Jump to content


Photo

From "building Blocks" To All Life On Earth


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 31 July 2017 - 04:18 PM

Why do you insist there should be a much more complete record ? Why should it be so likely that 1) a specific fossil is formed and 2) if one does form, it gets found ?

arguments such as this doesn't hold water.
the fossil record is complete enough for gould to formulate punctuated equalibrium, which was accepted by the scientific community.
he no doubt had other evidence too.

it's also complete enough for koonin to explicitly state no transitionals between phyla is discernible.

can you reconcile the above with your post?

#22 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 31 July 2017 - 07:07 PM

The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.
 
But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."

 

This is my quote from the article, which is what pressed me to post here to get an answer. I still need to understand how a few base elements such as cargon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate that were found in a rock could be declared to be the remains of 3.7 million-year-old microbes ... in other words very early life.

 

You could scrape a microscopically thin top layer off of the desk I'm working on right now and hand it to a scientist for examination, and he ostensibly would determine the base elements found there were the "building blocks of life."

 

If I understand it, these weren't microbe fossils that were found ... just some errant chemical elements. I mean, isn't that stretching it a bit to declare these chemicals were the remains of microbial early life?



#23 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 31 July 2017 - 07:48 PM

 

The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.
 
But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."

 

This is my quote from the article, which is what pressed me to post here to get an answer. I still need to understand how a few base elements such as cargon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate that were found in a rock could be declared to be the remains of 3.7 million-year-old microbes ... in other words very early life.

 

You could scrape a microscopically thin top layer off of the desk I'm working on right now and hand it to a scientist for examination, and he ostensibly would determine the base elements found there were the "building blocks of life."

 

If I understand it, these weren't microbe fossils that were found ... just some errant chemical elements. I mean, isn't that stretching it a bit to declare these chemicals were the remains of microbial early life?

 

 

"I mean, isn't that stretching it a bit to declare these chemicals were the remains of microbial early life?"

 

Actually, "Stretching it a bit" is being MUCH TOO kind when describing Darwin's fairytale of Biofilm to Biologists..

 

 

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

 

 

funny-pictures-auto-412943.jpeg0f238c132732c5d31bb427e83a943dc5--theory



#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 August 2017 - 01:56 AM

"Is this the earliest life on Earth? Pioneering laser technique reveals evidence of 3.7 BILLION-year-old microbes in jewel-studded rocks in Greenland"

 

This is just plain irresponsible reporting.

 

The article begins by stating scientists have found "remains of Earth's oldest organisms," allegedly 3.7 billion-year-old microbes.

 

But, farther down in the article it says, "The technique helped the researchers to pinpoint exactly where the building blocks of life, including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphate, were found within the rock."

 

So, now it wasn't remains of actual microbes they had found, but the "building blocks" of these alleged microbes, oxygen, etc. Except that the most common element on earth, the one building block without which any life can't exist ... hydrogen ... was missing.

 

Can someone explain to me:

 

1) Apparently, the previous discovery of these building blocks of life were in Australia from 3.34 billion years ago. OK, literally polar opposites apart in location and in a relatively short time span abiogenesis occurred not once, but twice?

 

2) So, building blocks equal something complete? I've got some building blocks, literally, and some other assorted construction materials scattered around my back porch from when we remodeled our house that I haven't carted off to the dump yet. Any bets that nobody in their right mind would say, "Oh, you've got a kitchen on your back porch."

 

3) A few certain base elements are found somewhere and they call it a microbe and attribute it to having life?

 

4) Any time scientists find a similar combination of these building block elements they can assume it represents the origin of life? Like on the moon, on Mars?

 

It seems scientists are making a lot of self-serving assumptions that even a modicum of common sense would refute.

The press often distorts and/or exaggerates the facts.  When I read these things in the news, I always like to go to the original scientific research paper.  As is often the case these days, the paper is behind a pay wall.  But a "preview" is available:

 

According to the preview:

Metasedimentary rocks from Isua, West Greenland (over 3,700 million years old) contain 13C-depleted carbonaceous compounds, with isotopic ratios that are compatible with a biogenic origin1, 2, 3. Metamorphic garnet crystals in these rocks contain trails of carbonaceous inclusions that are contiguous with carbon-rich sedimentary beds in the host rock, where carbon is fully graphitized. Previous studies4, 5 have not been able to document other elements of life (mainly hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus) structurally bound to this carbonaceous material. Here we study carbonaceous inclusions armoured within garnet porphyroblasts, by in situ infrared absorption on approximately 10−21 m3 domains within these inclusions. We show that the absorption spectra are consistent with carbon bonded to nitrogen and oxygen, and probably also to phosphate. The levels of C–H or O–H bonds were found to be low. These results are consistent with biogenic organic material isolated for billions of years and thermally matured at temperatures of around 500 °C. They therefore provide spatial characterization for potentially the oldest biogenic carbon relics in Earth’s geological record. The preservation of Eoarchean organic residues within sedimentary material corroborates earlier claims2, 6 for the biogenic origins of carbon in Isua metasediments(Emphasis Pi's)

 

The preview not only says that the elements were found, but "isotopic ratios that are compatible with a biogenic origin."  In scientific paper-eze that basically means the isotope ratios are unique to biological origin.

 

The preview says the volume was 10-21m3.  A water molecule is about 3x10-23m3.   So the volume is about that of 300 water molecules.  Not only did they find the elements, but carbon "bonded" to them as well as "C-H" and "O-H" bonds.

 

I don't think it was merely the presence of the base elements, but the isotopic ratios as well.

 

If you really want to get into this, go to the link of the paper and follow the footnotes.  They often lead to research that is not behind a pay wall that explains a lot of why they say what they say.

 

For example, I went to footnote 3 and found:

 the earliest identified microfossils at nearly 3.5 billion years before present (Ga) (1) and the earliest potential chemofossils at 3.83 Ga

 

This indicates to me there is a considerable difference between the 3.4 billion year fossils and the 3.7 billion year evidence.  With the older evidence being chemical traces, not actual fossils.

 

 

Now, the reason I had to go to footnote 3 was that I was in areas where I have little knowledge so I needed to understand more in order to better evaluate the claim made in the actual paper.... not the newspaper article about the paper.

 

I have neither the time nor inclination to research this any farther, but the conclusions, as stated in the preview of the original paper, are reasonable....

There is chemical evidence life may have existed 3.7 billion years ago.


  • Goku likes this

#25 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:26 AM

The press often distorts and/or exaggerates the facts.  When I read these things in the news, I always like to go to the original scientific research paper.  As is often the case these days, the paper is behind a pay wall.  But a "preview" is available:

an interesting observation.
could it be that "news sources" deliberately select such papers to report on so they can "spin" it?

i don't think i had to pay for ANY of the papers i have. 

I don't think it was merely the presence of the base elements, but the isotopic ratios as well.

this is the first time i've heard that life has a unique enough "isotopic ratio" that it can be determined it came from life.
where is the research that supports this claim?

I have neither the time nor inclination to research this any farther, but the conclusions, as stated in the preview of the original paper, are reasonable....
There is chemical evidence life may have existed 3.7 billion years ago.

miller-urey also produced "chemical evidence" of life, and it didn't come from life.

it would be nice to see that isotope research, if it even exists.

#26 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:51 AM

If I understand it, these weren't microbe fossils that were found ... just some errant chemical elements. I mean, isn't that stretching it a bit to declare these chemicals were the remains of microbial early life?

can we safely conclude that this early life wasn't all that much different than modern life?
after all, it seems they both leave the same break down products.

also, miller-urey demonstrated that amino acids can be formed naturally from non life processes.

the crux seems to be this "isotope ratio" that is apparently unique to life.
yes, it would be nice to see that research.

#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 August 2017 - 04:08 PM

 

Why do you insist there should be a much more complete record ? Why should it be so likely that 1) a specific fossil is formed and 2) if one does form, it gets found ?

arguments such as this doesn't hold water.
the fossil record is complete enough for gould to formulate punctuated equalibrium, which was accepted by the scientific community.
he no doubt had other evidence too.

it's also complete enough for koonin to explicitly state no transitionals between phyla is discernible.

can you reconcile the above with your post?

 


Punctuated equilibrium was formulated because of the incompleteness of the fossil record (general lack of transitionals observed between species), not the opposite. Most sedimentary layers are marine in origin. It's even more difficult with terrestrial organisms like the Wollemi Pine because there is obviously less opportunity to get buried in sediment.

If it is stated there are no discernible transitionals between phyla then that also could be due to the incompleteness of the fossil record. I doubt if Koonin was stating that because the record was suitably complete, how could he know that ? Part of the reason of the scant fossil evidence is that before hard parts evolved in the Cambrian (shells, exoskeleton etc.) ancestral soft bodied organisms were not easily fossilized.

What does Koonin have to say about Monoplacophora (a transitional between the phyla Mollusca and Annelida) ?
 



#28 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 August 2017 - 06:07 PM

Why do you insist there should be a much more complete record ? Why should it be so likely that 1) a specific fossil is formed and 2) if one does form, it gets found ?

arguments such as this doesn't hold water.
the fossil record is complete enough for gould to formulate punctuated equalibrium, which was accepted by the scientific community.
he no doubt had other evidence too.
it's also complete enough for koonin to explicitly state no transitionals between phyla is discernible.
can you reconcile the above with your post?
Punctuated equilibrium was formulated because of the incompleteness of the fossil record (general lack of transitionals observed between species), not the opposite. Most sedimentary layers are marine in origin. It's even more difficult with terrestrial organisms like the Wollemi Pine because there is obviously less opportunity to get buried in sediment.
If it is stated there are no discernible transitionals between phyla then that also could be due to the incompleteness of the fossil record. I doubt if Koonin was stating that because the record was suitably complete, how could he know that ? Part of the reason of the scant fossil evidence is that before hard parts evolved in the Cambrian (shells, exoskeleton etc.) ancestral soft bodied organisms were not easily fossilized.
What does Koonin have to say about Monoplacophora (a transitional between the phyla Mollusca and Annelida) ?
"Punctuated equilibrium was formulated because of the Nonexistence of "Transitional fossils" ANYWHERE the "Fossil Record" And Darwins lie of "Evil Delusion" must he maintained at all cost..

There, I fixed it for you..


"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

(Dr. David Berlinsky)


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

#29 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 06:45 PM

Punctuated equilibrium was formulated because of the incompleteness of the fossil record (general lack of transitionals observed between species), not the opposite. Most sedimentary layers are marine in origin. It's even more difficult with terrestrial organisms like the Wollemi Pine because there is obviously less opportunity to get buried in sediment.

an incomplete record will follow the very same pattern wibble, one could easily say these transitionals simply hasn't been found yet.
there can be only one conclusion here.
the record was/is as complete as it's going to get.
 

If it is stated there are no discernible transitionals between phyla then that also could be due to the incompleteness of the fossil record. I doubt if Koonin was stating that because the record was suitably complete, how could he know that ? Part of the reason of the scant fossil evidence is that before hard parts evolved in the Cambrian (shells, exoskeleton etc.) ancestral soft bodied organisms were not easily fossilized.

this particular enigma has been published over and over.
these transitionals simply do not exist.

 

What does Koonin have to say about Monoplacophora (a transitional between the phyla Mollusca and Annelida) ?

koonin says there are no transitionals between phyla.
the reviewers of his paper do not question him on this.
so, what do YOU make of this alleged transitional?
more arrowsmith shenanigans perhaps?
BTW, his paper was published 2007.

i also believe gould was well aware of epigenetics and transposons at the time he proposed PE.
i believe his paper on the spandrals of san marcos and the panglossian paradigm reflects that knowledge.
yes, gould certainly believed in evolution, but he just as certainly didn't believe in the modern synthesis.

don't forget, koonin specifically states that gould emphasized the fallacy of gradualism, and the reviewers don't question him on that either.

#30 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 07:01 PM

...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

that's gonna be a tough piece of rawhide for some.

the funny thing is, the areas that god claims is his doing are the exact areas that science lacks the data.

i must agree with dr. more, the idea seems so absurd, but yet . . .

all i can do is sit here shaking my head muttering unbelievable.

cgftjdykdul

#31 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 August 2017 - 07:36 PM

uh huh, right.

koonin explicitly states that it would be a seeming miracle if it happened (abiogenesis) at all.

 

After the Earth cooled down from the formation process it appears that life formed quite rapidly. Just because we humans don't understand all the complex interactions regarding abiogenesis doesn't mean that nature is not poised to create life when the opportunity presents.

 

whether there was 50 , 100, or 1000 abiogenesis events, it still doesn't explain how animal phyla arrived here without leaving a trace as to how they did.
it does nothing to supply the missing transitionals between animal phyla.

 

As has been explained to you ad nauseam soft bodies are not good candidates for fossilization.

 

interestingly, koonin does indeed mention a "phylogenic forest" in at least one of his manuscripts.
this doesn't bode well for common descent, especially when koonin says phyla arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups instead of a bifurcating tree like pattern.
IOW, there is no evidence phyla descended from one another.

this also raises the very interesting question of "what happened to the higher classifications of animals?"

 

 

What If: also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?

then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data

 

Yeah it does kind of smack of covering both bases, Goku. On the one hand it seems you would argue there is certainly a phylogenetic tree with a trunk and that the tree of Darwin is real, on the other hand it seems you are entertaining 100 trees.

 

But there are no trees in Koonin's garden, my lad. :P

 

Koonin's forest of life does not depict organisms but FUEs (Fundamental Units of Evolution). The simplified version of what an FUE is is a gene or set of genes.

 

For multicelled eukaryotes (e.g. animals and plants) everyone agrees that such evolutionary relationships are best described as a tree - the common evolutionary tree we have all seen, and this includes almighty Koonin. While HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer) events occur at such a level they are relatively rare and do not undermine the standard tree of life depiction, but more subtly they do impart minor adjustments if you want to get into the weeds.

 

HGT is more likely to impact microorganisms like bacteria for various reasons. Off the top of my head two reasons that come to mind are 1) some bacteria have specialized structures (pilus) solely for the purpose of facilitating HGT which eukrayotes simply do not have, and 2) in multicellular organisms in order to pass on an HGT event it must occur in the gametes or cells that will eventually become gametes, and that is a small percentage of all the cells such an organism will have. Due to the high levels of HGT in microorganisms and its relatively high impact on those organisms, the tree of life analogy begins to break down at its' core, and instead something like a web of life is a more apt description.

 

What Koonin has proposed is that we shift talk of evolution away from organisms and instead focus FUEs, or genes to simplify the concept. The basic idea being that given the prevalence of HGT in microorganisms the evolutionary history of specific species becomes dwarfed by the evolutionary history of FUEs which are not contained to a given species and can jump around. As with any generalized formulation of a scientific phenomena Koonin explains the special case of the tree pattern among multicellular eukaryotes with the idea of 'ensembles of FUEs' or groups of FUEs that are tied together in a single multicellular organism. Koonin calls this idea the "forest of life" as contrasted by the "tree of life". I think Koonin's work here is important as biologists try to figure out how to incorporate new understandings of biology into the theory of evolution, but I would not take Koonin's work dogmatically.

 

also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?
then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data.

 

I gave a hint in my first post; the ages of 3.7 and 3.4 billion years suggests to me (assuming each are the result of life) that they would have come from the same abiogenesis event.

 

As I said at the top of this post the current thought is that life emerged relatively quickly after the Earth cooled from its' formation process which was roughly 4.5 billion years ago. However, the Earth was bombarded with asteroids - debris left over from the formation of the solar system, and some were quite large, as in large enough if hit to sterilize the planet. This has caused many scientists to theorize that life emerged on Earth several times in this early period where each time life started Earth was hit by an asteroid or series of asteroids whose energy sterilized the planet. It is during this time period that the moon was formed when a giant proto-planet sized object smashed into Earth. The theorized estimates of the number of times life got started before being wiped out range from single digits to 50 or so, and IIRC there are some extreme proposals that go up to 100+. These asteroid impacts were reduced greatly by around 4.0 billion years ago as the debris were more and more cleared out by the planets. So two observed life in the rocks dating to 3.7 and 3.4 billion respectively would indicate that the older life would not have been wiped out by asteroid impacts and is likely to be evolutionarily related to the younger life.

 

Of course the caveat to this conclusion is that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor (or common community of ancestors a la HGT). No one really knows, but things like how all cellular life uses DNA is seen as a strong indicator that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor.
 

this is the first time i've heard that life has a unique enough "isotopic ratio" that it can be determined it came from life.

 

Life as we know it preferentially uses C12 because it takes less energy for the cell to form chemical bonds with it than with C13 or C14, and if the isotope ratio of C12 compared to other carbon isotopes is higher than the normal ratio that is an indication of biological life. I don't think it would be a slam dunk for life by itself, but it would certainly be intriguing evidence.



#32 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 August 2017 - 08:56 PM

uh huh, right.
koonin explicitly states that it would be a seeming miracle if it happened (abiogenesis) at all.


After the Earth cooled down from the formation process it appears that life formed quite rapidly. Just because we humans don't understand all the complex interactions regarding abiogenesis doesn't mean that nature is not poised to create life when the opportunity presents.

whether there was 50 , 100, or 1000 abiogenesis events, it still doesn't explain how animal phyla arrived here without leaving a trace as to how they did.
it does nothing to supply the missing transitionals between animal phyla.


As has been explained to you ad nauseam soft bodies are not good candidates for fossilization.

interestingly, koonin does indeed mention a "phylogenic forest" in at least one of his manuscripts.
this doesn't bode well for common descent, especially when koonin says phyla arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups instead of a bifurcating tree like pattern.
IOW, there is no evidence phyla descended from one another.
this also raises the very interesting question of "what happened to the higher classifications of animals?"


What If: also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?
then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data


Yeah it does kind of smack of covering both bases, Goku. On the one hand it seems you would argue there is certainly a phylogenetic tree with a trunk and that the tree of Darwin is real, on the other hand it seems you are entertaining 100 trees.

But there are no trees in Koonin's garden, my lad. :P

Koonin's forest of life does not depict organisms but FUEs (Fundamental Units of Evolution). The simplified version of what an FUE is is a gene or set of genes.

For multicelled eukaryotes (e.g. animals and plants) everyone agrees that such evolutionary relationships are best described as a tree - the common evolutionary tree we have all seen, and this includes almighty Koonin. While HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer) events occur at such a level they are relatively rare and do not undermine the standard tree of life depiction, but more subtly they do impart minor adjustments if you want to get into the weeds.

HGT is more likely to impact microorganisms like bacteria for various reasons. Off the top of my head two reasons that come to mind are 1) some bacteria have specialized structures (pilus) solely for the purpose of facilitating HGT which eukrayotes simply do not have, and 2) in multicellular organisms in order to pass on an HGT event it must occur in the gametes or cells that will eventually become gametes, and that is a small percentage of all the cells such an organism will have. Due to the high levels of HGT in microorganisms and its relatively high impact on those organisms, the tree of life analogy begins to break down at its' core, and instead something like a web of life is a more apt description.

What Koonin has proposed is that we shift talk of evolution away from organisms and instead focus FUEs, or genes to simplify the concept. The basic idea being that given the prevalence of HGT in microorganisms the evolutionary history of specific species becomes dwarfed by the evolutionary history of FUEs which are not contained to a given species and can jump around. As with any generalized formulation of a scientific phenomena Koonin explains the special case of the tree pattern among multicellular eukaryotes with the idea of 'ensembles of FUEs' or groups of FUEs that are tied together in a single multicellular organism. Koonin calls this idea the "forest of life" as contrasted by the "tree of life". I think Koonin's work here is important as biologists try to figure out how to incorporate new understandings of biology into the theory of evolution, but I would not take Koonin's work dogmatically.

also, 50 to 100 abiogenesis events?
then how in the world can you hold "common descent" so dearly, especially when there is more than 1 interpretation to common descent data.


I gave a hint in my first post; the ages of 3.7 and 3.4 billion years suggests to me (assuming each are the result of life) that they would have come from the same abiogenesis event.

As I said at the top of this post the current thought is that life emerged relatively quickly after the Earth cooled from its' formation process which was roughly 4.5 billion years ago. However, the Earth was bombarded with asteroids - debris left over from the formation of the solar system, and some were quite large, as in large enough if hit to sterilize the planet. This has caused many scientists to theorize that life emerged on Earth several times in this early period where each time life started Earth was hit by an asteroid or series of asteroids whose energy sterilized the planet. It is during this time period that the moon was formed when a giant proto-planet sized object smashed into Earth. The theorized estimates of the number of times life got started before being wiped out range from single digits to 50 or so, and IIRC there are some extreme proposals that go up to 100+. These asteroid impacts were reduced greatly by around 4.0 billion years ago as the debris were more and more cleared out by the planets. So two observed life in the rocks dating to 3.7 and 3.4 billion respectively would indicate that the older life would not have been wiped out by asteroid impacts and is likely to be evolutionarily related to the younger life.

Of course the caveat to this conclusion is that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor (or common community of ancestors a la HGT). No one really knows, but things like how all cellular life uses DNA is seen as a strong indicator that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor.

this is the first time i've heard that life has a unique enough "isotopic ratio" that it can be determined it came from life.


Life as we know it preferentially uses C12 because it takes less energy for the cell to form chemical bonds with it than with C13 or C14, and if the isotope ratio of C12 compared to other carbon isotopes is higher than the normal ratio that is an indication of biological life. I don't think it would be a slam dunk for life by itself, but it would certainly be intriguing evidence.

"As has been explained to you ad nauseam soft bodies are not good candidates for fossilization."

Yes.. That has been asserted to everyone for generations as the reason for the Nonexistence of "Early transitionals" But, thanks to the inability of ANYONE to be able to answer the question I keep asking,
(but NEVER getting an answer to!), a Plausible evolutionary "Order" of Interdependent Vital organs for chordata that passes the cartoon laugh test.. That demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the reason why the "soft bodied transitionals" dont exist is NOT because they dont "Fossilize easily" But because... THEY DONT EXIST...

Now.. Here is your chance to give us a Theoritical numerical ORDER of VITAL organs from a Microbe which has ZERO VITAL Organs to a Microbiologist who has 10 Interdependent Interlocked Vital Organs.. Come on sport.. Give us an order that passes a comic book laugh test... Here it is again for your dodging pleasure.. LOL..

[url="http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

#33 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 09:00 PM

After the Earth cooled down from the formation process it appears that life formed quite rapidly. Just because we humans don't understand all the complex interactions regarding abiogenesis doesn't mean that nature is not poised to create life when the opportunity presents.

conjecture.
it's known what must happen for abiogenesis to happen.
a group of molecules must come together to form an actual molecular machine.
there's a nobel waiting for the person that figures it out.

not only that, but the information contained within the cell must have a realistic explanation.
 

As has been explained to you ad nauseam soft bodies are not good candidates for fossilization.

yes, except koonin states they were fully formed, bones and all.
no trace of these bones has been found.

also, keep in mind that koonin specifically states they arrived here by a star (radially) pattern, NOT by a bifurcating tree like pattern.
the reviewers of his paper do not question him on this.

Koonin's forest of life does not depict organisms but FUEs (Fundamental Units of Evolution). The simplified version of what an FUE is is a gene or set of genes.

i'm not sure what the particular manuscript was, i guess i'm back to scanning my sources.
 

HGT is more likely to impact microorganisms like bacteria for various reasons. Off the top of my head two reasons that come to mind are 1) some bacteria have specialized structures (pilus) solely for the purpose of facilitating HGT which eukrayotes simply do not have, and 2) in multicellular organisms in order to pass on an HGT event it must occur in the gametes or cells that will eventually become gametes, and that is a small percentage of all the cells such an organism will have. Due to the high levels of HGT in microorganisms and its relatively high impact on those organisms, the tree of life analogy begins to break down at its' core, and instead something like a web of life is a more apt description.

glansdorf seems to disagree.
he apparently thinks HGT isn't as rampant as some believes it is.
this seems to support transposons quite well, especially since both exhibit the same behavior.

What Koonin has proposed is that we shift talk of evolution away from organisms and instead focus FUEs, or genes to simplify the concept. The basic idea being that given the prevalence of HGT in microorganisms the evolutionary history of specific species becomes dwarfed by the evolutionary history of FUEs which are not contained to a given species and can jump around. As with any generalized formulation of a scientific phenomena Koonin explains the special case of the tree pattern among multicellular eukaryotes with the idea of 'ensembles of FUEs' or groups of FUEs that are tied together in a single multicellular organism. Koonin calls this idea the "forest of life" as contrasted by the "tree of life". I think Koonin's work here is important as biologists try to figure out how to incorporate new understandings of biology into the theory of evolution, but I would not take Koonin's work dogmatically.

i don't think you can take ANYTHING concerning evolution dogmatically.

I gave a hint in my first post; the ages of 3.7 and 3.4 billion years suggests to me (assuming each are the result of life) that they would have come from the same abiogenesis event.
 
As I said at the top of this post the current thought is that life emerged relatively quickly after the Earth cooled from its' formation process which was roughly 4.5 billion years ago. However, the Earth was bombarded with asteroids - debris left over from the formation of the solar system, and some were quite large, as in large enough if hit to sterilize the planet. This has caused many scientists to theorize that life emerged on Earth several times in this early period where each time life started Earth was hit by an asteroid or series of asteroids whose energy sterilized the planet. It is during this time period that the moon was formed when a giant proto-planet sized object smashed into Earth. The theorized estimates of the number of times life got started before being wiped out range from single digits to 50 or so, and IIRC there are some extreme proposals that go up to 100+. These asteroid impacts were reduced greatly by around 4.0 billion years ago as the debris were more and more cleared out by the planets. So two observed life in the rocks dating to 3.7 and 3.4 billion respectively would indicate that the older life would not have been wiped out by asteroid impacts and is likely to be evolutionarily related to the younger life.

koonin discounts the mainstream explanation for the cambrian as unreliable.
he includes a reference for why he says this.
the reviewers do not question him on this either.
 

Of course the caveat to this conclusion is that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor (or common community of ancestors a la HGT). No one really knows, but things like how all cellular life uses DNA is seen as a strong indicator that all extant life is derived from a common ancestor.

yes, koonin does state the evidence is overwhelming, and like you i assume a large part of this overwhelming evidence is the commonality of dna to all life.
 

Life as we know it preferentially uses C12 because it takes less energy for the cell to form chemical bonds with it than with C13 or C14, and if the isotope ratio of C12 compared to other carbon isotopes is higher than the normal ratio that is an indication of biological life. I don't think it would be a slam dunk for life by itself, but it would certainly be intriguing evidence.

it would be nice if there was some research to go with this.
OTOH, it seems C12 would be used regardless whether it came from life or not.

#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 August 2017 - 09:57 PM

 

The press often distorts and/or exaggerates the facts.  When I read these things in the news, I always like to go to the original scientific research paper.  As is often the case these days, the paper is behind a pay wall.  But a "preview" is available:

an interesting observation.
could it be that "news sources" deliberately select such papers to report on so they can "spin" it?

i don't think i had to pay for ANY of the papers i have. 

There's no doubt news outlets will sensationalize their stories.  Nor is there any doubt they will "spin" those stories with a slant toward the ideology of the publisher.

 

That's one of the reasons I like to go to the original research, if possible.  Not only that, but the source paper has a lot more information than the news article.

 

Like you, I don't pay for the papers.  Actually, a lot of them used to be public access and many still are. 

 

The article referenced in the OP led to a paper in the journal Nature.  IIRC, the minimum price to see the paper itself was $4.00. 

 

However, the "preview" of the article has footnotes many of which are not behind pay walls.  Those footnotes have a lot of information that was used in the paper.

 

 

 

I don't think it was merely the presence of the base elements, but the isotopic ratios as well.

this is the first time i've heard that life has a unique enough "isotopic ratio" that it can be determined it came from life.
where is the research that supports this claim? 

Yeah, I was surprised by that too.  Footnotes 1 or 2 probably reference the research.  I didn't have the time to follow up on it...

 

I do know there are certain chemical markers that are considered unique to biological life since the Mars meteorite ALH84001.  (84 is the year of discovery)  What's amazing to me is they can identify specific molecular bonds in a space the size of a few hundred (or even thousand) water molecules.

 

 

 

I have neither the time nor inclination to research this any farther, but the conclusions, as stated in the preview of the original paper, are reasonable....
There is chemical evidence life may have existed 3.7 billion years ago

miller-urey also produced "chemical evidence" of life, and it didn't come from life.

it would be nice to see that isotope research, if it even exists. 

I merely quoted the "preview" of the original paper referenced by the article cited in the OP.

 

The documentation is probably in either the paper itself or citations within the paper.  I suggest a search of the footnotes provided in the preview.

 

A false claim of this nature is one of the things I would expect peer review to catch.... not that peer review is a perfect process.



#35 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 August 2017 - 10:18 PM

Koonin's forest of life does not depict organisms but FUEs (Fundamental Units of Evolution). The simplified version of what an FUE is is a gene or set of genes.

Extensive horizontal gene transfer (HGT) among prokaryotes seems to undermine the tree of life (TOL) concept. However, the possibility remains that the TOL can be salvaged as a statistical central trend in the phylogenetic “forest of life” (FOL). A comprehensive comparative analysis of 6901 phylogenetic trees for prokaryotic genes revealed a signal of vertical inheritance that was particularly strong among the 102 nearly universal trees (NUTs), despite the high topological inconsistency among the trees in the FOL, most likely, caused by HGT. The topologies of the NUTs are similar to the topologies of numerous other trees in the FOL; although the NUTs cannot represent the FOL completely, they reflect a significant central trend. Thus, the original TOL concept becomes obsolete but the idea of a “weak” TOL as the dominant trend in the FOL merits further investigation. The totality of gene trees comprising the FOL appears to be a natural representation of the history of life given the inherent tree-like character of the replication process.
. . .
Thus, the claim that HGT uproots the TOL more accurately means that extensive HGT has the potential to result in complete decoupling of molecular phylogenies from the actual tree of cells. Phylogenetic trees of genes also reflect the evolution of the respective molecular functions, so the phylogenomic analysis has straightforward biological connotations. Thus, the phylogenomic approach and not the abstract tree of cells reveals the actual history of the genetic content of organisms. Accordingly, we examine here the current status of the “phylogenomic TOL.”
- The Phylogenetic Forest and the Quest for the Elusive Tree of Life.htm

i have no idea what koonin means by "phylogenomic".

#36 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 August 2017 - 12:39 AM

 

...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

that's gonna be a tough piece of rawhide for some.

the funny thing is, the areas that god claims is his doing are the exact areas that science lacks the data.

i must agree with dr. more, the idea seems so absurd, but yet . . .

all i can do is sit here shaking my head muttering unbelievable.

cgftjdykdul

 

 

the funny thing is, the areas that God claims is his doing are the exact areas that science lacks the data.

 

For one thing... it is ALL God's doing, and don't you forget it..   :checklist: 

 

FURTHERMORE

 

There are 2 pieces of Hard Data that support the account of Genesis that dinosaurs were created at

around the same time that Man was... But Atheists don't want any part of it... So they make up preposterous,

crazy ideas to try to keep the dead dog of Darwin from smelling even worse than it does (If that were possible)

 

I predicted 30 years ago that empirical evidence would be discovered to prove that Dinosaurs (Dragons

until 200 years ago) lived with humans.. But I NEVER thought I would see such compelling and corroborating

HARD DATA AS THESE!!!   It is almost as fun to watch Evolutionists make fools of themselves as they TRY

to explain them away as it was watching Wicked Hillary and her cabal go down in flames last Nov... (almost)  :banana_vacation: 

 

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

 

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/

 

 

 

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

 

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

 

 

BM-Darwin-Altar-300x234.jpgDarwins-finches.jpg


  • mike the wiz likes this

#37 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 August 2017 - 08:47 AM

There are 2 pieces of Hard Data that support the account of Genesis that dinosaurs were created at
around the same time that Man was... But Atheists don't want any part of it... So they make up preposterous,
crazy ideas to try to keep the dead dog of Darwin from smelling even worse than it does

heh, dead dog of darwin.

BTW, it doesn't matter what atheists want, or creationists for that matter.

what matters is how this stuff works.
we will NEVER be able to exploit this process if we don't know how it works, and we will NEVER get that figured out as long as we have morons like arrowsmith spreading their vomit all over the place.

DO YOU HEAR ME ARROWSMITH, YOU FRAUDULENT LIAR?
  • Blitzking likes this

#38 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 August 2017 - 09:01 AM

Koonin's forest of life does not depict organisms but FUEs (Fundamental Units of Evolution). The simplified version of what an FUE is is a gene or set of genes.

Extensive horizontal gene transfer (HGT) among prokaryotes seems to undermine the tree of life (TOL) concept. However, the possibility remains that the TOL can be salvaged as a statistical central trend in the phylogenetic “forest of life” (FOL). A comprehensive comparative analysis of 6901 phylogenetic trees for prokaryotic genes revealed a signal of vertical inheritance that was particularly strong among the 102 nearly universal trees (NUTs), despite the high topological inconsistency among the trees in the FOL, most likely, caused by HGT. The topologies of the NUTs are similar to the topologies of numerous other trees in the FOL; although the NUTs cannot represent the FOL completely, they reflect a significant central trend. Thus, the original TOL concept becomes obsolete but the idea of a “weak” TOL as the dominant trend in the FOL merits further investigation. The totality of gene trees comprising the FOL appears to be a natural representation of the history of life given the inherent tree-like character of the replication process.
. . .
Thus, the claim that HGT uproots the TOL more accurately means that extensive HGT has the potential to result in complete decoupling of molecular phylogenies from the actual tree of cells. Phylogenetic trees of genes also reflect the evolution of the respective molecular functions, so the phylogenomic analysis has straightforward biological connotations. Thus, the phylogenomic approach and not the abstract tree of cells reveals the actual history of the genetic content of organisms. Accordingly, we examine here the current status of the “phylogenomic TOL.”
- The Phylogenetic Forest and the Quest for the Elusive Tree of Life.htm

i have no idea what koonin means by "phylogenomic".

"Thus, the claim that HGT uproots the TOL more accurately means that extensive HGT has the potential to result in complete decoupling of molecular phylogenies from the actual tree of cells."

this sounds exactly like the processes of epigenetics and transposons.
i believe glansdorf may be correct, HGT is not as rampant as some believe it is.

#39 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 August 2017 - 07:35 PM

the following is almost certain proof that the components of at least DNA formed almost at once.

 

The standard genetic code, which is a mapping of 64 codons to 20 standard amino acids and the
translation stop signal, is shared, with minor modifications only, by all life forms on earth (Woese,
Hinegardner et al. 1964; Woese 1967; Ycas 1969; Osawa 1995). The apparent universality of
the code implies that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all extant life forms should
have already possessed, together with a complex translation machinery, the same genetic code as
contemporary organisms. One of the central principles of Darwinian evolution is that complex
systems evolve from simple ancestors, typically if not always, via a succession of relatively small,
incremental steps each of which increases fitness or at least does not lead to a decrease in fitness
(Darwin 1859). In conformity with this continuity principle (Penny 2005; Wolf and Koonin
2007), it appears almost certain that the genetic code employed by the primordial translation
system was substantially simpler than the modern code, which then evolved incrementally. The
origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
been reached.

 - Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes

 

you just got to love that last sentence.

what say you, gradualists?



#40 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 August 2017 - 01:02 AM

 

There are 2 pieces of Hard Data that support the account of Genesis that dinosaurs were created at
around the same time that Man was... But Atheists don't want any part of it... So they make up preposterous,
crazy ideas to try to keep the dead dog of Darwin from smelling even worse than it does

heh, dead dog of darwin.

BTW, it doesn't matter what atheists want, or creationists for that matter.

what matters is how this stuff works.
we will NEVER be able to exploit this process if we don't know how it works, and we will NEVER get that figured out as long as we have morons like arrowsmith spreading their vomit all over the place.

DO YOU HEAR ME ARROWSMITH, YOU FRAUDULENT LIAR?

 

 

"BTW, it doesn't matter what atheists want, or creationists for that matter."

 

100 % TRUE STATEMENT .. A THEME WHICH I EMBRACE AND BRING UP OFTEN BTW..  :yes: 

"what matters is how this stuff works."

 

 

Well.. I guess what REALLY matters is...

 

Whether stuff that happens to work, evolved the ability to work through purely unguided metaphysical naturalism  :think:

 

OR

 

Whether stuff that happens to work, works because it was designed to work by a supreme intelligence agent from the beginning  :worship:

 

 

FOR EXAMPLE

 

We can study how Computers or Cars or GPS systems work,, But we don't need to assume that they are a result of random mindless accidental fortune.. :farmer:

 

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the

history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

reification.jpg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users