LIFE

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by Linn » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:56 am

hybridization for one example, though does not produce a different "Kind" of organism and does it not produce offspring that are reproductivaly inferior or sterile?
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:12 am

Astus, I agree with your mutliple ancestral proto-cell hypothesis. :D Hope that makes you feel better! 8)

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:46 am

Linn wrote:how would the conditions be just right?
PS:
thanx for the clarification
all life began each according to their kind as stated in creationism.


1. I'm no biochemist, but scientists have identified many environmental factors that would have contributed to the formation of proto-cells. Some would include:
Anoxic environment, dominated by methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia and water vapor.
abundant water
warm temperatures
predecessor molecules (monomers, amino acids, basic lipids)
A source of energy (the sun, lightning strikes, heat in deap-sea vents or hotsprings)
And add a sprinkle of the unknown (god's final frontier)

Essentially, I'm saying that if environmental conditions allowed the formation of one proto-cell, why not many? If lightning struck a pool full of amino acids, why shouldn't multiple proto-cells have formed, rather than one. Or, if not all at the same time, multiple probably formed over a period of time, mixing genetic information with eachother. It seems logical that the chance of one of these proto-cells forming and surviving long enough to replicate is very slim, so you might need an initial army of them to survive. Course this is just my whacky theory.

All life began according to their kind? I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me or if I'm miscommunicating. I think it's the first though.

Linn wrote:hybridization for one example, though does not produce a different "Kind" of organism and does it not produce offspring that are reproductivaly inferior or sterile?


In the case of cnemidophorus ( http://www.aics-research.com/research/whiptail.pdf ), the evolutionary advantages of hybridization/parthenogenesis are still mostly uknown; however, you do see a new viable species being formed from a two-part hybridization. So yes, a new "kind" of organism can be formed. Reproductively inferior? In a lot of cases, yes. The species formed from cnemidophorus hybridization is asexual, and thus can only make clones of itself via parthogenesis.
There are other cases where sexually viable hybrids have been produced. Mules (donkey + horse) have mated and had viable offspring. Also (though this is more tricky) wolves and coyotes have had viable offspring.
Don't forget the world of micro-organisms. Hybridizations of closely related species of bacteria, protozoans, etc are fairly common, and do result in viable offspring.
And then there's symbiosis (ie mitochondria in eukaryotic cells, chloroplasts in protozoans and diatoms, etc)

User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by Linn » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:46 am

Yes,
thats ok if your not a micro-bio, you need not be a fancy bio boy. Its obvious you are an intelligent person.
I understand what your saying. You may be mis understanding me
However
by "kind" I mean class ie
1)wolves, coyotes, dogs etc
2)lions, tigers, etc

its not goats, dogs and cats.
And yes a mule however can not produce ofspring that can reproduce. it stops there. N ew species can not be formed.
Genes are a assembled in such a way as to prevent new forms from evolving.
Respectfuly,
Linn
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:11 pm

Actually there have been documented cases of mules producing viable offsrping. It's very rare, because the chromosome count has to match up. It was a case of twin mules mating successfully with eachother. I'm pretty sure it was encouraged by human manipulation too.
You're right, you will not see a change in "kind" in a single speciation event. However, gradual change over many speciation events can account for changes in "kind".

I'll admit, getting bats, rats, dogs, and cats from a common ancestor is rather mind-boggling, and incredibly complex. Attempting to understand the scientific mechanisms that could account for this diversity of species is a worthy effort.

I think endosymbiosis is an important part of this topic. Futhermore, mitochondrial DNA sequencing reveals a lot regarding the relationships of various "kinds" of organisms to eachother.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by Linn » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:25 pm

Now that is a good post
very interesting
thanx
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver

Xe3
Garter
Garter
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:57 am

Re: LIFE

Post by Xe3 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:01 am

CoolJay221 wrote:Is it true that all life came from a single and the same ancester


Hmmm, doesnt that depend on what your personal definition of life is (not necessarily the real one)...

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:57 am

Aren't we talking about the commonly accepted scientific definition of life? I know that might not be the real one either (viruses kind of get left in that gray area, but can cause a lot of commotion so are, if you ask me, alive), but it helps to all be using the same definition so we don't confuse each other.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests