Login

Join for Free!
118249 members


Theories - Origin of Life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby JackBean » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:56 pm

scottie: you are again and again providing just piece of information so that it looks nice for your picture, right?
The endosymbiotic theory does not say, how eukaryotes evolved, but how did we obtain the mitochondria and chloroplasts.

The actual evidence are genetic data of plastids, mitochondria and bacteria. It has nothing to do with the oxygen level.

I'm sure that you are much more than a schoolboy chemist, so you will be for sure able to explain to me, why couldn't life evolved, right? And NO LINKS! I won't read any links, I won't read anything what you won't type by yourself into this forum, so stop posting plenty of articles. Noone is reading that anyway.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby LeoPol » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:54 am

So the answer to these questions from the perspective of macro-devolution !

You know, as different from each other different "experts" in the termite hill? And termites - it's obviously - a relic of the paleo-civilization. Cells in multi-cellular organism - and it's so clear. Too - an obvious relic paleo-civilization! Well, some specialized Protista - members of the first communities of myxomycetes more billion years ago - had a specialty: work with photosynthetic bacteria. A mitochondrion domesticated even earlier - to multicellularity! Planted this bacterium in a membrane interesnub pocket and used as a generator ... Spent the most appropriate selection of the mitochondria ... Then plastids selected such that proliferated in the membrane pockets, but chloroplasts evolved into active only at a special incentive-team. And - "Cambrian explosion"? Also a consequence of some of the early Cambrian paleo-civilization! Twists in the caste society with a global division of labor morphological polymorphism ... Then different castes in a separate race, species.
:wink:

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... ge_id%3D32
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Postby CarlosG » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:23 am

I can't help but to think that Scottie is a Turing test stuck in a cycle of sorts. :D
CarlosG
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:34 pm


Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:16 pm

jackbean
scottie: you are again and again providing just piece of information so that it looks nice for your picture, right?

That is what any rebuttal is all about.
If you disagree with me then you should do likewise. Rebut with evidence.

The endosymbiotic theory does not say, how eukaryotes evolved, but how did we obtain the mitochondria and chloroplasts.

A prokaryote cell is a cell without a nucleus or other membrane-bound organelles
A eukaryote cell contains structures enclosed within membranes. These structures include a nucleus that contains dna, a mitochondria that also contains dna or likewise chloroplasts.

Now you should have noticed that I provided two citations in introducing the theory. The first that does not mention the early conditions and the second that does postulate the early conditions.

In fact the first from Berkley is entitled “From prokaryotes to eukaryotes”
Pretty clear I would argue.

My critique of the theory cantered on the early conditions, and the speculation that surrounds those conditions.

I would encourage you to read carefully what I have written.
I wrote
This is where the Endosymbiotic theory enters, to postulate the mechanism by which this all came about.

My criticism was about the mechanism (i.e. the endosymbiotic idea).
Endosymbiotic theory encompasses all the organelles that are enclosed in membranes.

The actual evidence are genetic data of plastids, mitochondria and bacteria. It has nothing to do with the oxygen level.

The theory is about the origin of the organisms. I am surprised you miss such an obvious point. This thread is all about theories of origins.

I'm sure that you are much more than a schoolboy chemist, so you will be for sure able to explain to me, why couldn't life evolved, right? And NO LINKS! I won't read any links, I won't read anything what you won't type by yourself into this forum, so stop posting plenty of articles. Noone is reading that anyway

For sure I do have fond memories about my schooldays :)
My last 50 odd posts have dealt in some detail how life could not have evolved in the way it is being promoted.

I appreciate you don’t like citations, however without citations I would simply be positing personal opinions. Science advances through proper documentation of research and therefore citations are important in explaining scientific matters. I would encourage you to read any accredited citation in order to fully appreciate,that any statement does have proper support.

I will therefore of course continue to support my statements with proper citations. Whether you choose to read and check them out is for you to decide.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:16 pm

I was not aware that this forum catered for advertsiments.

Jackbean

Genotype wants me to provide citations and you don’t want me to.
So what I suggest is that you read my posts that don’t include citations and Genotype read those with citations. That way both of you will be more comfortable. :)

This one is for you .

Let me try and consolidate my views as to why life could not have evolved by any natural process but as a result of design by an outside agency.

By evolved I mean some chemical combination of molecules (non life) somehow turning into some living organism.
This life in turn changes into other forms of life due to random processes acting on the organism

Let’s take the supposedly simple prokaryote cell.

