Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the first life
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 138 (185619)
02-15-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-14-2004 3:03 AM


That first life form
The question of ozone layers at the very beginning is unnecessary. Obviously life survived, wether because of the protection of the atmosphere itself (not only ozone interacts with UVB and UVC) or the water wherin the life occurred. It survived. The amazing thing which science accepts but wishes to ignore is that life emerged the moment there was water. And it contained the fantastically complex genome which has been the basis of all further evolution.
This is what science's holy rule that all is a result of random events cannot allow.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-14-2004 3:03 AM tubi417 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 4:37 PM mihkel4397 has replied
 Message 107 by Ooook!, posted 02-15-2005 5:28 PM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 138 (185634)
02-15-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Chiroptera
02-15-2005 4:37 PM


Re: there was no "first" life form
By definition, there was a first single cell life form. The problem is that it occurred 3.8 billion years ago, coinciding (at least in geological terms) with the existence of water, a prerequsite for any life. This gives far too little time for random events to combine simple amino acids to single cell organisms with the exqusite genome which is the basis of all present day life. And that includes the Cambrian explosion of species 530 million years ago.
You can statistically rule out random events even over the very short span of some tens of millions of years as sufficient. Unless you want to make liars of Crick and Hoyle among many others.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 4:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 5:38 PM mihkel4397 has replied
 Message 111 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 9:00 AM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 138 (185815)
02-16-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ooook!
02-15-2005 5:28 PM


Re: That first life form
I should refer you to the literature on the subject. Suffice it here to refer to the Cambrian explosion of life forms 530 million years ago. For 3.3 billion years, life on Earth was confined to primitive single cell organisms, when suddenly, during an amazingly short period of 5 million years, a plethora of species with jointed limbs, internal digestive organs, eyes, mouths, etc. appeared from nowhere. The genome did not come about through random processes over 5 million years; that is statistically absurd. The genome had been dormant for 3.3 billion years - there is no other rational explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ooook!, posted 02-15-2005 5:28 PM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2005 11:40 AM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 138 (185823)
02-16-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
02-15-2005 5:38 PM


Re: there was no "first" life form
I am deeply gratful for your courtesy. It matters little whether the first living organism came about abruptly or gradually, it was still the first. I think you are neglecting the statistics of random events. Tens of millions of years would be woefully insufficient time to produce a life form from basic amino acids. Consider this little example:
Homo Sapiens is considered to be most closely genetically related to the chimpanzee. The first hominid appeared about 7 million years ago.
The most conservative estimates indicate that random mutations of the chimp genome to that of Homo Sapiens would take some 100 million generations or something on the order of a billion years.
I am sure that science is desperately trying to explain the seeming anomalies in the process of evolution, for the religion of science is that random processes simply must explain everything. That is perfectly natural - if a little narrow minded and myopic in nature.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 5:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2005 11:00 AM mihkel4397 has replied
 Message 125 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-16-2005 2:00 PM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 138 (185829)
02-16-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by JonF
02-16-2005 9:00 AM


Re: there was no "first" life form
Calculating the likely time requred for random mutations is no mystery. It is up to you to believe what you want, of course.
As for misunderstanding Crick, let me quote him:
"Given the weakness of all theories of terrestrial genesis, directed panspermia should be considered a serious possibility"
That is pretty strong stuff from a totally convinced random process believer.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 9:00 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 11:44 AM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 138 (185856)
02-16-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wounded King
02-16-2005 11:00 AM


Re: there was no "first" life form
Basic References:
M. Radman and R. Wagner, "The High Fidelity od DNA Duplication", Scientific American, August 1988.
Mettler at al, "Population Genetics and Evolution", Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
A scientific, but more popular reference (useful in that it shows a simplified version of the calculation principles):
Gerald L. Schroeder, "The Science of God" pp. 119-123.Broadway Books, 1998.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2005 11:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2005 5:52 AM mihkel4397 has not replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 138 (185872)
02-16-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Chiroptera
02-16-2005 11:40 AM


Re: That first life form
References?

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2005 11:40 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2005 1:11 PM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 138 (185876)
02-16-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by JonF
02-16-2005 11:44 AM


Re: there was no "first" life form
The relevance of the quote was to counter your blanket statement that I have misunderstood Crick. Have I?

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 11:44 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 1:20 PM mihkel4397 has replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 138 (185920)
02-16-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Chiroptera
02-16-2005 1:11 PM


Re: That first life form
Thanks for the references!
I was very interested, as I surmised that this must be fundamental information, less than 5 years old. I am only familiar with Ediacaran fossils of primitive clumps and pancakes, lacking any of the distinguishing features of the species of the Cambrian explosion.
Best,

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2005 1:11 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2005 4:31 PM mihkel4397 has not replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 138 (185923)
02-16-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
02-16-2005 1:20 PM


Re: there was no "first" life form
That was very good - thanks!
May I in return give you a quote from Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker), which I believe is very much at the heart of the matter:
"As long as we can speculate freely about naturalistic explanations to nature and life we shall keep ignoring all the evidence that points to intelligent design, no matter how strong this evidence is, and even if it takes engaging in scientific
acrobatics."
This sums up a large portion of the discussion.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 02-16-2005 1:20 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 4:23 PM mihkel4397 has not replied
 Message 133 by Quetzal, posted 02-16-2005 4:30 PM mihkel4397 has not replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 138 (185927)
02-16-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by pink sasquatch
02-16-2005 2:00 PM


Re: most conservative estimates
I provided three references in an earlier posting 02/16/05.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-16-2005 2:00 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 02-16-2005 4:16 PM mihkel4397 has not replied
 Message 136 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-17-2005 1:03 AM mihkel4397 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024