

You need to re-read post #5 again. It seems to me you missed a lot of what Geode wrote there.

 

such as

 

Yes, that last comment elicited laughter from the students attending his lecture, who already had the vantage point of six previous lectures plus what he had already presented in this same lecture. This included comments about how different plants and animals are in terms of genetic history:

and

 

Does he think it possible that something like a squid could evolve from a redwood tree? I suppose he threw this comparison out for humorous shock value and thinks it would be very unlikely, given his earlier comments about the differences between animals and plants and how they developed which took up much of the lecture. I think what he really was stressing was his point that major changes in life forms are possible, yet difficult to bring about, but that great diversity would come about given enough time for it to develop.

These 2 quotes make your complaints and comments about the professor moot.

[scott 3]

Well this doesn't suprise me any. Evolutionist believe that lightining striking a few amino acids magically created DNA which somehow magically(insert Millions or Billions of years here) became incased in a cell, which then magically(insert Millions or Billions of years here) was able to divide and reproduce... which magically evolved(insert millons or Billions of years here) into all the different kinds of life you see on earth.

 

See it's easy to believe that in a million years anything that's impossible will be possible.

[Javabean 2]

Well this doesn't suprise me any.  Evolutionist believe that lightining striking a few amino acids magically created DNA which somehow magically(insert Millions or Billions of years here) became incased in a cell, which then magically(insert Millions or Billions of years here) was able to divide and reproduce... which magically evolved(insert millons or Billions of years here) into all the different kinds of life you see on earth.

 

See it's easy to believe that in a million years anything that's impossible will be possible.

63915[/snapback]

 

That is in-correct Scott An Abiogenesist (sp) believes that. An Evolutionist doesn't have to believe in that at all. There are a ton of Evolutionists on this board who believe God created all the life we find.

[scott 3]

That is in-correct Scott   An Abiogenesist (sp) believes that.  An Evolutionist doesn't have to believe in that at all.  There are a ton of Evolutionists on this board who believe God created all the life we find.

63919[/snapback]

Correct! I should have said Atheist-Evolutionist believe in Abiogenesis... for if they don't, they aren't atheist.

[Cassiterides 1]

You need to re-read post #5 again.  It seems to me you missed a lot of what Geode wrote there.

 

such as

and

These 2 quotes make your complaints and comments about the professor moot.

63904[/snapback]

Geode wrote the following:

 

What he actually says in lectures, or at least said during a lecture on January 28, 2009 is as follows:

This statement is false, since Geode then pasted a fabricated script with inserted [laughter] in attempt to make it as if Stearns comments were not serious.

[Air-run 12]

From what this lecture actually shows is that Stearns believes squids evolved from trees.

I've been listening to the lecture series from the beginning. I've listened to 16 of the lectures so far. It is interesting and informative.

 

Stearns doesn't believe that the present squid we have here on earth evolved from trees. His point was that no matter what type of organism we plant on an experimental earth somewhere, that single organism would develop into a vast array of highly unique species quite similar to the species we find here on earth.

 

It is the idea that evolution and diversification are a biological necessity - that there are no boundaries to what evolution can do.

 

Consequently, Dr. Stearns constantly anthropomorphizes evolution and its processes, saying things like: "once fish evolved lobed fins that allowed them to walk on land - they just needed to evolve the ability to breathe air."

 

Please note - this is not at all a direct quote, just the fact that even though evolutionists constantly claim that evolution does not involve a linear, goal driven process - much of the time it is presented in terms of an intelligent, goal driven process.

 

Along with this is the evolutionary belief that genetic mutations are like a roulette wheel that will eventually produce just the right new information to let a species evolve to match a new selective pressure. This is faith in the process of evolution, that given enough time, mutations will eventually produce the perfect adaptations.

 

Of course, Dr. Stearn's proposed experiment required some form of life to begin with. I doubt he'd be so positive of the results if each planet started with dirt and water.

[Javabean 2]

Correct! I should have said Atheist-Evolutionist believe in Abiogenesis... for if they don't, they aren't atheist.

63937[/snapback]

 

yep.

 

Although even an Atheist Evolutionist could believe that there was another cause to life, that was not Abiogenesis...but I can't fathom what that could be.

[Geode 2]

Geode wrote the following:

This statement is false, since Geode then pasted a fabricated script with inserted [laughter] in attempt to make it as if Stearns comments were not serious.

63940[/snapback]

I have already correctly pointed out to you that you are writing a falsehood about me and what I posted. Others have noted that what I posted was indeed correct. Here you make the same false accusation against me again, so the possibility that you simply made a mistake by making an assumption of what was in the lecture by not bothering to look at it yourself seems to have disappeared. As a Christian I take seriously the admonition we are given not the bear false witness. I suggest that you live up to the same honesty that we have been taught to make an integral part of our lives.

[Seth 1]

Geode wrote the following:

This statement is false, since Geode then pasted a fabricated script with inserted [laughter] in attempt to make it as if Stearns comments were not serious.

63940[/snapback]

Cass, how do you know Geode is purposely misrepresenting this transcript? Not to change the subject but you need to provide better evidence that Geode indeed did "purposely add" that portion to the transcript. I've read many transcripts and many of them type not only what was said, but also include the "reaction" of the audience, interviewer, etc. I feel you've expressed an unfair accusation and unless you have better evidence than your own guess you might want to rethink your position, maybe offer an apology?

 

I am not surprised that the transcript shows [laughter] since that WAS the reaction of the audience after that last statement. So I'm just a little puzzled about your accusation.

[MamaElephant 20]

Cass, how do you know Geode is purposely misrepresenting this transcript? Not to change the subject but you need to provide better evidence that Geode indeed did "purposely add" that portion to the transcript. I've read many transcripts and many of them type not only what was said, but also include the "reaction" of the audience, interviewer, etc. I feel you've expressed an unfair accusation and unless you have better evidence than your own guess you might want to rethink your position, maybe offer an apology?

 

I am not surprised that the transcript shows [laughter] since that WAS the reaction of the audience after that last statement. So I'm just a little puzzled about your accusation.

63965[/snapback]

Cass is banned. I missed it at first too, since I had him on ignore and skimmed his posts, missing the sig line.

[Ron 10]

  yep. 

 

Although even an Atheist Evolutionist could believe that there was another cause to life, that was not Abiogenesis...but I can't fathom what that could be.

63954[/snapback]

Key word here being "Believe" or "Belief"...

[AFJ 33]

Lecture notes from Geode--

 

The ABC model of flower development goes like this. If only a gene from Group A is turned on, make a sepal; if only A and B are turned on, make a petal; if only B and C are turned on, make an anther; if only C is turned on make a pistol and an ovary. So the regulation of B and C is controlling male and female organ development. This is combinatorial. Okay? It's the same general logical principle.

The professor is giving a much oversimplified example of plieotropy. I do give him credit that he said GROUP A. It it a group of genes working together that make different things, and molecular biologists don't always know how big those groups actually are.

 

For instance, just to make the specialized cells in each organ takes all kinds of processes which include stem cells, and a multitude of different enzymes, signal proteins, and other regulatory machines. Many of these biochemical properties are proteins that are encoded by certain genes, and they are used in multiple processes which are interdependent of each other. They also work with biochemicals like ATP, carbohydrates, water, oxygen, etc. As well as minerals and other things derived from outside the organism. To suggest these just happen by random turning off and on of genes is gross oversimplification. It is a complete design which shows "circular" intent and overall purpose in each part.

[Air-run 12]

For instance, just to make the specialized cells in each organ takes all kinds of processes which include stem cells, and a multitude of different enzymes, signal proteins, and other regulatory machines.  Many of these biochemical properties  are proteins that are encoded by certain genes, and they are  used in multiple processes which are interdependent of each other.  They also work with biochemicals like ATP, carbohydrates, water, oxygen, etc. As well as minerals and other things derived from outside the organism.  To suggest these just happen by random turning off and on of  genes is gross oversimplification.  It is a complete design which shows "circular" intent and overall purpose in each part.

64029[/snapback]

Well said. This evo-devo explanation to evolution is supposed to answer the tough questions of how new species and organs developed - but it assumes that genes can flip flop around willy nilly - going unchecked, and eventually leading to massive overhauls.