Darwin re-visited

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

Will do.

Originally Posted by Moon

Lots of new stuff and guess what no problems at all with abiogenesis and the one genome "problem" ......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.

Suspicious. We would be pretty likely to find aberrant RNA, DNA or non-standard amino acids if they were coded.

Originally Posted by Moon

There could be multiple trees and we would never know. All we know it that only one tree resulted in complex life forms.

This is a bit of an odd argument. You are modifying the standard common descent argument to apply only to higher forms of life, not lower?

If there really is only one common descent tree that generated higher phyla, aren't you saying that there is only one tree (out of what trillions? Quadrillions?) that had the propensity to generate higher forms? Wouldn't that mean that there was exactly one tree biochemical architecture with, for whatever reason, a substantially higher propensity to diversify? Are you really just saying that the propensity to diversify was front loaded in the first life form in the tree? Aren't you making my arguement for me?

Further, if the argument that the basic primordial substrates (ammonia, hydrogen, etc) are all that is required to assemble a single unique diversifying tree in 500 million years, does it not follow that any planet like earth (should we find another "class M" as Captain Kirk would say) would have very similar diversity based on the same tree?

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Will do.Suspicious. We would be pretty likely to find aberrant RNA, DNA or non-standard amino acids if they were coded. This is a bit of an odd argument. You are modifying the standard common descent argument to apply only to higher forms of life, not lower?

Putting words in my mouth bio, I didn't say that, all I said was as far as we know only one tree resulted in complex life forms. You are also equating success with complexity, this is not true.

If there really is only one common descent tree that generated higher phyla, aren't you saying that there is only one tree (out of what trillions? Quadrillions?) that had the propensity to generate higher forms? Wouldn't that mean that there was exactly one tree biochemical architecture with, for whatever reason, a substantially higher propensity to diversify? Are you really just saying that the propensity to diversify was front loaded in the first life form in the tree? Aren't you making my arguement for me?

Again you are distorting my words to your own ends, I didn't say that I said if there were other trees, I said nothing about trillions or quaddrillions, all I said was as far as we know "if" there were other trees apparently they did not result in higher life forms. Doing a little research would really be a good idea Bio.

Further, if the argument that the basic primordial substrates (ammonia, hydrogen, etc) are all that is required to assemble a single unique diversifying tree in 500 million years, does it not follow that any planet like earth (should we find another "class M" as Captain Kirk would say) would have very similar diversity based on the same tree?

In early life lateral gene transfer merged all life together until eventually organisms emerged that were all an amalgam of the basic free metabolisms that filled the oceans. If a tree developed that was too different for lateral gene to occur we can surmise a few things about it.

First it is evident this tree didn't result in complex life forms. Secondly if it is different we would not see it in any of the tests that are currently being done (a new test to check for different life forms has been suggested but not acted on as of a year or so ago) Such life would go unnoticed completely in any and all test for Life at this time. Personally I think the theory that RNA viruses are a faint shadow of another tree of life is plausible but it is highly debatable.

If indeed there is another tree of life then it would follow it was not as successful as the one we know, at least to our judgment. Saying that to be successful would result in complex life forms is assuming life has a direction a purpose, it does not. The most successful organisms on this planet both in number and in actual bio-mass is bacteria, eukarotes don't even come close to winning that test.

It could very well be that another tree of life is quite successful and has organisms in places our form of life cannot survive or even co-exists along side our own form of life. We may even have seen such microbes in microscopes or even as colonies but as I said before any test would only indicate life as we know it. a microbial mat containing both types would only show our life not the odd life when tested.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Putting words in my mouth bio, I didn't say that, all I said was as far as we know only one tree resulted in complex life forms. You are also equating success with complexity, this is not true.

Sorry, Moon. Didn't meant to do so. But it seems to me that you have to fish or cut bait here. Either there is a biogenesis mechanism that was narrow enough to significantly skew the outcome toward a single "preferred" tree, or there should be evidence of a number (probably a very large number) of different unrelated trees. If you pick the former, you are allowing for the possibility that the tree that surfaced is somehow uniquely likely to diversify. If that is true (since it seems to fit the data), then that unique tree had unique propensity VERY early in the tree, since there is no evidence of other trees.

If that is true, the unique tree is "front loaded".

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Further, if the argument that the basic primordial substrates (ammonia, hydrogen, etc) are all that is required to assemble a single unique diversifying tree in 500 million years, does it not follow that any planet like earth (should we find another "class M" as Captain Kirk would say) would have very similar diversity based on the same tree?

Captain Kirk existed in a fictional universe based on the idea that once life started it's climb to complexity was assured. Now days we know that complex life needs some really narrow constraints, there is a school of thought that contends that life is a natural part of the development of almost any planet. In other words at come point in the development of a planet life is almost certain to occur. In many cases that life is snuffed out by environmental conditions that go beyond the parameters that allow life to exist.

Complex life is a different set of life, complex life needs specific conditions of temperature, atmosphere, steady conditions that on most planets simply do not exist long enough for complex life to develop. Earth developed complex life after 3 billion years of nothing but microbes. The reason for this was the conditions of earth were no conductive to complex life forms until the last billion years or so. If indeed eukarotes had not been waiting in the wings the Earth might still be a microbe planet.

You seem to be stuck in the mindset of life naturally develops from simple to complex and that complex equals multicellular life forms. common bacteria are very complex compared to the first life forms. all life on the Earth is just a evolved as every other life from om the planet. Bacteria, are just as evolved as humans, in just another way. No life form is superior to another due to size, complex life is not superior to microbes, just different.

Indeed it is possible that the Earth and it's complex life is a very rare occurrence, possibly one of only a handful of planets with complex life in our galaxy. If this is true, then extinction takes on a whole new meaning and becomes a horror of much greater magnitude than we know.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Again you are distorting my words to your own ends, I didn't say that I said if there were other trees, I said nothing about trillions or quaddrillions, all I said was as far as we know "if" there were other trees apparently they did not result in higher life forms.

I think I read you correctly. You said (and I think you are correct) that there is no evidence of other trees. My suggestion was that the lack of evidence is probably indicative that there are no other trees (as least not that lead to higher phyla). This suggests that the one successful tree was somehow favored.

And I was the one that brought up the "quadrillions" point. If the early oceans were the original "breeding grounds" (if you will pardon the metaphor) for biogenetic precursors, the nucleotides would (reasonably presumably) have been broadly distributed. If we assume (for example) that there were 1000 seminal macromolecules in each milliliter of the top 30 feet of ocean (to give access to sunlight, again assuming that UV or heat was necessary) that would be approximately 3.3 x10^21 seminal molecules. "Quadrillions" in this context is pretty conservative. You are suggesting that the lateral transfer mechanism "merged all life" together. You have to admit that this is a pretty long way from a sure thing.

Originally Posted by Moon

Doing a little research would really be a good idea Bio.

Courtesy, Moon.

Originally Posted by moon

If a tree developed that was too different for lateral gene to occur we can surmise a few things about it.

First it is evident this tree didn't result in complex life forms. Secondly if it is different we would not see it in any of the tests that are currently being done (a new test to check for different life forms has been suggested but not acted on as of a year or so ago) Such life would go unnoticed completely in any and all test for Life at this time.

This is a bit of a faith statement. It might go unnoticed, but there are certainly categories that we would have noticed (aberrant DNA or amino acids, for example)

Originally Posted by Moon

Personally I think the theory that RNA viruses are a faint shadow of another tree of life is plausible but it is highly debatable.

Agreed. If the RNA precursor model holds up, these end up being more likely as post-host refinements of the tree (e.g., mammalian viruses occurred after mammals arrived).

Originally Posted by Moon

If indeed there is another tree of life then it would follow it was not as successful as the one we know, at least to our judgment. Saying that to be successful would result in complex life forms is assuming life has a direction a purpose, it does not. The most successful organisms on this planet both in number and in actual bio-mass is bacteria, eukarotes don't even come close to winning that test.

Sure, but it is reasonable in this discussion to define "success" as developoment of higher phyla.

Originally Posted by Moon

It could very well be that another tree of life is quite successful and has organisms in places our form of life cannot survive or even co-exists along side our own form of life.

This is certainly worthwhile conjecture, but it is certainly conjecture.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Sorry, Moon. Didn't meant to do so. But it seems to me that you have to fish or cut bait here. Either there is a biogenesis mechanism that was narrow enough to significantly skew the outcome toward a single "preferred" tree, or there should be evidence of a number (probably a very large number) of different unrelated trees. If you pick the former, you are allowing for the possibility that the tree that surfaced is somehow uniquely likely to diversify. If that is true (since it seems to fit the data), then that unique tree had unique propensity VERY early in the tree, since there is no evidence of other trees.

If that is true, the unique tree is "front loaded".

Actually no, no single tree is preferred for any reason other than it's ability to adapt and us it's resources efficiently. If eukarotes hadn't come about via the merger of other life forms then Our lovely Earth would be nothing but a planet full of microbes.

What is the chance of this happening, hard to say, it might be that if given enough time complex life forms based on some other microbe might have come into existence but it's impossible to know at this point. It is safe to say that no one could have predicted complex life forms from the early microbial earth.

The early Earth life was not skewed toward complexity any more than it was skewed toward microbes, it's even possible that most planets never get beyond the free floating metabolisms feeding of each other and the energy provided by the chemical seeps under the ocean and in other places in and on the Earth.

[Turtle]

Bio Chimera Strategy:

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. This is a comparatively weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion. Such arguments also risk degenerating into strawman arguments, an informal fallacy caused when an argument or theory is twisted by the opposing side to appear ridiculous. ...

In Bi's case, the absurd conclusion we are all expected to reject is that the improbable is impossible. Since however we are alive, it is possible & the argument is moot.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

You seem to be stuck in the mindset of life naturally develops from simple to complex and that complex equals multicellular life forms. common bacteria are very complex compared to the first life forms.

Hang on here. We are (for the sake of discussion) characterizing higher phyla as "more complex". No one is picking on on bacteria. And I am a little surprised to hear you suggest that bacteria are significantly more complex than early life forms, or that they are just as evolved as humans. Isn't that a minority position? Is there evidence of evolutionary history of bacteria?

Originally Posted by Moon

Indeed it is possible that the Earth and it's complex life is a very rare occurrence, possibly one of only a handful of planets with complex life in our galaxy. If this is true, then extinction takes on a whole new meaning and becomes a horror of much greater magnitude than we know.

Why? If we are just another example of elegant, complex chemistry, why does this matter?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I think I read you correctly. You said (and I think you are correct) that there is no evidence of other trees. My suggestion was that the lack of evidence is probably indicative that there are no other trees (as least not that lead to higher phyla). This suggests that the one successful tree was somehow favored.

It doesn't suggest that to me, to me it only suggests that conditions on the Earth became conductive to complex life after life was well developed. If conditions hadn't settled down to what we see then complex life would not have come about.

And I was the one that brought up the "quadrillions" point. If the early oceans were the original "breeding grounds" (if you will pardon the metaphor) for biogenetic precursors, the nucleotides would (reasonably presumably) have been broadly distributed. If we assume (for example) that there were 1000 seminal macromolecules in each milliliter of the top 30 feet of ocean (to give access to sunlight, again assuming that UV or heat was necessary) that would be approximately 3.3 x10^21 seminal molecules. "Quadrillions" in this context is pretty conservative. You are suggesting that the lateral transfer mechanism "merged all life" together. You have to admit that this is a pretty long way from a sure thing.Courtesy,

Transfer of information, gene based or other wise, was how working cells formed, lateral gene transfer was how life adapted to it's envionment, akin to sexual reproduction of complex life forms. Lateral gene transfer goes on today in microbes in rare cases even in complex life forms, virus's help this process.

Gene trasfer would have not only given those organisms able to transfer genes with each other an advantage it would have pretty much merged all life into an amalgam of traits shared more or less in some degree with all others. In an environment like the oceans numbers would have only sped up the process.

As organisms become more complex gene transfer was generally limited to closely related organisms. Eventually this became what we see as sexual reproduction. Even to day lateral gene transfer still occures occasionally between widely disimilar microbes, often it's how resuistence to antibiotics is passed from one type of organism to another.

Moon.This is a bit of a faith statement. It might go unnoticed, but there are certainly categories that we would have noticed (aberrant DNA or amino acids, for example)Agreed. If the RNA precursor model holds up, these end up being more likely as post-host refinements of the tree (e.g., mammalian viruses occurred after mammals arrived).Sure, but it is reasonable in this discussion to define "success" as developoment of higher phyla.This is certainly worthwhile conjecture, but it is certainly conjecture.

No faith needed, when humans only had their eyes to see we were completely unaware of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, once we developed ways to detect other waves then we began to see the wider world. At this time when tests are done to detect DNA in other organisms the test is indeed blind to anything other than specifically what it looks for.

Success is not complexity, I see no reason to assume it to be so.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Turtle

In Bi's case, the absurd conclusion we are all expected to reject is that the improbable is impossible. Since however we are alive, it is possible & the argument is moot.

I lost your point, T. My argument is that you either have to accept that the one tree is significantly more likely than the others, or that there really should be lots of trees. Why is this absurd?