Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

Here's something interesting that I just thought of while reading that excerpt from Wikipedia...

For starters, we have a primoridal "soup", devoid of atmospheric oxygen, containing just a few basic elemental gases, which includes water vapor (containing oxygen) - without water vapor we couldn't get an electrical reaction or discharge.

This is false. If it were true then fluorescent lights couldn't work, as those are powered by electrical discharges through a noble gas (not water). Water vapor may increase conductivity, and thus make it such that you need less voltage to get the spark, but given a high enough voltage you can get a spark anywhere - even in a vacuum.

At first I thought, we don't get lightning on other planets, until I thought of Jupiter. So, it seems possible as long as water vapor is present. I wonder if any form of life has arisen there? Just a curious thought, and something to examine if we ever get that far out in space, because theoretically there should be some form of life.

We don't know if there is life on Jupiter, as we have not looked. However, it's probably not likely, as the only places in Jupiter where the atmosphere is thick enough to support (physically, as in have something floating in it) it is far too hot for organic molecules to survive.

So at the very least, carbon-based life on Jupiter is unlikely.

A more interesting option is Neptune, which according to some models, may have a massive water sea beneath its surface.

With the introduction of electricty, on the magnitude of simulated lightning we get some basic amino acids. Possibly the same kind each instance (same conditions, elements, etc.,. same result) - only one or two types were formed. This isn't nearly enough to bring about the potential beginnings of a major explosion of life.

However, astronomy has shown that most, if not all, of the basic building blocks of life are present in interstellar space, as well as the comets which pass through our solar system. Given that our solar system was built from interstellar debris, it is quite likely that all the required "building blocks" were carried here during the formation of life.

Another point worth making is that the above experiment is extremely simple. Experiments conducted since then, which add in other factors (iron-bearing clays, for example) have shown that under purely abiotic conditions you can form everything life needs to function.

We need to diversify the "soup" or conditions over time to get others (amino acids), in order to form a more complex chain. Since each amino acid should, theoretically, have a given span of time to remain active (otherwise dino dna would still be good to this day),

DNA is not made form amino acids (proteins are). DNA is made from nucleotides of deoxyribonucleic acid. Oh, and dino DNA may have been purified, although that find is a little controversial.

In terms of degradation, this does happen. But so does spontaneous polymerization. Exactly where things balance out depends on the concentrations that the components are present at; but even the most pessimistic estimate of the organic contents of earth earliest seas show that RNA and DNA chains of several hundred nucleotides long. That is sufficient to generate the first steps - self-replicating molecules.

It might not survive a transition of time (or environment wise) into the new condition that produces the third or fourth kind - now we have the next couple, we've just lost the first two. Also, we have to assume that just by chance, not only did all the "elements" come together to form a "beginning", but that all types were being formed in the proper (exact) order to combine effectively into a primordial genesis cell, that would not only have the ability to replicate in an ever changing hostile environment, but to take advantage of every change, evolving and adding to a single entity that all of a sudden, split out all over the place. Statistically, that would be way off the chart. Still reading though ... I saw Haldane's name mentioned

You vision of how this occurred is a little off. You've fallen into the "trap" of thinking in linear terms. Don't forget, the primordial seas were huge - about the same size as our seas today. In each and ever milliliter (fluid ounce for you in the US) there were thousands upon thousands of reactions occurring simultaneously every minute. You magnify that over the volume of the whole ocean and you have an immense amount of chemistry. And keep in mind, you only need to make a self-replicating molecule once; after that it'll take care of itself.

These pages cover the material rather well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey

Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

If evolution (adaptation is we could) is the "intelligence" behind all creation, then it would most definately be the driving force behind all life, and the basis of all inherited traits. So an eskimo, would logically start to grow hair when they live in a very cold environment. The problem to me, is whether all things we see are a result of natural selection, survival type evolution or something else.

You flunk, you’ve not been paying attention. A population of humans exposed to cold in such a way that having more hair would give individuals possessing that trait increased access to the gene pool of succeeding generation and would start to show the trait. Cold doesn’t cause hair to grow. There must be a heritable mutation that results in a hairy phenotype and a reproductive advantage to the phenotype, e.g., animal skin garments trump hair.

then some of the species we have today are absolutely dependant on extinction events (meteroites distributing rare elements across the earth for example) to make that leap.

Now you’re catching on. There are two things in play, a heritable phenotype and niche space that give that phenotype increased access to the gene pool of succeeding generations. A meteor that changed the niche space and reduced the level of competition would tend to be an event that would permit new species to flourish.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Thal,

I think this was one that I wanted to link
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1464121

and
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/feb/11a.shtml

I can't find the other one again but the subject was the HAR1 gene

 

[MikeFerrara]

This isn't the same article but the subject is the same.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uoc--bgs081506.php

 

[Thalassamania]

Thal,

I think this was one that I wanted to link
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1464121

and
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/feb/11a.shtml

I can't find the other one again but the subject was the HAR1 gene

Don't know enough about recombinants and hot spots, got a lot of reading to do, thanks. That's the exciting thing about science, wake up one morning and there's something new to learn, not like your world view that's plodded along without change or excitment since the the bronze age <G>.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You are more than your biology. One of the many elephants in the room is how significantly different we are than Chimps and Urchins. Our physical being is made of the same stuff every other living creature is made of. Our spirit comes from God.

In my search for articles on the genetic differences between people and chimps I came across articles suggesting that chimps be reclassified based on their genetic similarity to humans. If I remember right, one was even titled "chimps are people" or something like that.

I don't think it'll be long before they get to vote.

 

[radinator]

3000 B.C. - Major global paleoclimate event -- not much is known -- appears to have affected sea level, vegetation and surface chemistry. Speculated by some to be the Biblical Flood.

I find this one interesting in the context of this New York Times story of a possible newly-discovered major ocean meteorite impact in 2800 BC. Much work remains to be done on this, but it's interesting.

 

[Warthaug]

Don't know enough about recombinants and hot spots, got a lot of reading to do, thanks. That's the exciting thing about science, wake up one morning and there's something new to learn, not like your world view that's plodded along without change or excitment since the the bronze age <G>.

Those two links show different things:

The first one looks at how similar we/chimps are at the levels of proteins (which is what DNA codes for). What they show in that paper is that of the genes they compared, only 20% were 100% identical between humans and chimps. There are, however, several problems with that study:

1) They only compared 127 genes (which is all they had access to at the time). Considering that there is an estimated 18,000 to 22,000 genes in humans/chimps, that sample is too small to be representative. I image now that both genomes are near-complete we'll see a more accurate comparison soon.

2) They don't state what the % difference in the proteins is. Just because a mutation occurs in a protein-coding section of the gene doesn't mean that the protein itself changes. Most amino acids in a protein are coded for by more then one gene sequence; so it's possible to mutate the DNA without altering the protein. In addition, some amino acids can "sub in" for each other. Unfortunately, these sorts of comparisons were not done to any great degree, so its hard to directly analyze the actual protein difference.

The second paper they look at recombination hot spots. When eggs/sperm are formed the chromosomes undergo a process called "recombination". Basically, in all of your cells you have a two copies of each chromasome - one from your dad and one from your mom. During the formation of eggs/sperm these get mixed so that you pass a chromosome that is a combination of your mothers/fathers DNA onto your child.

But this process isn't 100% random. Rather then recombination happening equally across the entire length of the chromosome, they tend to occur more in some locals, and less in others. The areas which this occurs more frequently are called "recombination hot spots".

Basically, the second paper showed that some of these hot spots are in different locations in humans vs chimps. As for why this is the case, we don't know. We don't even know why these spots exist, or how they're regulated, so concluding anything from interspecies comparisons (aside from the fact that grad students will be able to maintain employment for a few more decades) is nearly impossible.

Bryan

 

[Midnight Star]

This is false. If it were true then fluorescent lights couldn't work, as those are powered by electrical discharges through a noble gas (not water). Water vapor may increase conductivity, and thus make it such that you need less voltage to get the spark, but given a high enough voltage you can get a spark anywhere - even in a vacuum.

I was referring to an electrical discharge atmospherically (comparing earth to jupiter), due to the "make up" and movement of molecules on it's own. With a flourescent light, we are directly applying an electric current - the tube doesn't light itself up by the combination of gasses it cotains, and chemical luminescense is an altogheter different matter. Technically, gravity outstanding, we should be able to simulate this in the classroom by tossing all the basic atmospheric elements together, right?

We don't know if there is life on Jupiter, as we have not looked.

yup.

However, it's probably not likely, as the only places in Jupiter where the atmosphere is thick enough to support (physically, as in have something floating in it) it is far too hot for organic molecules to survive.

So at the very least, carbon-based life on Jupiter is unlikely.

A more interesting option is Neptune, which according to some models, may have a massive water sea beneath its surface.

Then earth is completely unique in it's conception, within our solar system as far as the development of life is and was concerned. So the next question is, is it then unique in the constructs of the galaxy, universe? But again, we should be able to see at least the beginnings of life somewhere else in our galaxy, if all the "theories", based on the observations we have here, hold true.

However, astronomy has shown that most, if not all, of the basic building blocks of life are present in interstellar space, as well as the comets which pass through our solar system. Given that our solar system was built from interstellar debris, it is quite likely that all the required "building blocks" were carried here during the formation of life.

Of course. We all made from the dust of the earth (elements), the earth is in the cosmos and made from it's materials ... cosmic dust. It's all the same. The statement would neither prove nor disprove anything, just merely present itself as an observation, though conclusions are readily drawn from it. What would be really interesting, is to see microbial life in comet fragments; traces of bacteriological life in moon rocks maybe, deceased and preserved without water (only the chemical "consumption" trail remains is the idea), but should be found in full within water (ice) on the moon?

Another point worth making is that the above experiment is extremely simple. Experiments conducted since then

I'm a simple guy I guess, and think in simple terms. A single molecule, moving towards another molecule, possibly miles away ... a single molecule crossing an entire ocean to combine with another ... that does take some faith, simply because the observation concludes that because it happened, it happened in an of itself. There are no disputing fossils, only the conclusions based on whats seen in the record.

which add in other factors (iron-bearing clays, for example) have shown that under purely abiotic conditions you can form everything life needs to function.

So all life, is reactive with itself? If we are made from elements at hand, wouldn't it also conclude that it's reactive with itself to produce even the basics of all elements? Since the base elements were combined to make the whole. The real question is whether or not this happened on it's own (again where did the rules of matter and how them behave come from, along with matter - did it just make itself).

DNA is not made form amino acids (proteins are). DNA is made from nucleotides of deoxyribonucleic acid. Oh, and dino DNA may have been purified, although that find is a little controversial.

Yes it is, but being organic it still degrades. As does all organic molecules; even inorganic can break down over time. I couldn't draw an absolute conclusion (a universal truth) from that particular observation and say that some species didn't "make it" because their "components" failed.

In terms of degradation, this does happen. But so does spontaneous polymerization. Exactly where things balance out depends on the concentrations that the components are present at;

So your saying that the scientific community adds Spontaneous polymerization to fill in the gaps between these organic molecules, binding the beginnings of life?

but even the most pessimistic estimate of the organic contents of earth earliest seas show that RNA and DNA chains of several hundred nucleotides long. That is sufficient to generate the first steps - self-replicating molecules.

I'm rather optomistic. Is this because they see evidence of a simple form of life in the fossil record, and conclude, that based on a simular species today, it had to have been this long in "tides", genes or "blocks"? Again, it's a conclusion that is based on observation, but doesn't necessarily prove how life first started. If that is a possibility, then the algea today, would be a parallel evolution taking place right in front of our eyes. It instead remained unchanged (as much as practical), as did many of the species we see today.

You vision of how this occurred is a little off. You've fallen into the "trap" of thinking in linear terms. Don't forget, the primordial seas were huge - about the same size as our seas today. In each and ever milliliter (fluid ounce for you in the US) there were thousands upon thousands of reactions occurring simultaneously every minute. You magnify that over the volume of the whole ocean and you have an immense amount of chemistry. And keep in mind, you only need to make a self-replicating molecule once; after that it'll take care of itself.

Perhaps. Again, it's the difference between an observable fact, and in turn basing conclusions on those facts. Science takes small quantifiable facts, and then in turn, applies them to a larger "possibility"; it doesn't prove the possibility, nor does become a "theory" simply because smaller facts are provable. In a way, they are just what they are ... just small parts of a very big whole in which all things exist.

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

You flunk

I do? Interesting thing to say; being a ringmaster here?

you&#8217;ve not been paying attention. A population of humans exposed to cold in such a way that having more hair would give individuals possessing that trait increased access to the gene pool of succeeding generation and would start to show the trait. Cold doesn&#8217;t cause hair to grow. There must be a heritable mutation that results in a hairy phenotype and a reproductive advantage to the phenotype, e.g., animal skin garments trump hair.

Actually, I was referring to evolution as a trait. Now if cold doesnt cause hair to grow, why would anything else "adapt" or evolve to fit it's environment as science says does happen with other species? Remember, things just don't happen because some one says so; truth must be universal.

Now you&#8217;re catching on. There are two things in play, a heritable phenotype and niche space that give that phenotype increased access to the gene pool of succeeding generations. A meteor that changed the niche space and reduced the level of competition would tend to be an event that would permit new species to flourish.

Ah, so you now approve of my ignorance I see. That's quite an accomplishment! You mean survival of the fittest? Or better yet, survival of what's left? That doesnt prove the evolutionist theory as much as a new elemental component. So I kinda fail in one respect, but pass in another. Pretty cool - i'm starting to get pumped. I pass but I fail.

-----

Mike.