This cell is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

There is a tough, flexible membrane that acts something like a brick wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper.
But this membrane wall is no simple brick wall.

This membrane shields the contents of the cell from a hostile environment, however it is not solid. It allows small molecules such as oxygen to pass in and out but blocks larger and more complex molecules from entering without permission. It also prevents the useful molecules within the cell from leaving.

There are special protein molecules embedded in this membrane wall that act like doors.
Some of these proteins have a hole through the middle that allow only certain types of molecules in and out of the cell.
Other proteins are open on one side of the membrane and closed on the other.
They have a docking site shaped to fit a specific substance, so that when the particular substance docks, the other end of the protein opens to allow the cargo through.

As you should already know this activity is just a very small part of the protective wall surrounding even the simplest of cells.

Now I don’t need to go into any further depth to ask some simple questions

Does this membrane (wall) have a purpose? Answer --- Clearly yes
Does it have function to fulfil that purpose? Answer --- Again yes
Does it have predictability, i.e. can we know what will and what wont be allowed through? Answer --- yes.

Are these all the attributes of design and with a specific purpose by an outside agency?
Again the answer is yes, with the proviso that nothing else can explain these attributes.

So, is there another possibility?

If you contend that there is then please explain what that can be.

Now I have asked for those who disagree with me, and that includes both you and genotype, to put their own viewpoints or theories forward so that they can be scrutinised.
Nobody --- including you, has come up with any explanation that you may wish to be held up to scrutiny.

So why not?
There is a concept that is referred to as “wilful or deliberate blindness”

Is that what is going on here?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:16 am

Jackbean

Genotype wants me to provide citations and you don’t want me to.
So what I suggest is that you read my posts that don’t include citations and Genotype read those with citations. That way both of you will be more comfortable.:)

This one is for you .

Let me try and consolidate my views as to why life could not have evolved by any natural process but as a result of design by an outside agency.
By evolved I mean some chemical combination of molecules (non life) somehow turning into some living organism.
This life in turn changes into other forms of life due to random processes acting on the organism

Let’s take the supposedly simple prokaryote cell.

This cell is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

There is a tough, flexible membrane that acts something like a brick wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper.
But this membrane wall is no simple brick wall.

This membrane shields the contents of the cell from a hostile environment, however it is not solid. It allows small molecules such as oxygen to pass in and out but blocks larger and more complex molecules from entering without permission. It also prevents the useful molecules within the cell from leaving.

There are special protein molecules embedded in this membrane wall that act like doors.
Some of these proteins have a hole through the middle that allow only certain types of molecules in and out of the cell.
Other proteins are open on one side of the membrane and closed on the other.
They have a docking site shaped to fit a specific substance, so that when the particular substance docks, the other end of the protein opens to allow the cargo through.

As you should already know this activity is just a very small part of the protective wall surrounding even the simplest of cells.

Now I don’t need to go into any further depth to ask some simple questions

Does this membrane (wall) have a purpose? Answer --- Clearly yes
Does it have function to fulfil that purpose? Answer --- Again yes
Does it have predictability, i.e. can we know what will and what wont be allowed through? Answer --- yes.

Are these all the attributes of design and with a specific purpose by an outside agency?
Again the answer is yes, with the proviso that nothing else can explain these attributes.

So, is there another possibility?

If you contend that there is then please explain what that can be.

Now I have asked for those who disagree with me, and that includes both you and genotype, to put their own viewpoints or theories forward so that they can be scrutinised.
Nobody --- including you has come up with any explanation that you may wish to be held up to scrutiny.

So why not?
There is a concept that is referred to as “wilful or deliberate blindness”

Is that what is going on here?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:06 am

For those who accept citations in support of posts.

Accordingly to Freeman/Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis Chapter 17, there are currently about 4 different hypotheses regarding Origin of Life.
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evo ... index.html

Here they are with their comments in an end of chapter summary questions.

"The "universal gene-exchange pool" hypothesis proposes a time when genomes were modular, and when organisms assembled their genomes from a common pool. It is not yet clear whether this system is stable and feasible, or whether it could give rise to Darwinian natural selection.

The ring-of-life hypothesis proposes that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of archaeans and bacteria. However, this hypothesis cannot explain where eukaryotes got their unique genes, and how fusion could have occurred in the two groups that lack a cytoskeleton.

The chronocyte hypothesis proposes that eukaryotes arose from a long-vanished lineage of "chronocytes", one of which engulfed an archaean that became the eukaryotic nucleus. No such chronocytes exist today, but perhaps the eukaryotes' unique genes represent a remnant of the genome of a chronocyte ancestor.

Finally, the "three viruses, three domains" hypothesis integrates viruses into the picture, proposing that (a) viruses are a remnant of the RNA World, (b) viruses evolved DNA during arms-race coevolution with their hosts, and (c) three such viruses then converted the three domains from RNA to DNA. Evidence from viral genomes offers a modest amount of support for this hypothesis, though more viral genomes are needed to thoroughly test the hypothesis.

These four hypotheses offer creative and varied ideas for the solution of the puzzle of life's origins. Which of these four is true, if any, we cannot say yet. But the more we learn, the more it appears that the early history of life on Earth was strange indeed."

You will notice that they all begin with a premise that life is already in existence.
So for a start this analysis has nothing to do with actual origin of life.


What is really interesting however is that one of these hypothesis has had to invent a new life form as a starter for the hypothesis.
It is called the chronocyte. :)

What is more interesting is that this mythical creature is actually the subject of a paper that appeared in PNAS entitled
The origin of the eukaryotic cell: A genomic investigation
http://biologia.uab.es/biocomputacio/tr ... 20endo.htm

So here we have an august scientific body resorting to or endorsing mythical creatures to try and substantiate scientific ideas.

Is this what science is being reduced to?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:44 pm

There is a body of opinion within this debating controversy that argues this way.---

The Darwinian evolutionary process does not engage with origin of life scenarios, but only addresses how an existing organism has changed in form and function to produce the variety of life forms that exist today.
The process that achieves this is the random variations of the genome that change form and function and is then filtered by Natural selection.

The problem that even this argument has is, it fails to account for the actual observations we note in cellular processes.

What is being discovered in cell investigation is not just a linear array of code in DNA, but a total integrated information processing system.

We are learning that DNA is not even nearly the whole answer.

DNA codes for proteins that do the important work in the cells.

These proteins though have to be arranged into more complex or higher cell structures
Cell types then have to be arranged into tissues.
Tissues in turn have to be arranged into organs.
These organs in turn have to be arranged into entire body plans, the forms we see in life.

These higher forms of organization are not fully understood, but it is clear that there are higher orders of information in the cell that are above DNA

DNA does not control all those higher orders of information.

DNA codes for proteins.

So there is this information hierarchy in the cell, and DNA is at the lowest level.
So clearly DNA alone does not control the formation of body plans.

Now the problem for the neo Darwinian synthesis (the modern theory of evolution in any of it’s forms) is that this theory attempts to describe how random mutations in DNA (the lowest level of information in this hierarchy) is responsible for new biological forms.

Since DNA alone is not responsible for biological form, no amount of mutations, random or even otherwise can produce new organisms.

This is why this materialist Darwinian concept is defunct.
It can’t account for the origin of form let alone life itself.

It is therefore very clear to me why I have had no responses to my repeated requests from those critical of my postings, to put on record what their actual scientific understanding is on this subject.

Sorry I must correct myself here, one critic did accuse me of lacking imagination. :)

Evolutionary theory is a materialist philosophy and not a scientific concept.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:27 pm

Quorum Sensing

Following on from my post on the hierarchical layers of information in the cell, further information on this has emerged in recent years.

There is the phenomenon of “quorum sensing”.
This is a mechanism by which bacteria communicate with one another.
The purpose of this communication is to establish the population density of a species of any of these micro-organisms within a local environment.

A single bacterial cell that secretes a toxin into an organism is not likely to cause any harm to the host. However if there are sufficient numbers around a host, joint expression of the toxin is more likely to have the desired effect.
In other words this communication allows bacteria to collectively regulate gene expression.

Professor Bonnie Bassler of Princeton University gave a TED talk recently where she explains this phenomenon far more interestingly and in layman terms.

Well worth watching.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler ... icate.html


When you have watched this you may well wonder what Darwinian process led to this coordinated activity. :)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby Eon » Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:11 pm

Evolution is a scientific fact - this is not an opinion, there is a plethora of evidence that validates that statement.

scottie wrote:Evolutionary theory is a materialist philosophy and not a scientific concept.


You have the stink of a Creationist that is merely trolling this particular topic thread.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Eon
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:39 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:21 pm

I produce evidence from accredited sources and you respond with philosophic and defamatory rhetoric.

Is that your best argument? :)

Which part of "evolution is a fact" as you put it, is a fact?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby Eon » Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:46 pm

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Eon
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests