Origin of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
User avatar
shanec14
Garter
Garter
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:46 pm

Post by shanec14 » Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:19 pm

:twisted: Oh just be particular. So we evolved from apes and not monkey's but their all monkey to me and apes are just really big monkeys. :evil:

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:20 pm

LOL... That is a point of view i guess...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

baikuza
Coral
Coral
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia
Contact:

Post by baikuza » Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:55 am

yap. i think DJ right.

science says taht we evolved from monkeys

it was darwin not science

DJ
Garter
Garter
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:54 am

Post by DJ » Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:12 am

baikuza wrote:??? are we talking about origin of species or the origin of life. yes jbdan said about evolution. but in my mind the meaning of evolution is releated to the chemical evolution. so i think jbdan not said about the origin of species.


You're right. The theory of evolution is not a solely Darwinian concept anymore. Modern evolutionary theory has been expanded to include all evolved progressions when speaking of "life". This includes chemical evolution. Down to the carbon atom's natural tendency to form organic molecules.

When I took biology as an undergrad, the main definition of evolution was just a change of allele frequency over time. And I still see this definition sometimes. But later on I had to take evolutionary biology as a pre-req to population genetics, and the course made it clear that the distinction between living organisms as we know them (ie, bacteria, protists, etc) and their precursors is no longer valid when explaining evolutionary theory.

lara
Coral
Coral
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:10 am

Post by lara » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:59 am

try this.we know that nucleotides were one of the former inhabitants on earth.many of the short strands(oligonucleotides) had enzymatic activity(remember ribozymes).They polymerized further forming rna.reverse transcriptase evolved next which formed dna from rna.as time advanced the enzymatic activity of rna reduced the role was taken up by dna.
facts to support:
:arrow: rna is not easily affected by acids.-the primitive condition was probably acidic and rna is a better choice as dna is easily denatured by acids.
:arrow: reverse transcriptase has no proof reading capability which cold be a driving force for mutations,which then was very essential for diversity.
:arrow: the reverse transcriptase activity is still conserved in telomerase even in mammals.
:arrow: some introns still have ribozyme activity.
it has been postulated that some 'molecular parasites' evolved which had no self-replicating capacity which entered the replicating molecules and utilized its machinery for replication.(VIRUSES??)
this is the beautiful rna world.
SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS ARE WELCOME!!

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:21 pm

Not exactly a suggestion, nor a criticism.
I saw on National Geographic this summer about the recreation of the RNA world, and they said scientists are having a really hard time trying to recreate ribose in vitro.. Anyone have any info on this?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:12 pm

Maybe because in vitro, ribose is an unstable molecule, so it broken up easily.
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:51 pm

It is? So how come it is stable in our body?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:43 pm

Still remain a mystery...it's just the same when you ask, why the reduction of 1 mole ATP in vitro only generates 7.76 kkal but in vivo, it will generates 13.33 kkal?? :wink:
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

dmvprof
Garter
Garter
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:36 pm

Post by dmvprof » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:37 pm

baikuza wrote:??? are we talking about origin of species or the origin of life. yes jbdan said about evolution. but in my mind the meaning of evolution is releated to the chemical evolution.


Then, that would be your own, new theory, not Darwin's theory.

And this distinction should be made, since it is this misunderstanding that often perpetuates the ridiculous religious arguments against evolution.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:03 pm

But he is right? the picture of evolution has changed since darwin's book. New arguments are being aded as biochemistry, genetics, biogeography and other sciences are continuosly making discoveries..
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

dmvprof
Garter
Garter
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:36 pm

Post by dmvprof » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:55 pm

I completely disagree.

I know of no modification to the Theory of Evolution proper that includes abiogenesis. The mechanics of the theory does not work on non-living things. Non living things don't struggle to survive. Non living things don't have mutations that can be carried forward genetically. And unless these are the mechanisms you are using, then it isn't evolution.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests