Login

Join for Free!
119291 members


Theories - Origin of Life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:08 pm

Continuing on with the problem ID has not addressed.

As I stated in my last post.
They are shying away from the obvious implications of what design means.


Design is always the product of a purpose the Designer has in mind.
If, as do the ID community, argue for Intelligent design, then they must reveal their understanding of the purpose of the design.

As I see matters this is very important because they are against a theory that posits randomness without purpose and they are arguing the exact opposite.

Now the evolutionists cite as their frame of reference Darwin’s Origin of Species (albeit with modifications, but with the central tenet intact).
That is their narrative.

Why can’t (or wont) the ID adherents narrate their own frame of reference?

They need to bite the bullet on this issue.

If they believe in the veracity of the scientific method, as indeed I do, then they should simply follow that method. Here is a good description of the scientific method.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html

As far as I am aware this forum has presented a few hypothesis
(1) There is of course the Darwinian narrative (with all it’s epicycles)
(2) Then there is the Creation narrative (with all it’s misunderstandings and bias read into the genesis account)
(3) Then there is Leopol’s Nucleic-acid-peptide molecular technology.
(4) Then there is also the genesis historical account itself (without any bias attachment)
(5) Finally there is Intelligent Design, without a purposeful narrative.

My question is simple.
Is there another narrative and if not,
Which of these accounts is most consistent with the scientific method?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby TheMatrixDNA » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:57 pm

Scottie,

I can’t understand how works the thoughts of all of you that search the answers for life’s existence. If you could explain to me, should be very grateful.

Let’s go start with this:

There are enough evidences pointing to a common ancestral. The debate now between evolutionists and iD is:
- Is evolution an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species; or
- Evolution is a process under design and purpose?

Ok. How my thoughts have worked? I am at the middle of evolution process. I am inside the process. So, remembering the Gödel’s theorem, it is impossible to whom is inside a system, to know the thru about that system. I never will know the thru about evolution. No way. First of all, the evolution we are watching in the whole Universe, can be merely phases of a universal process of reproduction. Then, nobody can say scientifically that there is evolution.
But…

There is a natural process of evolution that is outside of me, I am bigger than it, and I can watch it, fully. And this sample of evolution obeys the evidences for evolution: it is triggered by a common ancestral.
What is it?
The origins and development of a human body. Everything is equal to Darwinian mechanism of evolution: natural selection, variation, inheritance, common ancestral.
The common ancestral is a genome. The body in formation takes several different shapes (see Haeckel’s recapitulation Theory). The environment plus the forces inside the fetus sets the selection and fix shapes in the evolutionary tree.
The genome is the common ancestry. But it came from the parents; they designed the purpose of that evolution towards a final determined forma: the human shape. This evolution process I am seeing has no purpose of a final design in the image of the common ancestor, but an image beyond it.

At this point you are saying: “Wait! You can’t make this comparison. Everything is different…”
And I will ask: “I said that the final meaning is the same, since that the basic postulates are the same. What is different?”
Maybe you will not answer this question or at least will say: Louis this is such an absurd that I will not waste my time with it.
And I will comment: “My friend, the modern human kind are living in a such artificial world, with the brain hard-wired by too many scientific fantasies, that it cannot think anymore as a natural being. Why not apply Ockham’s Razor over this question? If we have a real and natural fact under ours eyes, why appellate to imaginary constructions?

I am not saying that my method suggests the common ancestor was made by an intelligent designer, neither that there is a God. My method suggests that the common ancestor was not a microscope initial life form. It was the astronomic system surrounding us, but, then, I have a theoretical cosmological model that fits as the common ancestor, different form the theoretical cosmological model that you have seen.

Why not trying to think out of the box, pointing out what is different between these two processes of evolution?
TheMatrixDNA
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: New York - USA/Amazon - Brasil

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:37 pm

TheMatrixDNA

Thanks for your response.
I am a bit tied up at the moment but will respond as best as I can tomorrow.

I will make one observation on your comment below.

There are enough evidences pointing to a common ancestral. The debate now between evolutionists and iD is:
- Is evolution an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species; or
- Evolution is a process under design and purpose?


The problem with your statement is that the ID proponents argue that common ancestry is also evidence of a common designer.
In other words the evidence that can be argued to suggest common ancestry also could support the common designer view.

I however do not share the view that some ID proponents take on this matter for one simple reason. The evidence from science does not support it.

I will summarise the evidence more fully tomorrow.

Thanks.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm


LeoPol

Postby LeoPol » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:40 am

I adhere to the hypothesis that the engineering design occurred during the rare periods when the developed technological civilizations. This has happened very rarely. But for a very long interim periods ran the Darwin's Natural Selection, as well as Dawkins's His Majesty the Selfish Gene! At the same time created by the engineering design technologies were degenerative effects of natural selection. As a result of species to varying degrees, lose universalism, but due to hypertrophy of various technological relics specialize in different biological niches. It is Macro-devolution!

Now - the arguments. Nucleic-acid-peptide molecular technology we have already considered. And now - eyes.

With all the great variety of eye, inducers that control tab in the ontogeny of the eye are the same for all studied taxa, including vertebrates and jellyfish. Moreover, the settlement and the time of appearance of the first sample of the inductor - Vendian.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/07/14/1008389107

These eyes have a lens with a jellyfish: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825319/

And also Turbellaria: [url]http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ресничные_черви[/url]

In polychaetes: http://www.liveinternet.ru/showjournal. ... id=1022068

Etc.

Further. Human embryo at an early stage has gills, caudal fin ... But he can not use them. This is because genetic technology support was lost when the larva was in the placenta. Or in the egg. Macro-devolution is irreversible! But now, the frogs have a larva with gills and tail fin! They are versatile us. A Turbellaria, some species of which contemporaries and now have eyes with lenses, the brain is orthogonal to type, the organ of equilibrium, etc., they are active predators! - Some Turbellaria are also free-living Müller's larva! Hence, their ancestors - in Vendian! They still have more versatile! Give Turbellaria such a trifle as a skeleton - and it is no easier to us.


So, Turbellaria in Vendian - a super-versatile creature. And before Turbellaria? Myxomycetes! According to the logic - even more versatile! ..

This is a message in Russian: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5440
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:21 pm

TheMatrixDNA

There is a backdrop revealed by science that should not be ignored.
It is therefore important to nail down a few of these scientific facts that relate to biology.
This helps recognise any philosophical statements that may be presented as fact.

Fact 1
The smallest living organism (species) is a single cell bacteria or archaea. Nothing smaller than this cell is considered to be living. The constituent parts of the cell if removed from it are inert. (DNA, RNA, Proteins etc are all inert when outside the cell.)
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insid ... eface.html

So what does this mean?
Simply that any discussion on the origin of species is by definition a discussion about the origin of life itself.

Fact 2
There are no plausible biochemical pathways to the origin of complex biochemical molecules.
I have already provided sufficient scientific references to this effect.
See my post of by scottie » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:31 pm
about14351-180.html

Any hypothesis has to account for this fact.

Fact 3 on the Origin of the Genetic Code
There is no natural explanation for the origin of the code, even in principle.
Koonin et al concludes this way.

At the heart of this problem, is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle (see (133–136) and references therein) but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory.

Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?,” that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.146/full
Again unless any hypothesis deals with this fundamental question, all else is simply philosophy.

Fact 4
Life is only known to come from another life. This fact has been known and indeed proved since Darwin’s day

Fact 5
Evolution is a historical narrative based on the Darwinian principle

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has an online book entitled
Molecular Cell Biology. 4th edition.
Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al. 2000

It is an excellent reference point in understanding cell biology functions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21568/

This is how it describes the subject of evolution.

