Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Theoryofrelativity, Aug 18, 2006.
finally we have the answer to all the hostility Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I do hope that was genuine understanding and not sarcasm, because that statement is the heart of the matter. Several posters have stated the same thing in slightly different ways.
Now. Just watch TofR. I am about to offend the sensibilities of some scientists. I trust none are included in the posters and lurkers to this thread.
Evolution predates life.
The infamous organic soup contained a host of molecules, but more importantly it contained numerous self-catalysing metabolic pathways. A self catalysing metabolic pathway is a series of chemical reactions in which an end product can improve the rate at which one or more reactions in the series occurs.
If you imagine, for simplicity, that there are only two such series present in the soup then the one which progresses more rapidly will predominate in its use of the raw chemicals. Over time it will displace the other reaction. This is evolution at the chemical and proto-biochemical level.
By the time the complexity of chemical activity had risen to the point where it might be called life evolution had already been in place an operational for some time.
Does this make it any clearer?
You don't. You can't. Since delusion is your modus operandi.
You gave away a trade secret! Dam you. Although we tell the public that abiogenesis and evolution are seperate concepts, in our hearts they are not. We dam well know evolution is part of abiogenesis. It's just that we get tired of hearing the 'searchers' looking for the ultimate 'why' question and not being satisfied with the actual answer: because.
I think God started the whole thing.
It’s…it’s just too perfect.
I don’t get it, therefore, God must be behind it.
I love how the original question itself implies a creator.
A selfless one, no doubt.
I’ll leave the details to our resident evolution expert Ophe.
A more interesting question:
Why do people with 155 IQ still display such thickness?
What’s the missing element to harness all that brain power?
That kind of unlimited brainpower requires the reinforcement of the cranial bones resulting in a increase of 'density' and 'thickness'.
Are you saying a backbone and an adequate container needs to evolve to support and protect such a magnificently powerful tool as she, so obviously, possesses?
I know, I know. I was just overcome with a wave of honesty. Do you think they'll take my degree away?
Excuse me, I have to answer the door. A dark limousine has just pulled up.
Ahh, the boyz have arrived. Excellent. I hope you're double-jointed.
It's alright. It was just a group of Jehovah's witnesses who had won the lottery.
Not yet. But if you start saying that it's all tautological, really, and can be summarised as "that which is more likely to continue to exist, is more likely to continue to exist" ... then people will start calling you a statistician. And then nobody will believe you. (Lies, damn lies.)
Ok, so is this process still occurring ?
And are life forms still springing into existance in the absence of a genetic predeccessor?
meanwhile do you have link that describes the process you describe so I can look at it further?
If Spurious's reply to Ophiolite is anything to go by, there are no definitive answers....just denial as to the lack of definitive answers.
Evolution is now defined as the change in the allele frequency in a population, but that is a comparatively recent definition, certainly one unknown to Darwin.
The reason biologists will state that evolution kicked in after life began is that it ties to that strict definition. The mechanism of natural selection, however, was very much the driving force in the development of pre-biotic chemistry and the transition to replicating systems. These chemicals and the pathways that produced them evolved in complexity and efficiency.
If you wish to use a different word for that kind of evolution I have no objection.
meanwhile i still want to know the answer to this
Sarkus said (paraphrasing) some life (first life) may have lived and died not replicating, but then a life appeared that did happen to replicate and that thus survived and so on and so forth. Now bearing in mind that, that first replicating life form had no genetic predecessors, the diversity amongst creatures must mean that lots of incidences of unconnected life forms were popping up with abilty to replicate. All tad different.
Now this process of replication, that is not a simple process, how did this replication process appear in the first replicating organism?
Now Ophiolite says evolution here before life and thus before the ability to replicate so replication already coded with ability to evolve, I have found nothing yet that links abiogenesis with evolution..???
"Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life. "
No, because the world is replete with organisms that thrive on all kinds of organic material. There is no opportunity for life to originate a second time.*
I can't think of any links off hand. I'll dip into some textbooks and suggest some passages that could help you. I;m thinking Stuart Kauffman.
Wait - I'm displaying all the memory skills of a dehydrated kumquat. I believe I have several research papers that address specific aspects of this. Let me locate them. I'll be in touch.
*Let's not drift on in to the side topic of how many times life might have originated independently on Earth.
I appreciate the digging thank you.
meanwhile.............how can there be no opportunity for life to originate a second time?
We know life does not pop into existance in a sterile environment so was the 'soup' not sterile? Doesn't NOT sterile indicate prescence of organisms?
Is there a contradiction here?
Why did it change?
Meanwhile i found this interesting:
Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research raises the question:
Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. (Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, quotes from pp. 379, 396.)
In a book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm:
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8).
Yockey, in general, possesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life, often invoking words like "faith" and "ideology".
The principles of Yockey's argument seem to be effective for a variety of creative disciplines, such as the writing of computer software, where FOSS seems to play the social role of an Intelligent Designer while traditional computer programming methods seem to take the role of traditional chemical evolution."
It seems I am only asking questions already asked that REMAIN unanswered
so those that quote this stuff are guided by blind faith as there are no facts to support it, sounds like they are in in a glass house..
is this correct, no facts to support the theory? None?
I do not know why you describe the 'soup' as not sterile. It had no life. To me that defines it as sterile. What it did have were a rich complexity of organic molecules that could provide raw materials for life when it did arise, and certain molecules that were moving towards an ability to replicate systematically, that would use those (indeed were using) those raw materials.
There simply is no opportunity today for even moderately complex molecules to emerge, because they are going to get eaten up almost as soon as they form. And it took millions, or hundreds of millions of years for the self catalysing metabolic pathways to evolve to the point where they became life.
Separate names with a comma.