Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: pthena

Common descent does not necessarily mean that all life can be traced back to a single individual. It means that if you compare any 2 organisms on earth today, you can generally trace them back to a common ancestor species at some point. Evolution is probably better defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a species over time, which is essentially descent with modification.

Most recent common ancestor (or LUCA) doesn't have to be the first life, just the first life that all organisms today share in common. I hope that makes sense.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Ok, thanks.

I think it was WakeUpBeers who warned me about this subforum about a year and a half ago. He suggested I check it out to see what high level of discourse was going on. I think the subject at the time was what is being taught in schools.

a reply to: Barcs

Evolution is probably better defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a species over time, which is essentially descent with modification.

Most recent common ancestor (or LUCA) doesn't have to be the first life, just the first life that all organisms today share in common.

Your definition makes sense to me. I'm familiar with the LUCA definition.

When the Great Oxidation occurred, most anaerobic life died out. If new aerobic life arose in an oxygenated environment, and there remained old carryover anaerobic life, they would have a different ancestor. As possibly the descendants of the oxygen producing bacteria that caused the Great Oxidation.

Is it dogma that life arose once and only once? Does the prior existence of life preclude any other life events from occurring? "Sorry, life is here, you have to work with what you got, quota of life events used up!"

ETA
Just who is it I was quoting there?

a reply to: pthena

I am not trying to derail things, and hope im not overstepping my bounds as i am a lurker-not a poster, but you may want to check out some of (all of) the books written by Nick Lane on this subject. Especially "The Vital Question", although his hypotheses are very "contemporary" and unproven, they are generally well thought out and testable ( some are actually in this process) but you will glean a wealth of knowledge in regard to evultionary theory, epigenetics, phylogenetics and how we can trace genes through populations and across families/phyla. His writing style makes understanding these concepts a bit easier, and perhaps exciting, if you can believe that. Anyway, peter vlar and barcs are usually spot on with their science-have a good weekend.

a reply to: HiddenWaters

Thank you. I'll check it out.



ETA

Book Review: Taking on ‘The Vital Question’ About Life
Textbook accounts of the origin of life have their roots in Darwin’s speculation that in some “warm little pond” inanimate matter, perhaps energized by a lucky lightning strike, formed complex molecules that eventually began self-replicating.

This strikes Dr. Lane as backward thinking: Inanimate matter, he says, could never assemble into larger molecules with just a lightning strike any more than a pile of bricks could assemble itself into a house during a storm. The emergence of life must have been driven by some continuous, reliable energy source.

Dr. Lane’s alternate view originates with the geologist Mike Russell, who decades ago proposed that life emerged from towering rock formations on the ocean floor, where heated, mineral-laden water spewed from the inner Earth through the rock’s hollow network of cell-size compartments. These rocks contained the ingredients necessary for life’s start, but most important, their natural temperature and energy gradients favored the formation of large molecules. By tapping the energy of a restless Earth, Dr. Lane says, a pile of bricks just might become a house.
...
Dr. Lane’s broad perspective, which attempts to address the origins of life, sex and death, is seductive and often convincing, though speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book’s passages. But perhaps for a biological theory of everything, that’s to be expected, even welcomed

So Dr. Lane has already published my hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. So no need for me to start a thread.

Guess what though, those vents have been in the oceans for billions of years. They're still there. Who's to say how many times life has generated there?

a reply to: Barcs

It's a fantastic theory, except nobody can find any proof of a lineage in the fossil record, they can't even find a fossil record for that matter

Of all the species, not one single lineage exists, coelacanth, horseshoe crabs all sorts of living fossils out there and still nothing that would suggest a lineage, no chain of evolution

It's interesting how so many talk as if evolution is a settled outcome, talk like the evidence is all around, like when a thread like this is penned it should be decried instantly

Yet it's not

In fact over 20 pages and the nonsense, human foetus have gills in the womb, people still believe that, crickets with gills, breathe underwater, seriously
Whale hip bones, seriously, how can they still teach, believe that stuff

Do you not sit there at times and think, ever just think

a reply to: pthena

Have you ever created a character in a video game that has been around for so long that most players are far beyond your ken and would step right over you? A chicken would be advanced enough to just...peck, and you are gone. If submarine volcanoes are catalyzing new species, they are staying home.

originally posted by: pthena
When the Great Oxidation occurred, most anaerobic life died out. If new aerobic life arose in an oxygenated environment, and there remained old carryover anaerobic life, they would have a different ancestor. As possibly the descendants of the oxygen producing bacteria that caused the Great Oxidation.

Interesting. So basically organisms that consumed O2 might have arisen via abiogenesis around 2.3 bya rather than evolving from the others. So with this type of life, it emerged on a snowball earth in a different environment that was mostly O2, rather than mostly CO2 like the very first life. A comet impact, perhaps?

Is it dogma that life arose once and only once? Does the prior existence of life preclude any other life events from occurring?

I wouldn't say it's dogma, but it's generally thought by scientists that the conditions for life to emerge have to be just right, so it would likely be an extremely rare occurrence. For it to happen twice in seemingly opposite environments seems difficult to rectify. The first life emerged near the end of the late bombardment period with vastly different conditions all over earth. I would imagine there would be a noticeable difference in the structure of the DNA as well as the genome. Geneticists should be able to tell if one form has been around longer than the other.

a reply to: pthena

Perhaps, however, do not confuse "black smokers" with alkaline hydrothermal vents. Life may have "arisen " multiple times here, or elsewhere, only a select group actually "survived" and were "LUCA". But, in essence, rock, water and CO2 (and an active planet) are all that Lane needs for his theory, of course, he does not believe complex life is rampant in the universe-only prokaryotic life(ie, bacteria/archaea), and eukaryotic life likely arose only once here!,in a simbiotic relationship between an archaea and a bacteria-this has some genetic backing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Have you ever created a character in a video game that has been around for so long that most players are far beyond your ken and would step right over you?

Yes. In World of Warcraft it was ridiculous. I'm like level 12 trying to talk to a questgiver and some stinking level 70 enemy keeps killing the guy. 472 level 12s will never beat the 1 level 70, ever. That's why I play Guild Wars 2, levels adjust by map regions.

If submarine volcanoes are catalyzing new species, they are staying home.

Not volcanoes, vents.
Sure they stay close to home. Just like new born existing life, vast majority gets eaten by predators.

But in some deep dark cavern hidden in a trench, an unknown specie has been evolving for 100,000 years. When they emerge in force...Duh, Duh, Duh

A child will accidently wipe out the army in two footsteps because size was not a necessary survival trait where they evolved.

a reply to: pthena

yep, you see what i mean. there was a thread not long ago about deep sea probes sending us pictures of some pretty amazing stuff down there.

a reply to: HiddenWaters

I should qualify, not theory-hypothesis.
By the way, the "great oxygenation event" likely did not kill anything, there really is no "fossil" record for such an incident.

a reply to: HiddenWaters

do not confuse "black smokers" with alkaline hydrothermal vents.

I saw a very clearly filmed example of the hydrothermal vents in a documentary a few years ago. Now I don't know what it was named. When I try to find it, all I find are black smokers.

and eukaryotic life likely arose only once here!,in a simbiotic relationship between an archaea and a bacteria-this has some genetic backing.

The eukaryotic life probably did come about in that way. They could all very well have a common ancestor. Basically, Archaea are a very simple life form. The condition for life could very well have existed within the earliest eukaryotic life causing, and being part of, the development of the gut.

a reply to: Barcs

So basically organisms that consumed O2 might have arisen via abiogenesis around 2.3 bya rather than evolving from the others. So with this type of life, it emerged on a snowball earth in a different environment that was mostly O2, rather than mostly CO2 like the very first life. A comet impact, perhaps?

Could be. What if three different theories of beginning of life were all true?

a reply to: HiddenWaters

"great oxygenation event" likely did not kill anything, there really is no "fossil" record for such an incident.

And there I was preaching it on another thread as truth. Whoops.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Barcs

So basically organisms that consumed O2 might have arisen via abiogenesis around 2.3 bya rather than evolving from the others. So with this type of life, it emerged on a snowball earth in a different environment that was mostly O2, rather than mostly CO2 like the very first life. A comet impact, perhaps?

Could be. What if three different theories of beginning of life were all true?

three? how is that?

a reply to: pthena

Archaea are generally no more "simple" than bacteria, in fact they were regarded as bacteria up until the 1970's or so when ribosomal genomes were compared by Woese, they are identical in visual appearance but different in some structural and enzymatic pathways, eukaryotes arose and likely exploded due to the " internalizing" of the energy production of the cell. You see, bacteria/archaea are chemiosmotic-they "respire" across their cell membrane, they are restricted in complexity because a doubling in suface area requires a tripling of volume-thus, they cannot become more complex in their structure, this is not to say they do not evolve, they only evolve to glean more ways to get energy from the environment, but cannot become more complex in form-the most successful prokaryotes are generally those that can reproduce the fastest-ie a small genome, and and small size/relatively simple genome-have to go, have fun, hope Rag doesnt beat on me too much.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: pthena

Archaea are generally no more "simple" than bacteria, in fact they were regarded as bacteria up until the 1970's or so when ribosomal genomes were compared by Woese, they are identical in visual appearance but different in some structural and enzymatic pathways, eukaryotes arose and likely exploded due to the " internalizing" of the energy production of the cell. You see, bacteria/archaea are chemiosmotic-they "respire" across their cell membrane, they are restricted in complexity because a doubling in suface area requires a tripling of volume-thus, they cannot become more complex in their structure, this is not to say they do not evolve, they only evolve to glean more ways to get energy from the environment, but cannot become more complex in form-the most successful prokaryotes are generally those that can reproduce the fastest-ie a small genome, and and small size/relatively simple genome-have to go, have fun, hope Rag doesnt beat on me too much.

Reference for convenience sake -

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TzarChasm

three? how is that?

1) lightning strike in primordial stew.
2) sub oceanic vents.
3) hot meteor in organic chemical rich environment.
4) microbes deep inside a meteor from outer space.
5) an intergalactic voyager emptied his septic system as an emergency measure because of equipment malfunction, then went on his way. His report reads, "...emergency septic dump in vicinity of mostly lifeless planet...not likely to have harmful impact..."