The interplay of events played out over billions of years, in the historical process called evolution, dictates the form and structure of the living world today. Thus biology, which is the study of the results of these historical events, differs fundamentally from physics and chemistry, which deal with the essential and unchanging properties of matter.
The great insight of Charles Darwin was that all organisms are related in a great chain of being extending from the distant past to the present. The Darwinian principle that organisms vary randomly and the fittest are then selected by the forces of their environment guides biological thinking to this day.

Ernst Mayr (the one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis) in his 1999 Crafoord pride lecture confirms his view that this is so.
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. (my emphasis)

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-on ... luence.htm
So with these facts in mind how do the different views previously listed stand the test of the scientific method?

Since we are in the area of an historical narrative, the acid test for any hypothesis must be whether science supports the parts of the narrative that can be tested scientifically.

My question to you and others would be a simple one.
Does your idea have the backing of science?
If not it is simply a philosophical view.

That is not a problem as there are many philosophies around. It only becomes a problem when it is presented as a scientific fact.

So which narrative is the most scientifically plausible?

I posit that the Genesis narrative (without the philosophical/religious bells and whistles that creationists attach to it) is the most scientifically plausible one.
I have already put out some evidence but there is more.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

LeoPol

Postby LeoPol » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:53 pm

"The smallest living organism (species) is a single cell bacteria or archaea. Nothing smaller than this cell is considered to be living. The constituent parts of the cell if removed from it are inert. (DNA, RNA, Proteins etc are all inert when outside the cell.)
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insid ... eface.html"
- This is a clear evidence that about three billion years ago, life came to Earth from elsewhere in the universe. And degraded by the laws of Devolution! So there were bacteria. And about one billion years ago, has brought back here the settlers, but the degradation was delayed ... It is still going on! :D
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:17 pm

Leopol

Your idea could be the basis of a good Sci-fi movie.

Get in touch with James Cameron.
http://www.jamescameron.net/

:)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby LeoPol » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:14 am

Yes, exactly! The best way to describe the world of the past - sci-fi. I'm trying. Here: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5308
I've got different universal creatures from the Cambrian, Vendian and early Proterozoic in turn show a master class of his universalism. :?
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Postby LeoPol » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:34 am

Start the story here: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=4912, but a translation of Google, it's so awful! Sorry ...
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Postby TheMatrixDNA » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:00 pm

THE MATRIX/DNA
Scottie
You said:
“The problem with your statement is that the ID proponents argue that common ancestry is also evidence of a common designer. .. I however do not share the view that some ID proponents take on this matter for one simple reason. The evidence from science does not support it.”

And before it you said: “ I'm writing a paper on the origin of life, and I need some suggestions about which theories to write about.”

Ok. I think you will make a critical analyze of theories. Then, you need pay attemption about the meanings of nouns and words in each theory. The word “design” is full of problems.
You said: “Design is always the product of a purpose the Designer has in mind.”

And Wikipedia says: “ No generally-accepted definition of “design” exists, and the term has different connotations in different fields…
More formally, design has been defined as follows.
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;…”

Now I ask you:
- “Why “genome” is not a designer? Considering the definition above?

I think that genome fill up every requirement cited in Wikipedia for being a designer. Wikipedia does not say that designer has something in mind , like you said, so, designer could be not something with mind. If you think that genome does not fill one requirement above, tell me.
But, why I am talking about genome?

The scientific evidences point out that all living things are made through genome. Is it wrong? The theory of abiogenesis says that the “first living being was made by the unanimated world”
So ,we have a contradiction between scientific evidences and abiogenesis theory. Is it wrong?
You said that is writing a paper about theories of origins of life. You don’t said “only known theories and theories that makes sense for you”
Then, there is Matrix/DNA Theory, unknown, that yet does not make sense because it is too much complex and different.

