Login

Join for Free!
119269 members


Theories - Origin of Life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:03 pm

Thanks for your post

I have got to go out this evening so will respond first thing tomorrow morning.

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

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:18 pm

May I deal with your response one at a time, as all you that have written is definitely worthy of a response.

I like that last post.
At least it makes clear what we can agree and disagree on.
Basically you got the gist of how genes do evolve, change multiply. I just would like to add that gene duplictaion is not the only way to create new genes. So genes can be fully acquired from another organism (but it need to have evolved there) by horizontal gene transfer, and some genes that become useless because e.g. the environment changed are not the subject of selective pressure and can evolve in interesting new ways.
Plus there are genes that affect the regulation, the expression or even the folding of the protein. All that can drastically affect survival in certain conditions.
But I digress, you seem to accept that all that is convincingly proved and that it can happen.
Am I right?


Well no, not quite.

If you will recall I have made repeated attempts to get someone to posit their understanding of what “evolution” actually is.
That ended in failure so I posited my understanding of what is generally understood and of course centred that understanding specifically around molecular evolution.

The principle behind the idea of gene duplication is to account for how a new function can arise without the loss of the old function, which natural selection (the central concept of Darwinian theory) would prevent.
Natural selection can only select from an existing function. It does not create new functions.
In other words Natural Selection can account for the demise of a species not the arrival of a species.

Therefore another “gene(s)” however arrived at would be needed and free to evolve.

The central question though is whether these theories or hypotheses can account for the arrival of new species (i.e. new body plans.)

So lets examine what the science is behind these hypotheses.

Gene duplication, does it occur?
Yes it does
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

Spontaneous duplication of the mammalian genome occurs in approximately 1% of fertilizations. Although one or more whole genome duplications are believed to have influenced vertebrate evolution, polyploidy of contemporary mammals is generally incompatible with normal development and function of all but a few tissues.
(My emphasis)

There is of course a lot more information that highly questions that gene duplication can account for speciation and if required I will provide the evidence.

HGT is posited as another method by which natural selection would be allowed to operate.
Does it occur.
Well yes again, in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes.
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/1
However, the prevalence and importance of HGT in the evolution of multicellular eukaryotes remain unclear.


And again I can provide a lot more information as evidence, but at best these ideas are definitely questionable when it comes to explaining origin of speciation.

This is why there are so many ideas that try to explain speciation with some directly contradicting Darwinism, Evo Devo and Symbiotic theory are but two of them.

So your biggest problem is not how can the information multiply and change over time, it is only it can appear in the first place. Your problem is not with evolutionper se, but with the creation of life.


Ii is not me that has a problem. It is the many scientists (not science) trying to explain these matters that have the problem.

Now I will end this post here to allow a response to this particular part and will respond to your other points shortly.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:22 pm

Patrick
Ok lets continue, this is a long one but you have raised quite a few points
In which case Genesis 1 (I checked, it is in the first chapter, and you were right there is only one version of the creation of life on the earth, the 2 different stories in genesis 1 and 2 are about the creation of man), is not massively helpful either because it just tell us that it is so because of the word of god. Hmmmm...

It’s nice to see you have at least done some homework and agree with me on the number of creation accounts.
However please read the account more carefully.
1) The second is not about the creation of man, it is about the start of his history.
The creation of man (male and female) appears in the first history. Chap 1:27
You do yourself no justice when you make such careless errors in the simple matter of reading accurately.
2) Where does the account state it is the word of God ?
Your bias is blinding you to what is actually being stated.

This account claims to be a history set down by ancients. The only question that can be attributed to it is whether it is accurate. That’s all.

Science's best bet is currently self replicating RNAs with catalytic activity, as those things can be observed

Really?
Leslie Orgel’s posthumous essay on this subject is worthy of note.
Remember he was one of the originators of the RNA world hypothesis.

Now please read his paper of 2007 and note his conclusion of his own hypothesis which you will find here.
It is entitled
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0060018

And here is his concluding comment

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."

The above is not the conclusion of some lone scientist because there are many.

Remember I informed you of the conclusion NASA itself had reluctantly arrived at.
There are no natural plausible pathways to the production of complex biochemical molecules.

You see science knows that pigs don’t fly.

You would do well to research your belief system properly rather than running with “pigs will fly” hypotheses and then treat them as if they constitute science.

Now we already know that water prohibits any peptide sequences from forming.
They are both chemically and thermodynamically implausible.
This is a scientific fact.
So what would be a better place to get started?
Well, instead of water how about earth.

You know those ancients were indeed quite clever chaps..
Just look at what they wrote about the first forms of life.
And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind……"

So far then, this account has been shown to be correct in that originally, all the land mass was in one place.

Those ancients clearly knew something that has taken modern science quite a little while to catch up with, me thinks
Certainly contrasts with Darwin’s musings of “quiet little pond” somewhere. :)

Now we note that they even knew where life got started and you appear to be still struggling to catch up.

OK lets take a third
There is a biologic logic about the first forms of life being vegetation.
After all they manufacture their own food in order to survive.

The account then goes on to state that life then got going in the seas and atmosphere and then the animals of the land.

Scientifically implausible or scientifically plausible?

Remember this is just an historical account. It's not a scientific document.

OK lets take Dawkins little open letter to Rick Perry.
I don’t know much about this Perry person other than I think he considers himself suitable to run for the presidency of the US.
However I do know a little something about this Richard Dawkins fellow.

He is the eminent scientist who hypothesized the “selfish gene concept”
That turned out to be wrong. Strike 1.
He is still stuck in his “gradual evolution” mindset.
Again we have science turning against him. Strike 2
What about his Tree of Life mindset?
Now you ought to know all about this, what with HGT and all. Have a chat with Carl Woese.et al.
So that is also turning against him -- Strike 3

Was it not Mayor Rudy Giuliani who came up with the 3 strikes and you are out policy.
Of course the scientific community are a little more tolerant :)

A little bit of advice, if you must quote him do it on his religion not on his science.

Now this is quite a “long winded” post as you keep reminding me so I had better end it here.
I will deal with your next point tomorrow.
Trust me I will answer your question :)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm


Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby scottie » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:16 pm

Patrick
Sorry for the delay.
As I understand it your argument is essentially this.
So long as the originator cannot be named or identified then that is evidence the originator doesn’t exist.
Therefore (according to your logic Gravity doesn’t exist, The Laws of motion do not exist and as we don’t know who invented the wheel so it doesn’t exist either etc etc.)

Now of course this is nonsense, as you well know, and we have covered this point before.

However I have noticed that you have changed your approach somewhat.

You previously wanted to know the name of the originator.(agent)
It has now changed to
“So pray tell me, where does the original agent come from?


Look I don’t need to pray about this.
Be that as it may, lets deal with your comment on information.
We know, because science has established it, that the metabolic pathways we observe in the cell do not exist in natural law.

Natural laws that the study of science rests on, are not observed in the functional information content we observe guiding cell processes. That I assume is clear enough to you, since you have not attempted to rebut any of the information I have provided.

Therefore that guiding information can only come from an outside agency as I keep stressing.
Now you may not have realised the fact that information is non material.
The chemical molecules are material but the information they contain, that directs them in ways that are not linear and in non random ways, is not material.

Why else does the cell enlist such elaborate editing and feedback looping that we observe. Also we are now observing the tremendous redundancy that exists ensuring constancy of functional output.

All our experience tells us that this king of information comes from a mind, one that is using “ an external source of free energy” as NASA puts it.

This is the only evidence we have and all that evidence is staring at us, inconveniently it appears to some or indeed many.

So why is it so difficult to grasp such a simple concept?

There can only be one reason.
Your philosophy prevents you from doing so.
Please reflect for a moment, on your own statement

Science's best bet is currently self replicating RNAs with catalytic activity, as those things can be observed


Now apart from the fact that you aren’t keeping up with the latest understanding amongst scientists, you are reducing your view of science to a casino operation.

Scientists with certain philosophical needs may engage in betting, science however is not a casino.

This type of wishful speculation stems from a philosophical need.
It has nothing to do with science and deep down I suspect you know it.
( Freeman Dyson sums it up nicely in a conclusion comment to his own speculative scenario on origins.
“ The question is whether any of that makes sense. I think it does, but like all models, its going to be short-lived and soon replaced by something better.”)

One thing we are agreed upon though.
Logic is not science. There maybe logic in studying science but in itself it is not science.
Philosophy, parading as science however cleverly it may be dressed up, is also not science.

At least creationists, bizarre though some of their statements may be, wear their philosophy/religion on their sleeves.
You though, are trying to camouflage yours under the guise of science. That is not a very stable foundation.

Now there are invariably fundamentalist diehards who despite all the evidence to the contrary will continue to stick to an idea, no matter what.
I sincerely hope you are not one of those, but that has to be your decision.
In the meantime however I will continue to present information in the hope of course you don’t bar me from this forum. :)

Craig Venter and George Church recently had a discussion regarding the ribosome which is very revealing.


I will copy part of the transcript in my next post, as this has gone on long enough. :)
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby JackBean » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:51 pm

scottie wrote:We know, because science has established it, that the metabolic pathways we observe in the cell do not exist in natural law.

Natural laws that the study of science rests on, are not observed in the functional information content we observe guiding cell processes. That I assume is clear enough to you, since you have not attempted to rebut any of the information I have provided.

