Darwin re-visited

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No abiogenesis is not hard to model.....

I particularly loved this one.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

If only I knew everything.I think I agree with the second part of your point, but not the first. You are going to honestly say that we got the first self replicating life form with our four nucleic acids and 20 amino acids in the roughly 500 million years between when the earth cooled and 3.5 billion year ago????? Completely randomly???? Did it happen seven more times (in nearly exactly the same way) since???? Heck, we have had time and the environment is a lot less hostile now. Why aren't there a half dozen common descent trees? Get real. This is a perfectly reasonable position as a hypothesis, but it is not high on the plausibility scale.I don't look at creationist web sites. I leave that to you unbiased scientists.

Just the fact that you can actually say this shows you have no clue what so ever and are simply parroting creationist web sites. Sad really sad......

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I particularly loved this one.

It's not, do some real research, read something that was published by real scientists less than 20 years ago. Creationists have been using the same arguments for many years not knowing they have been relegated to quoting out dated literature, you are so guilty of that dude.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Just the fact that you can actually say this shows you have no clue what so ever and are simply parroting creationist web sites.

Silly me. And I was under the impression that to "parrot" something, I would actually have to have seen it.

I must be really good.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Silly me. And I was under the impression that to "parrot" something, I would actually have to have seen it.

I must be really good.

No really bad would do.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

It's not, do some real research, read something that was published by real scientists less than 20 years ago.

This is really just so straightforward. Attached is a summary review of the status of abiogenesis research as of 2005. It is a little simplistic, but hence pretty readable. It reasonably summarizes the evolution (no pun intended) in thinking from the original Miller experiments 50 years ago through the current debate between "metabolism first" and "genes first".

The simple summary is that no one has a good idea how it happened yet.

abiogenesis.pdf

Really only a ten minute read. But it does not address the core critique: If either of these core processes were the original process, why would it not have started multiple times, and hence created multiple "common" ancestral trees?

I don't have an answer to this either.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This is really just so straightforward. Attached is a summary review of the status of abiogenesis research as of 2005. It is a little simplistic, but hence pretty readable. It reasonably summarizes the evolution (no pun intended) in thinking from the original Miller experiments 50 years ago through the current debate between "metabolism first" and "genes first".

The simple summary is that no one has a good idea how it happened yet.

Attachment 2568

Really only a ten minute read. But it does not address the core critique: If either of these core processes were the original process, why would it not have started multiple times, and hence created multiple "common" ancestral trees?

I don't have an answer to this either.

Rehash of out dated information dude, try reading "Life as we do not know it" by Peter Ward and maybe you get a starting point to discuss this. read that one and I'll direct you to more education sources. Lots of new stuff and guess what no problems at all with abiogenesis and the one genome "problem" You really are operating with out dated info, lateral gene transfer can explain no multiple ancestral trees. On top of that if there were multiple trees we would would have no way to know it. We don't ever check for life other than the one one we know. There could be multiple trees and we would never know. All we know it that only one tree resulted in complex life forms. so we check for organisms like us, others are not checked for. Check out the science news section of this site for more info.

[Moontanman]

Bio, a few things for you to chew on.

http://hypography.com/forums/news-in...sion-jump.html

http://hypography.com/forums/news-in...eplicates.html

http://hypography.com/forums/news-in...rry-coyne.html

http://hypography.com/forums/news-in...-was-luca.html

[HydrogenBond]

Evolution does not currently do a full energy balance. It sort of goes from the beginning of the energy hill implicit of a mutation, to the end, which is selective advantage. This makes the energy curve look like it occurs with particles in quantum physics, where we get quantum jumps in space and time. What we know of life is based on chemistry which has a continuous curve. I would still leave open the quantum physics aspect, but we first need the chemical energy balance of evolution 3.0.

Life takes energy to work. Cell cycles, where most of the mutations appear to occur, occur when the cell is using the most energy. I am not making this up. You can explain some of the logic of speciation using an energy balance.

If we start at a fertilized ovum. This is a high energy potential state. This can be inferred from the observation that it will take a lot of energy to drive the many cycles of cell division leading to the blastosphere. This energy appears contained within the ovum. The energy curve sort of looks like descending stairs, with the initial potential energy stepping down all the way to the final division, 128 cells later.

If we go back to the top energy stairs, at fertilization, when the male and female DNA combine the genes, shuffle. Once the genes finishing shuffling, the descent down the energy stairs begins. The shuffling appears to allow the composite to finish climbing the energy hill.

Most cells have more DNA than is needed for all the proteins they make. Relative to speciation, among this extra DNA would need to be genes that have accumulated, but which are not required for the proteins of the starting species. If the high potential shuffling process moves enough of these genes to the front, the result is a new species.

The question is, would bringing a lot of new genes to the front create a lot of extra potential within the growing embryo, since many or even most of these may not have had time to be integrated? The answer is yes. This is where stem cells come in. A multicellular critter has the advantage of spreading out the work load to distribute new genetic potential to hundreds of differentiated cells. Each only has to deal with few tasks, which is do-able. Each differentiated cell buries the rest.

The analogy is a CEO with a pile of work on his desk. It is overwhelming if had to do it all by himself. He gives a pile to each of his VP's. They give smaller piles to each division head, who give smaller piles to each department head, which gives little piles to each group leader, to spread out among the members in their group. Now it is easy. The energy potential of the original shuffle lowers because of this process even before we begin the task of doing anything. The first generation of a new species will still have bugs so it may take several generation to iron out all the bugs and stabilize.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

It's not, do some real research, read something that was published by real scientists less than 20 years ago.

Moon- I really do think you have some thoughtful input on this topic, but I would really prefer it if you would remain positive and not drop into personal attacks. I responded to this request with a summary from 3 years ago, and got blasted for my foolishness again.

Please interact respectfully.