The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That is not a rebuttle, neighbor. The point is that comment on that Berkeley page is not one supported by other tertiary institutions. Its not snobbery, its fact. You avoid the rest of my post. One must thus assume, you can not deny it.

Here are some facts:
Odin created life. Life then evolved.
Thor created life. Life then evolved.
Jupiter created life. Life then evolved.
Zeus created life. Life then evolved.
Yahweh created life. Life then evolved.
Rah created life. Life then evolved.
My left shoe created life. Life then evolved.

Alternatively:
Chemical reactions created life. Life then evolved.

Evolution is indifferent to the cause. But life evolves.

Watch these two vids...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

This is poetic in its own right, and I like it. But it still creates a delineation between the two ideas when perhaps it's not required or needed. Not to mention that we don't fully understand abiogenesis to be able to call it something separate. I get the tendency to equate the start of evolution with the start of life. But how far back does one go when they want to understand when evolution began? Is it with LUCA, RNA? If so, what about the origination of LUCA and how it evolved? Or how RNA evolved? The question will naturally keep pushing us back.

The word 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Period.

Anything that 'changes over time' can be said 'to evolve'. That includes the Earth's geology, a star, the wrinkles on your face, EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that changes over time. But when we are discussing LIFE, we are specifically discussing Biological Evolution - it is a word that has specific, technical meaning. given to it by the context within it is used. It is a specific field of study within Biological Science - not a general term with a sloppy understanding of what is being discussed.

If we are discussing the wheels of an automobile, we understand that we are talking about the things that the tires are mounted on, not the gears inside the differential or the transmission.

It is not 'wrong' to describe chemical reactions as 'evolution of the molecular composition', it just isn't useful to the discussion to use terms with specific meanings in ways that could mislead the listener.

As to where the precursor organic chemicals came from, that is part of the work being done by researchers studying abiogenesis. The famous Miller-Urey experiment was an early attempt to begin to answer this question. The discovery that organic compounds are ABUNDANT throughout space demonstrates that the organic compounds would have been ubiquitous on the pre-biotic earth. Chemistry is chemistry - atoms 'like' to form molecules where ever they are. Carbon and oxygen and hydrogen 'like' to form intricate molecules that turn out to be very useful in forming 'self-replicating' molecular systems.

Its just Chemistry and Physics.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

One day in the future people will look back at a period of time in the 20th and 21st centuries where science created this fantastical complex story that was accepted by most, and they will wonder with great amazement at how they could have ever believed it.

As time goes on, more and more people realize how infantile the creation story is and seek scientific answers instead of fairy tales.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Evolution proceeds by genetic variation yes, but not necessarily by mutations alone. There seems to be this prevailing idea that variability is caused by mutation only, or that these two terms are interchangeable. They aren't. Genetic variation can result from other means. Natural selection is also just one aspect, and does not define evolution, and shouldn't. This notion that "random mutation + natural selection = evolution" stems from what the MS says. I think it's misleading and leaves out a lot. It's an antiquated view imo and needs to be reevaluated in light of what modern research is indicating.

OK, educate ME.

What mechanism, other than a mutation, can cause a genetic change? What process, other than natural selection, can act to filter those genetic changes?

The devil is in the detail as you say and I am not a biologist, I may have missed some of that detail, help me out here.

We don't perceive time accurately. That's the problem. People always looking for "beginnings," with the hope that they can use it to see the "ends." But time is personal, and it is linked to consciousness and memory, and there's no real indication that relatively complex and conscious things can't move "forward" and "backward" though time.

So a little bacteria slides down a little hole in time, and pushes the age of the universe back a little. And along with the tiny living things that are shuffled into the future, expanding it in that direction, a wave of currently living things (us and whoever else might be out there) pushes a probability wave forward, giving reality some substance.

We (conscious things) have been alive forever, and we have always been here, because without us communicating and sharing notes, the combined, known universe doesn't even exist.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

What are viruses?

Viruses are way, way more complicated than the 'first' life.

I urge you to watch the video from Dr. Szostak that MarsIsRed posted above. It is brilliant - and use your speakers, by all means (you can skip the first 2:40 if you have tired of seeing anti-science arguments rebutted by actual scientists).

Summary: Szostak's research points to earliest life being composed of simple fatty acid 'vesicles' that are naturally forming. The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different nucleotides, not just RNA and DNA, some of which have been shown to self-polymerize (that is it can replicate itself) - no special sequences, just chemistry.

Actually I'll shut up here... just watch the video.

Remember: Szostak's work is JUST ONE HYPOTHESIS - but it is an extremely promising one, and goes a long way to answering your questions. It even suggests the point at which the chemical process becomes 'life'. This video does not suggest that he knows the exact monomer nucleotide(s) that were involved - it is a description of a possible pathway and requires much, much more work.

In truth, I'm not even sure Szostak's work is correct (it's about 8 years old) but it hints at possibilities that have so far eluded us. But what it does do is show science in progress. As always.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Evolution proceeds by genetic variation yes, but not necessarily by mutations alone. There seems to be this prevailing idea that variability is caused by mutation only, or that these two terms are interchangeable. They aren't. Genetic variation can result from other means. Natural selection is also just one aspect, and does not define evolution, and shouldn't. This notion that "random mutation + natural selection = evolution" stems from what the MS says. I think it's misleading and leaves out a lot. It's an antiquated view imo and needs to be reevaluated in light of what modern research is indicating.

OK, educate ME.

What mechanism, other than a mutation, can cause a genetic change? What process, other than natural selection, can act to filter those genetic changes?

The devil is in the detail as you say and I am not a biologist, I may have missed some of that detail, help me out here.

Insertion of viruses into the genome. Over 9% of the human genome are viral insertions. Here's an article that appeared in QUANTA this week. Viral insertions are ubiquitous in all life forms.

Killer Virus Is Invading Koala DNA
An infection sweeping through Australia’s koala population is revealing how retroviruses insert themselves into the genome. www.quantamagazine.org...

I, virus: Why you're only half human
29 January 2010 by Frank Ryan
Magazine issue 2745. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Micro-organisms , Genetics and Evolution Topic Guides

WHEN, in 2001, the human genome was sequenced for the first time, we were confronted by several surprises. One was the sheer lack of genes: where we had anticipated perhaps 100,000 there were actually as few as 20,000. A bigger surprise came from analysis of the genetic sequences, which revealed that these genes made up a mere 1.5 per cent of the genome. This is dwarfed by DNA deriving from viruses, which amounts to roughly 9 per cent.

On top of that, huge chunks of the genome are made up of mysterious virus-like entities called retrotransposons, pieces of selfish DNA that appear to serve no function other than to make copies of themselves. These account for no less than 34 per cent of our genome.

All in all, the virus-like components of the human genome amount to almost half of our DNA.

www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I get the tendency to equate the start of evolution with the start of life. But how far back does one go when they want to understand when evolution began?

One more comment on your question about why isn't pre-biotic chemical change called 'evolution'. As I said, the common use of the term 'evolution' in a biology discussion refers directly to the Modern Evolutionary Theory which describes how Biological Evolution works, and not Cosmological Evolution, Geological Evolution, etc.

It is not wrong to call pre-biotic chemical change 'evolution' because evolution means 'change over time'. I want to point out the words of Dr. Szostak on his own labs web page:

We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth.

Notice how he describes both as evolution, but distinguishes between them to ensure that the reader understands precisely what he is talking about. This is the 'devil in the detail' that you describe that is so very important here. In science, you need to understand precisely what is being discussed in order to have a meaningful discussion of the issues at hand.

originally posted by: [post=19200466]On top of that, huge chunks of the genome are made up of mysterious virus-like entities called retrotransposons, pieces of selfish DNA that appear to serve no function other than to make copies of themselves. These account for no less than 34 per cent of our genome.

All in all, the virus-like components of the human genome amount to almost half of our DNA.

www.newscientist.com...

Correct. It's called genetic cross contamination. It may not mean what you think it means...

a reply to: Phantom423

Insertion of viruses into the genome.

OK. Perhaps you don't understand the definition of 'mutation'.

(From Wikipedia)
In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.

What you describe is a mutation caused by "insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements".

Is there anything else you can suggest that is a change in genetic information yet not a mutation? Can you actually change genetic information without making a "permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements"

a reply to: MarsIsRed

The various Celtic speaking tribes however leave no creation myth So I have no idea which of my Gods to bitch at for poor design features

a reply to: rnaa

Yes you are correct. It was my misunderstanding - I thought perhaps you were thinking "mutation" as simply a spontaneous change in the internal code. But yes, insertions, deletions, transpositions, jumping genes - they are all classed under mutation. However, if you classify any and all changes in the DNA molecule as a mutation, then any change, however it occurred, falls under mutation - so I believe that would cover the answer to your question. That said, there are numerous ways to cause mutation including radiation, disease and other interventions.

This paper describes different types of mutations and their statistical rate of occurrence:

Instability of the Human Genome: Mutation and DNA Repair
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: MarsIsRed

Please explain. Thanks.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

Great videos. Thanks for posting them.

There's one thing about Creationism that is rarely talked about though - that it's a cult. Ken Ham and his ilk have taken their "literal" translation of the Bible to a sinister level. They attract the lame, the lazy and the crazy who need a crutch and a guru to guide them. That the content is a complete lie and distortion is totally ignored.

And I don't believe for one minute that Ham and his gang believe a word of what they spew. Their "literal" translation of the Bible is strictly their interpretation - no explanations offered. Like all cults, it's a dictatorial model with Ham as chief dictator.

There's always a motive behind the madness - and his motive is money (how original!). His junk bond fiasco failed so now he's soliciting funds from his followers to build a dinosaur park where humans are shown living side-by-side with dinosaurs.

I and others have posted numerous times citing links, illustrations, academic papers - all hard evidence which refutes this nonsense. I had an argument with one of them on isotopic ratios which Creationists claim can be extremely variable and unreliable (no matter that they're used in medicine all the time!). I built an Excel spreadsheet which demonstrated how isotopic ratios are calculated and why they are reliable. And the response is predictable: there is none! They disappear into the aether until they think all is clear and begin spreading the crap again.

I don't care what religion people sign on to - that's their business. But Creationism is not a religion - it's a cult and it's dangerous.

a reply to: Phantom423

I don't care what religion people sign on to - that's their business. But Creationism is not a religion - it's a cult and it's dangerous.

No you are really wrong on this one, many different religions believe in some form of creation, you cannot say their combined ideology is a "cult". Calling large groups a cult is a classic attack strategy from those with the weakest arguments.

In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices. However, whether any particular group's beliefs and practices are sufficiently deviant or novel is often unclear, thus making a precise definition problematic.In the English speaking world, the word often carries derogatory connotations.The word "cult" has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices, which lacks a clear or consistent definition.

So as you can read the cult label is an opinion you may hold, but even your opinion is wrong in this case, just another ad hominem attack against a group.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

I don't care what religion people sign on to - that's their business. But Creationism is not a religion - it's a cult and it's dangerous.

No you are really wrong on this one, many different religions believe in some form of creation, you cannot say their combined ideology is a "cult". Calling large groups a cult is a classic attack strategy from those with the weakest arguments.

It's very telling that you ignore the posts with scientific data and only respond to the ones that bash creationism or support your opinion.

You are unable to argue with the facts so you ridicule the data presented instead of countering with your own data. Typical.

It's easy to sit there and say "nope, all that stuff you're saying is wrong." How about you try presenting your own data that disproves all of the solid evidence?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Sorry, I don't agree with that.

"In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices"

Is believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old a "novel belief"?
Is believing that dinosaurs lived along side humans rational?
Is beliving that isotopic ratios are "unreliable" reasonable?

It is a cult by any standard of comparison. Many religions believe in creation by a god or some intelligent being. But they don't insist that modern science doesn't know what the hell it's doing. Creationists have corrupted science to their advantage.