Login

Join for Free!
118879 members


Theories - Origin of Life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby wildfunguy » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:21 pm

scottie wrote:How does one distinguish between what is a random and what is a prescribed cellular response to outside pressure.
Didn't Luxorien say that mutagens facilitate the appearance of resistance? If that could be shown for various cases with various mutagens, I would take it to be strong evidence.

Cat wrote:FYI - I am one biologist that disagrees… Most mutations are neutral.

It depends on whether you're talking about mutations to the genotype or mutations to the phenotype.

arfeltayona wrote:Here is a short post...

How then is mutation (a change in the DNA sequence hence the genome) not a cause for Species Genesis... when basically the main difference between species is genetics?

How then can accumulation of Mutation not a cause for Species Genesis when differences in environmental pressure could cause a shift in Species Population for varying genome composition...

Frankly, I'm lost here...

Speciation is related to hybridization. According to the biological species concept, separate species cannot produce viable hybrids. Why does this definition work? I'll give the best explanation with my current understanding.
An hybrid is kind of like a junk-yard car with incompatible parts. If you're combining Toyota parts, you might get something that works. If you're combining Toyota and Nissan parts, you're less likely to get a working car.
Anti-evolutionists think that successive mutations can't result in new adaptations. In other words, the populations can't evolve new parts. I have never heard the following concepts from an anti-evolutionist, but I'm presuming this to be what follows. When a population is separated geographically, the separated populations shouldn't evolve their own unique sets of parts (assuming the anti-evo viewpoint). That is, even though they may diverge genetically, the blue-print for optimal functioning shouldn't change. Thus genetic divergence shouldn't result in reduced hybrid viability, and the populations should always have the potential to merge back together.
Again, this is just what is IMO what we should expect to see if the anti-evolutionists are right. We could easily test this by separating an insect population for some time, then observing hybrid viability.
User avatar
wildfunguy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:28 am

Re:

Postby wildfunguy » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:33 pm

Sumanth001 wrote:Hey guys I am a newbie here. But I have the cracking latest stuff for all of you.
All of you, beyond doubt believe Miller and Urey's experiment on origin of life.
This is one fresh discovery. A group of viruses (mimivirus) have given rise to the three different domains of life i.e., archaea, prokarya(bacteria) and eukarya.


I'm sorry for moving your post to the second-to-last page, especially since it is more on the topic.
User avatar
wildfunguy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:28 am

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby wildfunguy » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:21 pm

Considering my metaphor further, I suppose the "∅ beneficial" viewpoint would still be compatible with the idea that the original population contained Toyota parts, Nissan parts, and an intermediate group of Niss-yota parts that were lost during speciation.
In that case, the initial population should show a wide range of hybrid viability, and the separated populations should not produce hyrbids that consistently fall below that range of viability. Of course, hybrid viability would have to be measured with respect to non-hybrid viability to control for any increase/decrease in harmful mutations.
User avatar
wildfunguy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:28 am


Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby Cat » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:23 am

wildfunguy wrote:
Cat wrote:FYI - I am one biologist that disagrees… Most mutations are neutral.

It depends on whether you're talking about mutations to the genotype or mutations to the phenotype.



Genotype. Change in phenotype is the result of the mutation. There can be no "mutations to the phenotype" by definition...
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby Luxorien » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:32 pm

Cat wrote:
wildfunguy wrote:
Cat wrote:FYI - I am one biologist that disagrees… Most mutations are neutral.

It depends on whether you're talking about mutations to the genotype or mutations to the phenotype.



Genotype. Change in phenotype is the result of the mutation. There can be no "mutations to the phenotype" by definition...


If you have hours of time to waste going back through this ridiculously long thread, I started out saying most mutations were neutral. Then he brought up studies on bacteria that talked about most mutations being harmful. Toward the end, I was attempting to argue that most random errors do cause problems, but cellular mechanisms correct those errors (or cause the resulting piece of DNA to be so broken that it isn't viable) so that by the time you are looking at phenotypes, most mutations are neutral because many of the most harmful ones have been weeded out.
If arguing with people on the internet helps me understand science, then I will do it. FOR THE CHILDREN.
User avatar
Luxorien
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:27 am

Postby Sumanth001 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:13 pm

crazy idea but, if u remember the miller and Urey experiment for origin of life, inorganic substances form the proteins. Does this mean that inorganic substances changed in form as time advanced in the young Earth???
User avatar
Sumanth001
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:53 am

Postby Dthink1010 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:06 pm

where's Scottie on this?
Dthink1010
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:13 pm

Re: Theories - Origin of Life

Postby paradigm » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:49 pm

The answer to the question of the meaning of life and the Universe and everything is 67: the number of unique phylogenetic types that exist in the Universe. See “An Introduction to the future of Science with the Paradigm of Types”, which is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/ts.pdf

Paradigm
paradigm
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:02 am

Re:

Postby wildfunguy » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:16 am

Sumanth001 wrote:crazy idea but, if u remember the miller and Urey experiment for origin of life, inorganic substances form the proteins. Does this mean that inorganic substances changed in form as time advanced in the young Earth???


Later revelations showed that the Miller-Urey experiment didn't simulate early Earth correctly.
User avatar
wildfunguy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:28 am

Postby BasicBiology » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:28 am

In the recent series "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson, he seems to think that the most likely origin of life is from comets. Interesting when you consider that not long ago the general consensus was that it was unlikely that any life existed other than that on Earth..
Adam Purcell
Basic Biology

http://basicbiology.net
User avatar
BasicBiology
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby JackBean » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:21 pm

since when there is a consensus about the origin of life?

And by saying that the life comes from comets, you're just pushing the problem further away and further in time, but the question still remains. But it is true, that each comet/asteroid could have brought other compounds and when they mixed here, some pre-life could emerge.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby BasicBiology » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:10 pm

That's true, it isn't really answering the question of what is the origin of life and is really only considering what might be the origin of life on Earth.

I wasn't trying to say there is a consensus on the origin of life, but rather just saying that that is what was said in that documentary series by Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is an astronomist so his views may be slightly biased towards astronomical explanations. There are microorganisms though that can survive in some pretty extreme environments for long times.
Adam Purcell
Basic Biology

http://basicbiology.net
User avatar
BasicBiology
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:27 am
Location: New Zealand

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests