Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:03 AM
399 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, ThinAirDesigns, vimesey (6 members, 393 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reproduction before Life
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 1 of 11 (501069)
03-04-2009 12:33 AM


In Evolution would have given us infrared vision, Buzsaw talked about reproduction in what he calls the "Post-Abiogenesis" era. Depending on when abiogenesis is considered to have been completed, one could argue that this actually represents the "Pre-Abiogenesis" era, but that's not the point.

Essentially, Buzsaw argues that, after the genesis of proto-cells, but before the genesis of true cells, there was a period of uncertain reproductive capacity for what would soon become life.

I think he deserves a chance to air his doubts about the feasibility of this process on a thread better suited to his argument.

My own take on the issue is that there would, indeed, be a period during which the replication cycles and processes of the different molecules within the proto-cell would not be coordinated centrally. Different molecules within the same proto-cell would have been perpetuated by different environmental processes, and the advantages given by the few "proto-genes" would be random and poorly regulated, at least at first.

In short, this era would be a terrible, confusing mess. But, I don't see why this is a problem for abiogenesis or evolution. Anyone who studies community ecology, phylogenetics or, really, any other area of life science, knows that life and its processes are still a terrible, confusing mess today.

True, the processes would likely have some differences when compared with today's processes, but the overall picture isn't that much different. I think the major issue is that Buzsaw, like most creationists, does not realize that confusing messes are the norm in biology.

I am interested primarily in why Buzsaw thinks this period of time is problematic, and why he thinks the gradual synchronization of multiple, independent components' replication cycles is beyond the reach of random mutation plus natural selection.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:12 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 11 (501077)
03-04-2009 1:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 3 of 11 (501269)
03-05-2009 1:42 PM


Bump: Buzsaw
Buzz?

Do you want to debate this issue?


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 03-05-2009 2:53 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 5 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-05-2009 3:20 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 7:14 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2858
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 11 (501300)
03-05-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Blue Jay
03-05-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Bump: Buzsaw
Buzz may not know that this thread exists... I know I don't always check all the new posts in all the forums.

I'd recommend making a short attention-getting reply-post to him in some other thread. That way he'll get an email that you replied to him and see that you're trying to talk to him. Your post will likely be off-topic, so it's best to keep it very short (and add a link to this thread where you want him to go).

But, I suppose sometimes people just ignore things they no longer want to discuss too... good luck.

Personally, I find your topic here interesting, but (like most of the biology-stuff) it's over my head so I don't feel like I could comment intelligently :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 03-05-2009 1:42 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 231 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 5 of 11 (501311)
03-05-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Blue Jay
03-05-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Bump: Buzsaw
Hi Bluejay,
I too would be interested in this thread though from a spectator viewpoint. All the more if there are any resident experts on this subject matter. Just send buzz an email directly.
Maybe if he doesn't respond the topic could be pursued anyways with people posting to both sides of the current knowledge on the topic.
That way we can all become current as to where the research has brought us so far. We can all know what problems and issues have been worked out and which ones remain to be resolved.
I think it may be beneficial for the lurkers as well.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 03-05-2009 1:42 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 11 (501356)
03-05-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Blue Jay
03-05-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Bump: Buzsaw
Bluejay writes:

Do you want to debate this issue?

Hi Bluejay. Thanks for opening this thread. I just got in from out of town and have eat and to do some things but will get back as soon as I can. I don't know how much debating I will be capable of doing so there will be a mix of questions and comments when I get to it.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 03-05-2009 1:42 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (501396)
03-05-2009 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
03-04-2009 12:33 AM


Confused Mess, Yes
Bluejay writes:

In short, this era would be a terrible, confusing mess. But, I don't see why this is a problem for abiogenesis or evolution. Anyone who studies community ecology, phylogenetics or, really, any other area of life science, knows that life and its processes are still a terrible, confusing mess today.

True, the processes would likely have some differences when compared with today's processes, but the overall picture isn't that much different. I think the major issue is that Buzsaw, like most creationists, does not realize that confusing messes are the norm in biology.

I am interested primarily in why Buzsaw thinks this period of time is problematic, and why he thinks the gradual synchronization of multiple, independent components' replication cycles is beyond the reach of random mutation plus natural selection.

I found this Wiki site which appears to explain the processes to which you allude.

After reading this about all of the corroborative synchronization requirements and sequential processes required to produce the primitive DNA/RNA proto-cells in a suitable environment for them to generate and to survive, etc, I'm not surprised that the folks here were reticent to delving into this in the infrared thread.

After all required for the proto-cell, another gamut of complicated processes would be required for success in just the right environment for the genesis of true cell/s to produce life, not to mention the extreme unlikelihood of survival and reproduction of real life organism.

It appears that all it would take in all of this would be one or two misses or absentees in any given step of the process and the whole life process fails. (abe:Imo, most potential starters would be dropouts soon in the process.) No wonder it's too complicated and difficult for science to do it all intelligently

If all of the 21st century kings men and all of the kings horses of science with all of the sophisticated computerized apparatus, etc can't produce full live organisms, how on earth, can we believe random processes and primitive selection mechanism can do the trick simply by natural and random processes?

As for your time question, perhaps you answered best for me yourself when you said, "and the advantages given by the few "proto-genes" would be random and poorly regulated, at least at first."

Bluejay, your OP was well articulated in layman's terms, forthright and balanced fairly. For a long time I've regarded this as a major problematic factor for evolution. I appreciate your effort and look forward to what we may all learn from this interesting topic. :cool:

Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted in context & Subtitle


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 03-04-2009 12:33 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 5:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 03-06-2009 10:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2009 10:42 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 8 of 11 (501408)
03-06-2009 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:12 PM


Re: Confused Mess, Yes
It appears that all it would take in all of this would be one or two misses or absentees in any given step of the process and the whole life process fails. (abe:Imo, most potential starters would be dropouts soon in the process.) No wonder it's too complicated and difficult for science to do it all intelligently

If all of the 21st century kings men and all of the kings horses of science with all of the sophisticated computerized apparatus, etc can't produce full live organisms, how on earth, can we believe random processes and primitive selection mechanism can do the trick simply by natural and random processes?

So, to paraphrase, we can't design it intelligently so it must be intelligently designed? Erm...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 231 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 9 of 11 (501409)
03-06-2009 5:55 AM


some background videos so everyone's on the same page
Origins - How Life Began - Introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wooi1DdbJy4&feature=related

Origins - How Life Began - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBrv3FmdrG4&NR=1

Origins - How Life Began - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzZkgRuiVkw&feature=related

Origins - How Life Began - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1EIuhMMgfA&feature=related

Origins - How Life Began - Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMgeqAO0txg&feature=related

Origins - How Life Began - Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEitPjlhSqQ&feature=related


    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1252
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 10 of 11 (501441)
03-06-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:12 PM


Re: Confused Mess, Yes

If all of the 21st century kings men and all of the kings horses of science with all of the sophisticated computerized apparatus, etc can't produce full live organisms, how on earth, can we believe random processes and primitive selection mechanism can do the trick simply by natural and random processes?

There are all manner of things that natural processes accomplish that man, with all his technology and knowledge, is comlpetely incapable of. Krakatoa erupted in 1883 with an explosive force of about 1300 megatons. By contrast, humanity hae never managed any greater explosive force than 50 megatons. Does our inability to cause such an explosion, will all our computerised apparatus, make the reality of Krakatoa's eruption any less likely?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 11 of 11 (501442)
03-06-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:12 PM


Re: Confused Mess, Yes
Hi, Buzsaw.

Buzsaw writes:

Imo, most potential starters would be dropouts soon in the process.

You have my full agreement in this.

Except, looking back over the fossil record, it's pretty clear that most organisms of any kind have been evolutionary dropouts along the way. I would suggest that the life we have today represents an infinitesimally small fraction of all the life that has existed.

Looking at evolutionary natural history as a bush, we would see the bush as mostly dead, with only a few tiny, living shoots with leaves sticking out in random, lopsided places.

To me, this is perfectly consistent with, and even to be expected from, evolution by natural selection. I can't imagine why anyone would propose that this wasn't the case in the very early stages of life, as well.

-----

Buzsaw writes:

It appears that all it would take in all of this would be one or two misses or absentees in any given step of the process and the whole life process fails.

All it would have taken in my family history was my Swedish great-great-great-grandfather having not married a Danish woman, and my family never would have existed.

All it would have taken in human history was Christopher Columbus's ship having been sunk, and the Native Americans may never have been pushed out of their lands.

All it would have taken in evolutionary history was one little mammal having been stomped flat by a dinosaur, and we wouldn't be here today.

All history is just a long string of improbable events. But, even if history had been completely changed by the non-occurrence of some improbable event, the outcome would still have been extremely improbable.

So, improbability simply doesn't cut it.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017