But , for instance, Matrix/DNA has no contradiction with scientific evidences. The problem of genome and the first living being is solved: the first cell system was made in a long process of million or billion years from the decay of a half-mechanical/half biological system that transmitted a half-mechanical/half biological genome, which shape ,constitution and functioning is suggested through a model.

The non agreement between ID and Matrix/DNA is not about the word “design”, but about the word “intelligent”. The designer and design in Matrix/DNA were not intelligent.
TheMatrixDNA
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: New York - USA/Amazon - Brasil

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby TheMatrixDNA » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:08 pm

scottie
Fact 1
The smallest living organism (species) is a single cell bacteria or archaea. Nothing smaller than this cell is considered to be living. The constituent parts of the cell if removed from it are inert. (DNA, RNA, Proteins etc are all inert when outside the cell.)
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insid ... eface.html


Thanks by the link. But… don’t forget that the constituents party of any organism or non-living system are inert alone. The liver, the heart, the planet Earth out of solar system… etc. Separating the parts of any system is not the same of reducing the evolutionary history, or the origin, of a system. We have a problem here.

So what does this mean?
Simply that any discussion on the origin of species is by definition a discussion about the origin of life itself.


Sorry, I can’t understand your statement. The problem is again about the meaning of words. What is “origins”?

Word English Dictionary: Origin – 1 - - A primary source; derivation 2 - the beginning of something; first stage or part( often plural ) ancestry or parentage; birth; extraction

Then, I think, species are products of transformation, every living specie came from other living specie. In abiogenesis theory, the first cell system – aka first living being - did not came from transformation of another living system. So, I don’t think that discussion about origin of species is the same about origin of life.

I think there is no “primary source” or “first stage “ in this Universe. I think that every evolutionist and atheist should fight this word “origins” because it commonly means that something happens coming from outside the normal natural flow of cause and effect. This word is responsible for people searching something supernatural for explaining the existence of life, the beginning of religions. But, it is the cause that some rationalists also are believing in the arisen of life by chance. The words origins and life are wrong concepts.

The Matrix/DNA theory has solved this problem:
It says that there was no origin of life, as the beginning of something. Every life’s properties can be find on the last most evolved system before the first cell system (as shown in the “theoretical cosmological model”. If the models are right , at Earth surface there was origins of biological system, not life. Here, living things are products of transformation also, like species. My conclusion: You are right saying that the existence of species is related to existence of life, but, then, the theory of abiogenesis is wrong.
TheMatrixDNA
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: New York - USA/Amazon - Brasil

Re: LeoPol

Postby TheMatrixDNA » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:59 pm

LeoPol wrote:
- This is a clear evidence that about three billion years ago, life came to Earth from elsewhere in the universe. And degraded by the laws of Devolution! So there were bacteria. And about one billion years ago, has brought back here the settlers, but the degradation was delayed ... It is still going on! :D


Leopol

Congratulations. I also think “that “Devolution” is a good explanation for mystery of life.

Indeed, “life” appeared inside a system and was produced by this system that works like a watch, the Newtonian watch. But, the first living being did not work perfect like a watch, and our human body is far away from working perfect. So, only devolution explains the passage from our stellar system to the first cell system. In Matrix/DNA Theory I found a possible hypothesis for explaining this “devolutionary step”.

LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, was not a microscope half-living thing existing at earth surface; LUCA is the building block of astronomical systems. This is where life came from. LUCA, as shown in my models, is a perfect closed system, like the Newtonian watch. But it was attacked by entropy ( what you cal laws of degradation) and reproduced with mutations here, because here we have the liquid state of matter, then, organic chemistry. But, LUCA was a closed door to evolution and biological systems are opened door, then, macro-evolution came back again, going through a different pathway.

I think that we, both, are in the right way, with the idea of degradation. You are thinking out of the box, and this is good, you can find something new. Now, let’s go testing our theoretical models…
TheMatrixDNA
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: New York - USA/Amazon - Brasil

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests