Stray evolution comments.

[Libsmasher]

First - don't start attacking me as a Creationist - I am an agnostic, and think evolution is the best theory currently for explaining a range of observations.

Having said that - at least one thing has always bothered me: How did life get started under the evolution theory? All I've heard is hand-waving arguments of well, lightning struck the primordial sea, which had some proteins floating in it, and voila life. Note that for sustained life, not only must life be created, but created with a reproductive capability. In fact, just probablistically, life must have been created many times w/o a reproductive capability and then died out.

And now some very off the wall comments. Remember about ten years ago when people were talking about socio-biology - ie, human behavior has it's roots in biology, and hence evolution?

I wonder if that explains bullying in schools? It's an attempt to remove the weaker elements from the herd?

Another: what is the evolutionary meaning of a smile? All I could think up is that it is designed to attract the opposite sex, by demonstrating survival capability by displaying a fine set of teeth.

Why do people laugh? What evolutionary meaning does it have?

 

[Dr.Who]

Having said that - at least one thing has always bothered me: How did life get started under the evolution theory? All I've heard is hand-waving arguments of well, lightning struck the primordial sea, which had some proteins floating in it, and voila life. Note that for sustained life, not only must life be created, but created with a reproductive capability. In fact, just probablistically, life must have been created many times w/o a reproductive capability and then died out.

I am not a young earth creationists. I do believe in evolution. I also know that there are problems with the theory that need to be worked out.

But I also believe that God created the universe and engineered evolution. I think that he had his hand in it and still does. I think that when we know more about it we will see this more clearly.

Ok so about the start of life. That is not a part of the theory of evolution. That is a part of a theory called abiogenesis. It is a much weaker theory than evolution with some mathematicians saying that it is impossible for it to have occurred within the limits of the time frame of the universe and other scientists resorting to the need for extraterrestrial intervention to make it work.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

after reviewing all the facts for the genisis ... you really only come to four possiblities for life on this planet..

Seeding via extraterrisial body I.E. chunk of planet that had life and crashed into our own.. or maybe a comet... the problem with most thoughts on these lines is the survivablity of even the most basic forms of life to endure the entry and final crash into earth.

origination of life via natural processes.. saying a sesspool of basic ingredients with energitic processes formed the most primitave life via chance...

alien insertion of life...

Or... god created it all .. which may encompass any one of the other 3

 

[Libsmasher]

after reviewing all the facts for the genisis ... you really only come to four possiblities for life on this planet..

Seeding via extraterrisial body I.E. chunk of planet that had life and crashed into our own.. or maybe a comet... the problem with most thoughts on these lines is the survivablity of even the most basic forms of life to endure the entry and final crash into earth.

That begs the question as to how the life was created on the other astronomical body. And the objects that historically crashed into the earth, almost certainly all solar system objects, can only have come from objects LESS hospitable to the formation of life.

origination of life via natural processes.. saying a sesspool of basic ingredients with energitic processes formed the most primitave life via chance...

As the other guy implied, this just seems unlikely, even given great stretches of time to accomplish.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

That begs the question as to how the life was created on the other astronomical body. And the objects that historically crashed into the earth, almost certainly all solar system objects, can only have come from objects LESS hospitable to the formation of life.



As the other guy implied, this just seems unlikely, even given great stretches of time to accomplish.

well the whole seeded planet idea states that say .. if a planet from say 3 billion years ago (( before the formation of the earth and sun )) had life on it .. lets say primitive life only containing small microbial entities... and sudden .. there star blew up in a giant catoclysm.. the planet being ripped apart would be left into chunks and floating ice possibly all the way up to a couple miles across... these would have floated for gigantically large time until the floated or thru gravity where pulled into our system of dust and debris which slowly formed our sun.. if those parts of the old planet happen to be within the keiper belt.. they could have been pulled into the lower system via the large gas giants and eventually collidied with earth... it is known that bacteria can last indifentelly incased in ice even in space when subjected to radition bursts from the sun... the only problem is we have found only one such object which has crashed to earth in this way.. and people are unable to say with 100 precent truth that it was not contaminated by our own ecosystem.

Thou it might beg to wonder how life was created on another planet.. again we reach a brick wall like all of the other theories.. we just have no acestrial proof of the beginning life in the form of micbros on earth.. tracking further beyond that seems likely impossible .. as with the other four theroies.. we pretty much are unable to get any hard core facts without somethig else turning up...

So unless aliens visit the earth and tell us everything.. god comes down from heaven.. we create life out of nothing in a labratory or a metorite falls from the sky which we can guarentee with100 acuraccy it was not contaminated.. the debate will rage on.. with no end in sight.

 

[Libsmasher]

the only problem is we have found only one such object which has crashed to earth in this way..

That's news to me - and I was an astronomy major! You're saying they found an object on earth that is from outside the solar system?! Have any links on that?

 

[Not Amused]

This may eventually answer some of the so far unanswerable questions most of us seek.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7567926.stm

 

[invest07]

Pond scum vs volcanic ventlings

For decades now the Evolution Establishment has been telling us we are nothing other than evolved pond scum. They have been saying that somewhere, somehow, a combination of chemicals managed to organize into sufficient complexity so as the able to reproduce. And that all life on earth sprang from that initial life, by the process of evolution. That first pond scum became a tadpole and then a frog and crawled out on the land. They never did say if the first tree also crawled out of that pond. And that first pond scum eventually became a human. Yeah, right.

And then a few scientists began to really look at this scenario and realized that it was impossible for pond scum to have come to life. Those scientists were singled out for attack by the Evolution Establishment. But these few dissenting voices knew the facts were on their side, regardless of what the Establishment said.

You see, free amino acids do not occur naturally in nature. Amino acids immediately bond with free oxygen molecules and become other compounds. So for the pond scum scenario to be true, there would have to be no oxygen in the earth’s prebiotic atmosphere. No oxygen means no ozone and no ozone means no protection from ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light is deadly to any form of life.

So if there was oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere, there were no free amino acids. And if there were no oxygen, the earth would have been bathed in deadly ultraviolet light. Neither scenario works to produce life. And these facts were readily apparent to anyone with half a brain. And these facts were swept under the table by the Evolution Establishment for the past 6 decades.

So now the Evolution Establishment has conveniently moved the first life from the earth’s surface to the bottom of the ocean. Instead of pond scum, you and I now started out as a small creature far below the surface of the ocean. Far enough so that no light can penetrate. Down where temps are very, very cold and pressures are very, very great. This small creature did not rely on photosynthesis and light because it’s metabolism relied on synthesizing chemicals from the volcanic discharge. But this scenario presents it’s own set of difficulties.

How, exactly, does a creature whose metabolism thrives on sulfur and ash and other poisonous gas change into a tree that relies on photosynthesis? This is a huge and extremely radical change. And how exactly does this creature, who lives 3 or 4 or 5 miles deep in the ocean, migrate to the surface? Once the migration begins, the creature no longer has nourishment. It’s a long evolution road from the bottom of a sea trench to the surface. From sulfur and poison to sunlight. From cold temps to warmth. From astronomical pressure to 14.7 PSI. And it’s an even longer road to dry land and plant/animal differentiation and humans. Abandoning surface evolution for volcanic ventlings means the evolution road from life inception to the present is much, much longer with far more problems and all those new problems demand a semi plausible explanation.

The abandonment of surface evolution was a huge blow to the credibility of the Evolution Establishment. And did you notice they didn’t print any retractions of science textbooks? They didn’t bother to say “I’m sorry we were wrong for the misinformation we spread the past 6 decades but we are right now.” They didn’t bother to publicize the fact that they had now changed their collective mind. The Evolution Establishment has picked right up with volcanic ventlings and is pretending that surface origin theory had never ever been considered.

The Evolution Establishment doesn’t like to admit they make errors. And they don’t like being challenged when they make a decision. Remember the Evolution Establishment is academic in nature and those guys are just plain arrogant. They know what is right and you had damn well better accept it just as they say or suffer their wrath. They will ostracize you from their circles of power and cut you off from grants if you challenge them. They will make sure you aren’t allowed to join their elite groups as a tenured professor. They will twist your words and question your research and raise all kinds of questions about your credentials.

But the one thing they can’t beat, in the long run anyway, is the facts. And the facts forced the Evolution Establishment to abandon surface evolution for a far more implausible scenario four miles under the ocean.

 

[Lagboltz]

Re: Pond scum vs volcanic ventlings

You see, free amino acids do not occur naturally in nature.

The famous Miller-Urey experiment showed that they did indeed occur. In 2000 Miller identified that precursors of PNA also spontaneously form. PNA is itself can be a precursor to DNA. It is more stable than DNA and may be one early stepping stone to abiogenesis. Research is still moving forward.

The abandonment of surface evolution was a huge blow to the credibility of the Evolution Establishment. And did you notice they didn’t print any retractions of science textbooks?

I don't know where you got that. There was no abandonment.

Remember the Evolution Establishment is academic in nature and those guys are just plain arrogant.

Remember even Darwin himself spent many years out in the field. That was not academic. Paleontology is not academic either.

But the one thing they can’t beat, in the long run anyway, is the facts. And the facts forced the Evolution Establishment to abandon surface evolution for a far more implausible scenario four miles under the ocean.

Moving evolution to the sea bottom is simply an alternate hypothesis, not a necessary one. Your worries about UV are misplaced. UV radiation is absorbed in the top layers of water, especially murky water. So a few centimeters down, the UV radiation should not be a problem for the "pond scum" hypothesis of abiogenesis. UV at the surface of water serves to build up complex organic molecules and enhance mutation. A few centimeters below, potential life would be more stable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Pond scum vs volcanic ventlings

The famous Miller-Urey experiment showed that they did indeed occur. In 2000 Miller identified that precursors of PNA also spontaneously form. PNA is itself can be a precursor to DNA. It is more stable than DNA and may be one early stepping stone to abiogenesis. Research is still moving forward.

The famous Miller-Urey experiment shows very nicely that an intelligent experimenter can create amino acids by creating the right environment for creation (no oxygen), but when it turns out that it is exactly the wrong environment for their continuation, that he can then change it (by adding oxygen).

Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that evolution of some sort was used by God to create and or perpetuate life on Earth. I just think it is fair to not treat certain scientific ideas as a religion.

We do not fully understand theology and we do not fully understand nature. when we understand them both better there will no doubt be a harmony.

 

[Lagboltz]

Re: Pond scum vs volcanic ventlings

The famous Miller-Urey experiment shows very nicely that an intelligent experimenter can create amino acids by creating the right environment for creation (no oxygen), but when it turns out that it is exactly the wrong environment for their continuation, that he can then change it (by adding oxygen).

The ingredients of the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment duplicated the conditions of the atmosphere at that early time of earth. It came from research, not on a whim. It has obviously been changing, but not by the whim of scientists.

Now don't get me wrong. I do believe that evolution of some sort was used by God to create and or perpetuate life on Earth. I just think it is fair to not treat certain scientific ideas as a religion.

We do not fully understand theology and we do not fully understand nature. when we understand them both better there will no doubt be a harmony.

I agree with you to a certain degree. This is my take:

As you know, few of the details have been filled in for abiogenesis, but the long time periods and the vastness of the area of earth leaves lots of room for abiogenesis. It simply can't be ruled out. When something can't be ruled out, science will keep plodding ahead.

Of course a theological explanation can't be ruled out either. Science can not be forced into a religion. But I would like to also see that no religion be forced into a science classroom. Otherwise the two ideas can live in harmony if they are kept in context and in the right places.

 

[invest07]

The Miller Experiment and amino acids

The Miller experiment was done in a box. When the amino acids were discovered, there was NO FREE OXYGEN in the box. Check your facts on this. Free oxygen will immediately bond with free amino acids to create other compounds. Free amino acids do not occur in nature.

The best evidence, from prebiotic iron deposits, is that the prebiotic atmosphere had oygen. Rust has been found in these prebiotic iron deposits.

And the volcanic ventling theory is most certainly being pushed as the best current theory, because of paragraph one above.

Surface evolution is now accepted as virtually impossible.

 

[PLC1]

Re: The Miller Experiment and amino acids

The Miller experiment was done in a box. When the amino acids were discovered, there was NO FREE OXYGEN in the box. Check your facts on this. Free oxygen will immediately bond with free amino acids to create other compounds. Free amino acids do not occur in nature.

The best evidence, from prebiotic iron deposits, is that the prebiotic atmosphere had oygen. Rust has been found in these prebiotic iron deposits.

And the volcanic ventling theory is most certainly being pushed as the best current theory, because of paragraph one above.

Surface evolution is now accepted as virtually impossible.

No, that is not correct. Evolution, surface or otherwise, has never been found to be impossible, quite the contrary in fact.

Abiogenesis has never been proven to be possible. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the studies of the young earth. Of course, abiogenesis has never been proven to be impossible, either.

Evolution is the theory that has been tested many times and by many people in different places. That is what makes it a theory. It is not just a supposition, nor even an hypothesis. It is a theory. It has been tested, and proven sound.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not a theory. It is a possibility that has never been shown to be more than that.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Pond scum vs volcanic ventlings

The ingredients of the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment duplicated the conditions of the atmosphere at that early time of earth. It came from research, not on a whim. It has obviously been changing, but not by the whim of scientists.

I have no problem with the possibility that amino acids could be formed through natural processes. If that were the case I would conclude exactly as Darwin originally did that God was the primary cause and nature was the secondary cause.

Regardless, I do like the scientific principle that results are questioned so they can be fine tuned. There are a number of problems with the Miller-Urey experiment that have not been sufficiently questioned.

For just one of the discussions of the problems with the exp see this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_origin_life_1.htm

I do not see these problems as insurmountable but they should be addressed rigorously.

 

[Lagboltz]

Re: The Miller Experiment and amino acids

The best evidence, from prebiotic iron deposits, is that the prebiotic atmosphere had oygen. Rust has been found in these prebiotic iron deposits.

And the volcanic ventling theory is most certainly being pushed as the best current theory, because of paragraph one above.

Surface evolution is now accepted as virtually impossible.

The preponderance of evidence is that the prebiotic era was at least weakly reductive. Most of the iron was combined with other elements such as sulfides.

I don't know what scientists accept surface evolution as virtually impossible. Maybe the same guys that also argue that dinosaur bones are less than 10 thousand years old.