Jump to content


Photo

From "building Blocks" To All Life On Earth


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 03 August 2017 - 01:12 AM

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?

 

"The apparent universality of the code implies that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)"

 

Incidentally, the term (LUCA) just another clever "begging the affirmative" epithet, This time subtly using an Acronym..

 

I believe that Creationists should ALWAYS use (UCA) and REJECT this Acronym (LUCA) for a very simple reason... 

 

 

Because the word "Last" IMPLIES that there were OTHER "Universal Common Ancestors" before the "Last" one..

 

Don't fall for the little tricks fellow Creationists... AbioDarwinists are a TRICKY bunch indeed... Intellectual Fascists  :acigar: 

 

 

"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)

 

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." (Dr. Ronald R. West)

 

 

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg



#42 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:31 PM

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.

 

All the information we have points to a relatively early (in geological time scale) formation of life once Earth was capable of supporting life.

 

Nobel or not, nature is not predicated on our understanding of it.
 

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.

 

The phrase "fully formed" is a comment on the lack of transitional species known, which is not a surprise since the precursor structure of bone would not have fossilized as well as bone. You seem to accept this, so I don't understand why you think it is a problem that we don't have these transitionals.

 

It is a main stream view that the Cambrian explosion was the result of adaptive radiation. At any rate I have no idea what the Cambrian has to do with the topic.

 

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.

 

"Isn't as rampant" is not the same thing as denying the role HGT plays in our understanding of phylogeny.

 

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.

 

Be that as it may, unless you explain what you are referring to I can't comment on it. Second, I'm talking about 3.4+ billion years ago; the Cambrian started roughly 540 million years ago, or almost 3 billion years after the time period I'm talking about. I fail to see the relevance.

 

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.

 

Indeed. The commonality of DNA and the nearly universal (with some minor tweaks) genetic code is the core evidence for stating all extant life is probably derived from a common ancestor or community of ancestors. Some people will bring up glycolysis which, while not universal, is used in all domains of life (sometimes with variation) which suggest a common evolutionary history. Convergent evolution is also possible with glycolysis towards the bottom of the evolutionary tree/web - whatever you want to call it, but convergent evolution with DNA and the genetic code is less plausible.

 

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.

 

It's just common knowledge in various scientific fields that life prefers to use lower-mass carbon atoms, which would be C12. C12 is present outside of life, of course, but what is key are the isotope ratios which indicate life, not the presence of C12 per se.

 

The oldest known possible life is from 4.1 billion year old zircons, which was determined by looking at the carbon isotope ratios. 4.1 billion years ago would put it in the Hadean eon when the Earth was still being bombarded with asteroids that could sterilize the planet, which speaks to the possibility of life forming multiple times only to be wiped out by asteroid impacts.

 

I'll link the paper at the bottom. For anyone willing to read it the "delta 13 carbon" which is denoted with the symbol "δ13C" is a ratio measurement of C12 and C13. You can look up the formula online if you want (just algebra), but for the purposes of the thread the basic idea is that the more negative the number the higher the concentration of C12 and the possibility of it being the remnants of life is opened.

 

I would quote some excerpts from the paper, but it doesn't like the copy-paste function. The highlights are that the standard delta 13C value for biologically derived components of sedimentary rock from 3.4 billion years ago to present is -25 ± 10%. The average delta 13C value for carbonates (basically various carbon compounds in rock) and the mantle is 0% and -5% respectively. They looked at a zircon from 4.1 billion years ago, and got a delta 13C value of -24 ± 5%, which is well within the expected range for the remnants of life. The authors note that there are other possibilities for the delta 13C values besides life from geochemical processes to meteorite impacts, and explain in the paper why they think some of those processes are an unlikely explanation with a biological origin a "at least as plausible" explanation as any other.

 

Here is the paper: http://www.pnas.org/.../14518.full.pdf



#43 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 12:47 AM

The phrase "fully formed" is a comment on the lack of transitional species known, which is not a surprise since the precursor structure of bone would not have fossilized as well as bone. You seem to accept this, so I don't understand why you think it is a problem that we don't have these transitionals.

why do i consider it a problem?
it's almost certain evidence that phyla did not originate from each other.
we didn't have one phyla descend from another, we would have the transitionals if they did.
 

"Isn't as rampant" is not the same thing as denying the role HGT plays in our understanding of phylogeny.

you are forgetting something.
the actions and results of HGT and transposons are identical.
we could have a transposon event and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to determine if it was by transposon or HGT.
correction, i say impossible, but it isn't.
you would need to tag molecules in order to determine this.
 

Be that as it may, unless you explain what you are referring to I can't comment on it. Second, I'm talking about 3.4+ billion years ago; the Cambrian started roughly 540 million years ago, or almost 3 billion years after the time period I'm talking about. I fail to see the relevance.

yes, this is what koonin says is unreliable, and gives references for why it is.
 

Indeed. The commonality of DNA and the nearly universal (with some minor tweaks) genetic code is the core evidence for stating all extant life is probably derived from a common ancestor or community of ancestors.

there's another possibility.
it could be that the configuration of the living cell is the only configuration that can support life.

BTW, since the genetic code is universal (with minor modifications) what does this say for evolution?
do you really expect a random process to lead to a universal code for all life?
this becomes especially problematic for multiple origins.
 

I'll link the paper at the bottom.

from the paper:
from a population of 10,000 jack hills zircons, we identified one>3.8-GA zircon that contains primary graphite inclusion.
- Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon

one?
out of 10,000?????
any rational person would find this to be an anomaly, certainly nothing of significance.

#44 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:54 AM

why do i consider it a problem?

it's almost certain evidence that phyla did not originate from each other.
we didn't have one phyla descend from another, we would have the transitionals if they did.

 

But why would you expect to have transitionals to the point of saying that phyla have different abiogenesis origins if we don't have them when we know that it is unlikely to find these transitionals due to their soft bodies?

 

you are forgetting something.
the actions and results of HGT and transposons are identical.
we could have a transposon event and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to determine if it was by transposon or HGT.
correction, i say impossible, but it isn't.
you would need to tag molecules in order to determine this.

 

Often what is moved in an HGT event is a transposable element. As for impossible, depending on the type of transposon you can get characteristic repeating sequences which is a give a way that it is a transposon. You can use statistical analysis of the DNA and phylogeny reconstruction to determine if a sequence is the result of an HGT event. Combine all the tools you have, and while there are many limitations, the phrase 'impossible unless you observe it in real time via tagging' does not compute.

 

In any event we know HGT exists and must be accounted for.

 

Be that as it may, unless you explain what you are referring to I can't comment on it. Second, I'm talking about 3.4+ billion years ago; the Cambrian started roughly 540 million years ago, or almost 3 billion years after the time period I'm talking about. I fail to see the relevance.
yes, this is what koonin says is unreliable, and gives references for why it is.

 

What is unreliable? You aren't making any sense.

 

there's another possibility.
it could be that the configuration of the living cell is the only configuration that can support life.

BTW, since the genetic code is universal (with minor modifications) what does this say for evolution?
do you really expect a random process to lead to a universal code for all life?
this becomes especially problematic for multiple origins.

 

I don't know what you mean by "the configuration of the living cell". Theoretically you can have RNA based life without the use of DNA, which is the basis of RNA world combined with RNA being less complex than DNA and able to catalyze reactions as an enzyme which DNA can't do, and some biologists do classify RNA viruses as life.

 

That the genetic code is virtually universal is an indication that all extant life is derived from the same common ancestor/s.

If the process which determined which codon equated to which aa was random, which I do assume was fundamentally by chance, that is an indication that all extant life is derived from the same common ancestor/s.

Yes, it is problematic for multiple abiogenic origins of extant life on Earth, but as far as I can tell you are the only one on this site that advocates multiple abiogenic origins of extant life on Earth apart from the creationists.

 

from the paper:
from a population of 10,000 jack hills zircons, we identified one>3.8-GA zircon that contains primary graphite inclusion.
- Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon

one?
out of 10,000?????
any rational person would find this to be an anomaly, certainly nothing of significance.

 

 

 

That is from the abstract. If you read the actual paper you'll see that they started with 10,000 specimens, identified 656 as being more than 3.8 billion years old, then did an initial screening for opaque inclusions to get 79, and used spectroscopy to get 2 zircons with identifiable graphite beneath the surface. Of the two specimens found with graphite to do their isotope tests on, one was excluded due to cracks and they were afraid of contamination, and the other specimen was further tested for cracks but found none that would indicate contamination of the carbon isotopes in question. It was this single zircon that had 'passed' all their preliminary tests that they finally did their isotope test and got a value concordant with biological remnants.

 

So in actuality it was one out of one, not one out of ten-thousand.



#45 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:57 AM

But why would you expect to have transitionals to the point of saying that phyla have different abiogenesis origins if we don't have them when we know that it is unlikely to find these transitionals due to their soft bodies?

the only time animals have "soft bodies" is when they are too young to reproduce.
so, if phyla descended from one another, there WILL be transitionals (found or unfound).
there are only 2 conclusions here:
1. there was one abiogenesis event and all phyla somehow jelled from that while still in the cellular stage.
i don't see how a diverse metabolism can be derived from a homogenized group of cells.
- or -
2. there were multiple abiogenesis events, each of which led to the separate phyla.

both are equally likely in my opinion, but the first one smacks in the face of gradualism.

Often what is moved in an HGT event is a transposable element. As for impossible, depending on the type of transposon you can get characteristic repeating sequences which is a give a way that it is a transposon. You can use statistical analysis of the DNA and phylogeny reconstruction to determine if a sequence is the result of an HGT event. Combine all the tools you have, and while there are many limitations, the phrase 'impossible unless you observe it in real time via tagging' does not compute.

i knew i should have been more careful.
yes, transposons often contain numerous sequences, and a transposon event matching an HGT event is unlikely.
but, if HGT and transposons both contained but a single gene, and one of the events occured, you wouldn't be able to tell where it came from, HGT or transposon.

In any event we know HGT exists and must be accounted for.

correction, we have evidence for it (which happens to also be evidence for transposons) and we assume it happens.
the only way i know of to prove it would be by tagging molecules.

What is unreliable? You aren't making any sense.

the mainstream explanation for the cambrian explosion.
koonin gives the following reference for why it's wrong, but i haven't been able to access it:
Welch JJ, Fontanillas E, Bromham L. Molecular dates for the "cambrian explosion": the influence of prior assumptions. Syst Biol. 2005;54:672–678. doi:
 

I don't know what you mean by "the configuration of the living cell". Theoretically you can have RNA based life without the use of DNA, which is the basis of RNA world combined with RNA being less complex than DNA and able to catalyze reactions as an enzyme which DNA can't do, and some biologists do classify RNA viruses as life.

can you provide a name of one of these RNA "life forms"?
as far as i know, RNA cannot pass on inherited traits.

That the genetic code is virtually universal is an indication that all extant life is derived from the same common ancestor/s.

it certainly seems that way.
OTOH, i find it odd that millions of years of "gradual accumulation" hasn't changed the code.
don't forget, evolution can make dinosaurs fly given enough time.
are you going to ponder this, or simply provide some generic ad hoc response.

if it's found that life sprang from multiple sources, then the above becomes even more unrealistic.

If the process which determined which codon equated to which aa was random, which I do assume was fundamentally by chance, that is an indication that all extant life is derived from the same common ancestor/s.
Yes, it is problematic for multiple abiogenic origins of extant life on Earth, but as far as I can tell you are the only one on this site that advocates multiple abiogenic origins of extant life on Earth apart from the creationists.

excuse me?
just a few days ago you was going on about how there may have been 100 abiogenesis events.

for some strange reason, you seem to think life only sprang from one of them.
yes, the universal nature of "the code" would seem to indicate that, but this doesn't bode well for the power of evolution to change things.
it seems to me that a transposon/HGT event could easily provide an alternate sequence.
 

That is from the abstract. If you read the actual paper you'll see that they started with 10,000 specimens, identified 656 as being more than 3.8 billion years old, then did an initial screening for opaque inclusions to get 79, and used spectroscopy to get 2 zircons with identifiable graphite beneath the surface. Of the two specimens found with graphite to do their isotope tests on, one was excluded due to cracks and they were afraid of contamination, and the other specimen was further tested for cracks but found none that would indicate contamination of the carbon isotopes in question. It was this single zircon that had 'passed' all their preliminary tests that they finally did their isotope test and got a value concordant with biological remnants.
 
So in actuality it was one out of one, not one out of ten-thousand.

actually it's 2 out of 79

#46 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:24 PM

the only time animals have "soft bodies" is when they are too young to reproduce.

 

I've no idea how you've rationalized this statement ?



#47 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:20 PM

the only time animals have "soft bodies" is when they are too young to reproduce.

so, if phyla descended from one another, there WILL be transitionals (found or unfound).
there are only 2 conclusions here:
1. there was one abiogenesis event and all phyla somehow jelled from that while still in the cellular stage.
i don't see how a diverse metabolism can be derived from a homogenized group of cells.
- or -
2. there were multiple abiogenesis events, each of which led to the separate phyla.

both are equally likely in my opinion, but the first one smacks in the face of gradualism.

 

What part of a jellyfish's body is hard? A sponge? Starfish? Earthworm?
 

i knew i should have been more careful.
yes, transposons often contain numerous sequences, and a transposon event matching an HGT event is unlikely.
but, if HGT and transposons both contained but a single gene, and one of the events occured, you wouldn't be able to tell where it came from, HGT or transposon.

 

If a transposon is a single gene then it would likely have characteristic sequences at the ends which would tell you that it is a transposon. As a loose analogy it would be like finding telomeres at the end of chromosomes.

 

Again through analysis of genomes and phylogeny there are several methods that can be used to determine HGT and even HGT of TEs.

 

correction, we have evidence for it (which happens to also be evidence for transposons) and we assume it happens.
the only way i know of to prove it would be by tagging molecules.

 

We literally see the structures that allow bacterial conjugation (HGT) to occur; how is that the same evidence for TEs within the same organism?

 

the mainstream explanation for the cambrian explosion.
koonin gives the following reference for why it's wrong, but i haven't been able to access it:
Welch JJ, Fontanillas E, Bromham L. Molecular dates for the "cambrian explosion": the influence of prior assumptions. Syst Biol. 2005;54:672–678. doi:

 

You'll notice that Koonin is not the author of the paper you cite. :rolleyes:

 

I still have no idea what you think is wrong with the main stream view, or why.

 

You can find the paper here, which I believe is free to access, and the main gist of it is reconciling the fossil record of Cambrian phyla with theoretical molecular clocks for the emergence of said phyla by essentially tweaking mutation rates in their models (e.g. variable versus non-variable mutation rates over time): https://academic.oup...n-Explosion-The

 

can you provide a name of one of these RNA "life forms"?
as far as i know, RNA cannot pass on inherited traits.

 

I just told you some biologists consider RNA viruses alive. As far as I know all cellular life has DNA. I have no strong opinion on the matter of whether or not to call viruses life, but traditionally they are not considered alive so out of conservatism I am reluctant to call viruses a life-form.

 

Why would RNA not be able to pass on inherited traits? Just copy the RNA strand similar to how you would copy a DNA strand. Some RNA viruses copy RNA directly from the RNA itself.

 

it certainly seems that way.
OTOH, i find it odd that millions of years of "gradual accumulation" hasn't changed the code.
don't forget, evolution can make dinosaurs fly given enough time.
are you going to ponder this, or simply provide some generic ad hoc response.

if it's found that life sprang from multiple sources, then the above becomes even more unrealistic.

 

The "gradual accumulations" are the nucleotide sequences, not the genetic code itself. Even within nucleotide sequences some sequences are more susceptible to change than others. One extremely conserved sequence is known as the HOX genes which deal with basic body plans; e.g. where the arms and legs go. You can switch the HOX genes of distantly related animals often with no measurable effect. The reason why the sequence is so conserved is because small changes can have big effects which will usually make the organism unviable. Now take that same reasoning and apply it to changing the genetic code. All of a sudden you aren't talking about a change here or there, but virtually the entire genome is being changed all at once with regards to the amino acid order. The effects would surely be devastating for any complex organism. The stability of the genetic code over billions of years may very well be necessary for complex life to survive.

 

excuse me?
just a few days ago you was going on about how there may have been 100 abiogenesis events.

for some strange reason, you seem to think life only sprang from one of them.
yes, the universal nature of "the code" would seem to indicate that, but this doesn't bode well for the power of evolution to change things.
it seems to me that a transposon/HGT event could easily provide an alternate sequence.

 

I tried to explain in previous posts that the multiple abiogenesis events would have largely occurred during the Hadean eon when the Earth was periodically sterilized by asteroid impacts. Going into the Archean eon may have resulted in multiple abiogenesis events giving rise to extant life, but you are certainly the only one advocating that each animal phyla has a different abiogenesis origin. No one who studies this stuff (apart from creationists) would even consider the idea that eukaryotes do not stem from a common ancestor.

 

I don't understand what you mean by your last line. I guess it is theoretically possible for an organism to transfer a mutated genetic code to another organism via sequences for tRNA and rRNA etc., but that seems like a giant mess and my off the cuff conclusion would be that the organism would ultimately become non-viable. That line of thinking would seem to further the idea that the extant genetic code has a common origin, but I have no idea if that is what you mean.

 

actually it's 2 out of 79

 

How do you figure? Only 2 of the 79 had identifiable graphite to do the isotope test to begin with, and one of the two was suspected of contamination so they didn't test it. At the end of the day they only found 1 specimen with which to do the test on without fear of contamination.



#48 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:50 PM

What part of a jellyfish's body is hard? A sponge? Starfish? Earthworm?

the fact still remains that if phyla descended from one another, there WILL be transitionals.
i can think of only 2 reasons why there isn't:
each phyla had its own origin, or, each phyla somehow jelled from the same cellular group (a catalytic type reaction).
the latter presents the problem of how a diverse metabolism emerged from the same group of cells.

If a transposon is a single gene then it would likely have characteristic sequences at the ends which would tell you that it is a transposon. As a loose analogy it would be like finding telomeres at the end of chromosomes.

i haven't seen any literature that says transposons have "stuff" at the ends.
type 1 transposons do however appear to have tags associated with them.
viz:
The first type or Class I transposons are retrotransposons. They are called so because they behave like the DNA of retroviruses. They are first transcribed by the cell to form RNA and then, this RNA is reverse transcribed by reverse transcriptase (often encoded by the transposon) to give DNA that is then integrated into a random position by enzymes called integrases (also encoded by the transposon). It can be clearly seen, that in this case, the original donor element remains intact. Hence, the transposable element gets replicated.
- How do transposons jump from one place of the genome to another - Quora.htm

We literally see the structures that allow bacterial conjugation (HGT) to occur; how is that the same evidence for TEs within the same organism?

yes, for bacteria, except we aren't talking about bacteria.

You'll notice that Koonin is not the author of the paper you cite. :rolleyes:

you'll notice i said koonin gives the following reference . . .

I still have no idea what you think is wrong with the main stream view, or why.

it's koonin that says the mainstream explanation is unreliable, and gives the above mentioned reference.

You can find the paper here, which I believe is free to access, and the main gist of it is reconciling the fossil record of Cambrian phyla with theoretical molecular clocks for the emergence of said phyla by essentially tweaking mutation rates in their models (e.g. variable versus non-variable mutation rates over time): https://academic.oup...n-Explosion-The

thanks.
another page i can add to my over burdened evolution folder.

 

I just told you some biologists consider RNA viruses alive. As far as I know all cellular life has DNA. I have no strong opinion on the matter of whether or not to call viruses life, but traditionally they are not considered alive so out of conservatism I am reluctant to call viruses a life-form.
 
Why would RNA not be able to pass on inherited traits? Just copy the RNA strand similar to how you would copy a DNA strand. Some RNA viruses copy RNA directly from the RNA itself.

then why do viruses need a host to reproduce?

 

One extremely conserved sequence is known as the HOX genes which deal with basic body plans; e.g. where the arms and legs go. You can switch the HOX genes of distantly related animals often with no measurable effect. The reason why the sequence is so conserved is because small changes can have big effects which will usually make the organism unviable.

this is an assumption.
with the discovery of CRISPR we now have the ability to test this assumption, if only someone would fund the research.

Now take that same reasoning and apply it to changing the genetic code. All of a sudden you aren't talking about a change here or there, but virtually the entire genome is being changed all at once with regards to the amino acid order. The effects would surely be devastating for any complex organism. The stability of the genetic code over billions of years may very well be necessary for complex life to survive.

i can't seem to get my hands around this.
i understand what you are saying, but i don't see how it relates to why the code couldn't be changed by random insertions/ deletions, or why different sequences yield the same protein for that matter.

I tried to explain in previous posts that the multiple abiogenesis events would have largely occurred during the Hadean eon when the Earth was periodically sterilized by asteroid impacts. Going into the Archean eon may have resulted in multiple abiogenesis events giving rise to extant life, but you are certainly the only one advocating that each animal phyla has a different abiogenesis origin. No one who studies this stuff (apart from creationists) would even consider the idea that eukaryotes do not stem from a common ancestor.

of course not, it would sound too "creationist".
heaven forbid that (ask koonin how scientists are called on the carpet for such stuff).
that sort of thing is just plain wrong goku.

I don't understand what you mean by your last line. I guess it is theoretically possible for an organism to transfer a mutated genetic code to another organism via sequences for tRNA and rRNA etc., but that seems like a giant mess and my off the cuff conclusion would be that the organism would ultimately become non-viable. That line of thinking would seem to further the idea that the extant genetic code has a common origin, but I have no idea if that is what you mean.

i can't argue the point because i do not have a very good understanding of why the code cannot be changed.
for example, what the limiting factors are.

 

How do you figure? Only 2 of the 79 had identifiable graphite to do the isotope test to begin with, and one of the two was suspected of contamination so they didn't test it. At the end of the day they only found 1 specimen with which to do the test on without fear of contamination.

they found 79 within the specified time span.
of those 79, only 2 had the specified "ingredients".
one of those was ditched because of contamination.

still, we are talking about an initial population of 10,000.
i believe the only thing this paper shows is, it isn't impossible.

#49 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:19 AM

the only time animals have "soft bodies" is when they are too young to reproduce.

 
I've no idea how you've rationalized this statement ?

when does a bear, or dog, or deer, have soft bodies that won't fossilize?
the only time i can think of is when they are too young to reproduce.

#50 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:12 PM

 

 

the only time animals have "soft bodies" is when they are too young to reproduce.

 
I've no idea how you've rationalized this statement ?

 

when does a bear, or dog, or deer, have soft bodies that won't fossilize?
the only time i can think of is when they are too young to reproduce.

 

 

There weren't any bears, dogs or deer in the Precambrian so I've no idea why you've said this



#51 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 12 August 2017 - 04:36 PM

There weren't any bears, dogs or deer in the Precambrian so I've no idea why you've said this

you can evade this until you run out of infinity, the fact remains that if phyla descended from one another then there will be transitionals between them.
it's highly likely that this is what gould was trying to explain with PE

also, it appears that science knows there is an anomaly here, or they would simply say they haven't been found.

i see no rational explanation why phyla would suddenly appear and remain constant through eons.
gradualism doesn't even come close to explaining it, gradualism would make finding a transitional between phyla an almost certainty.
to date, none has been found.

there is no doubt at all in my mind that the facts are being manipulated to fit the theory.
there is no doubt in my mind that research papers are being rewritten to exclude ANY reference to the other side, namely creationism.
these are FACTS wibble, and i have provided the sources that proves it.

as a matter of fact, i've lost almost all faith in science in regards to evolution to correct itself.

it's completely irrelevant to science whether there is a god or not, but there are a very great many that would like you to think it is.
reviewer: ouch, that will wind up on ID sites in a heartbeat.
koonin: sorry, it's the facts.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#52 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:02 PM

 

 

 

 

See the problem? If I do show you one out-of-place, you just re-label it as "ancient" and push back evolution to an earlier date, if you can't get away with arguing contamination.

It is blindingly obvious that there are a multitude of things that if found in completely the wrong strata, would destroy evolution. But they are never found.

 

 

Unfortunately, it is not blindingly obvious. When "out of place" fossils are found...and they are found.... one of several things happens. The researcher may dismiss his/her own finding because it contradicts what he expects to find or he does not publish because he would rather not face the ridicule. If it is published, other researchers, either rightly or wrongly, will de-bunk the finding in one manner or another. The finding could be placed in a research drawer for future study where it languishes unknown for years. Or, if the finding is found to be credible, then the evolution narration is adjusted to fit the new finding. Often times, this just pushes the first "appearance" of a particular taxa further back in time. 


  • mike the wiz and what if like this

#53 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:03 AM

See the problem? If I do show you one out-of-place, you just re-label it as "ancient" and push back evolution to an earlier date, if you can't get away with arguing contamination.

It is blindingly obvious that there are a multitude of things that if found in completely the wrong strata, would destroy evolution. But they are never found.

Unfortunately, it is not blindingly obvious. When "out of place" fossils are found...and they are found.... one of several things happens. The researcher may dismiss his/her own finding because it contradicts what he expects to find or he does not publish because he would rather not face the ridicule. If it is published, other researchers, either rightly or wrongly, will de-bunk the finding in one manner or another. The finding could be placed in a research drawer for future study where it languishes unknown for years. Or, if the finding is found to be credible, then the evolution narration is adjusted to fit the new finding. Often times, this just pushes the first "appearance" of a particular taxa further back in time.

.

Wibble: I'm not sure why this "living fossil" is seen as some sort of strike against evolution by you. The most recent fossil is about 2 million years old (found in Tasmania). Why would you expect a relic population to provide fossils for us to find in the meantime ?

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]You're right, between then and now pines are silent. It seems very consistent with a flood, whereas a history of evolution might show pines existing between 300 mya and 2 mya. But with a flood we obviously don't see the rocks as a history of earth, so we wouldn't expect pines throughout the record.

How does your flood separate angiosperms (flowering plants) from gymnosperms (conifers etc.) into different parts of the geological record until you reach Cretaceous rock ?

You didn't wish to admit to your error of 300 myo Wollemi pines then ? In actual fact putative Wollemi fossils are found in the Cretaceous, about 125 mya.

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 ?

About a tenth of a tenth of a percent of modern organisms have a representative that has been found in the fossil record. Fossilisation is a rare event for any particular species !
...

See the problem? If I do show you one out-of-place, you just re-label it as "ancient" and push back evolution to an earlier date, if you can't get away with arguing contamination.

It is blindingly obvious that there are a multitude of things that if found in completely the wrong strata, would destroy evolution. But they are never found.

.
If I understand "wibble"'s sentences prior to the two sentences to which you disagree, then what is "blindingly obvious" is that you continue to deny or ignore the monumental meaning in what has not been found given what has been found, what remains to be discovered, what may have existed and what never was "fossilized.

My three groupings in the other thread where fossils and the geological record--both actual and speculative--are being discussed, [] are intended to address these issues in the wake of the zero progress on the discussions.

#54 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:02 AM

. . . what is "blindingly obvious" is that you continue to deny or ignore the monumental meaning in what has not been found given what has been found, . . .

you have a lot of nerve accusing someone of this.

you absolutely refuse to address what koonin has to say, and it's exactly the kind of thing you are wanting to discuss.

so go right on ahead and cherry pick the easy ones.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users