I have probably skip this one. Which natural laws are you talking about?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby canalon » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:47 am

Now Scottie, my simple question is one of logic, not science, not naming not nothing, simple logic. I will detail it one more time for your understanding:
1- Complexity, such as observed in life, cannot arise spontaneously
2- Ergo matter needs guidance by a complex entity to organize it self in living beings
So what guides the matter? And how did it appear without guidance, as it would launch us in a recursive loop?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby LeoPol » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:22 pm

Nucleic-acid-peptide micro-molecular technology - a database of DNA through RNA intermediaries is implemented by the polypeptide interface. But this is an automated production system. A user who is? And this is an older subject - glyco-lipid membrane. Once upon a time, a few billion years ago, some engineers of a great civilization glyco-lipidoides created this nucleic acid-peptide technology and armed with it, settled by a million ships in all parts of the visible universe. But what do our evolutionists? And they are the origin and evolution of life on self-replicators - RNA! Wow! So you can keep your computer from the origin of a computer mouse! Yes, the computer system, of course at the last regular duplication mice formed a small detail, like user ... :shock:
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 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:46 pm

JackBean » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:51 pm

I have probably skip this one. Which natural laws are you talking about?


The laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics.

These natural laws are not left unguided in cell processes. They are guided by the functional information contained in the cell.
That information is not internally sourced but, as for example, NASA has concluded can only be from an outside source.

Patrick

1- Complexity, such as observed in life, cannot arise spontaneously


Correct

2- Ergo matter needs guidance by a complex entity to organize it self in living beings


Correct

So what guides the matter? And how did it appear without guidance, as it would launch us in a recursive loop?

As I have already stated in my last post.
It did not appear without guidance.
All our experience tells us that this kind of guiding information comes from a mind.
Is there any other logic we have experience to go on?
If so please inform.

Leopol
As I understand it, you have a view that life was planted here on earth by an extra-terrestrial lifeform.

Is that correct?
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby LeoPol » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:12 am

to Scottie
I think the concept "extra-terrestrial" for life is not correct. Life is life. It is the same painful geo-anthropo-centrism. Intelligent life, armed with a nucleic-polypeptide technology could in a few billion years to spread widely in the universe, and here we have one of the planetary population. It is strange that you do not think this is correct!
Another interesting question. The above is obvious, but the crowd of smart people at NASA and elsewhere raise the question only about panspermia microorganisms! Why not reasonable landings? It's that - a taboo? I wonder who the customer? Ah yes, the theory of evolution as something is lost ... And creationism, too, seemed suddenly melts away ... Wow!
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Postby LeoPol » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:29 am

to Scottie

There is also the question of why intelligent life is usually unwise? But it is not difficult:

Collapse of civilizations - the regression of creative thinking

It is well known that in the living world all on demand and trains - is evolving and what does not on demand and no trains - regresses.

This refers to the organs and tissues of our organism to thinking skills, communication, food and much more, but also social institutions, and large industries. And more broadly - to the development of species and entire ecological systems. "Claim" in different cases is a demand, "social order", "selection pressure" and so on. If this law of nature to apply the theory to our ability to think creatively, the result a sudden a logical conclusion, which is the very our "starting point".
Sense reasoning is as follows:
Creative intelligence to develop a species until it is demanded. With it, created an elaborate set of global technology standards and stereotypes in all spheres of public life. But then, after reaching a "global harmony" and a "welfare society" creative intelligence is no longer needed, subject to negative selection pressure and begins to regress.
30-50 thousand years happy hypothetical "world empire" (or "Democracy") becomes a world of "ants" in the minds narrowly stereotypical type of mind, where a return to the creative phase is almost impossible.
A thousand years later, 200-300 changes in genetically fixed and this species generally losing the creative intelligence, and the "purposeful activity" in this society is no different from the cooperative activity of the same social insects. This is not the mind, and his remains - a relic. Relic Paleo-civilization reasonable.
Armed with such a logical premise, it is possible to take a fresh look at our world as something that it has featured such "relics of the Mind," left over from long ago emerged and faded manifestation of "creative intelligence."
This is the same social insects, provided such relics of two integers: public-Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants), which became public, according to various sources, from some point between 50 and 100 million years ago (an ancestor - a giant wasp) and

- Termites, which have left their public relic from a certain point in time from 120 to 200 million years ago (an ancestor - a giant cockroach).

Can claim to be a "relic of reasonableness" and

- Multicellularity our organisms (there was about a half billion years ago, the creator - Vendian biont large aerobic unicellular ameboid, who built a very complex civilized society - a multicellular organism Myxomycetes).
Some terrestrial civilization can not leave behind a "relic" - coelenterates, sponges (archeocyathids), marine polychaete (trilobites), rakoskorpions, siphonophores, salps, cephalopods, and pikaias.

Well, the question of how to achieve the welfare, thus, is a question of how to kill a civilization. :cry:

http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=32
( http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ge_id%3D32 )
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Postby JackBean » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:55 am

Can you tell, how exactly the metabolic processes are against the natural laws? Because I'm pretty sure they are not.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby JackBean » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:54 pm

http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests