Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Woese's progenote hypothesis
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 166 of 194 (339032)
08-10-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by randman
08-10-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
thanks for the congrats.
as to miller and urey, so what if they got the atmosphere wrong. it was wrong in proportion of what was there, and it was the best estimate at the time. newer experiments, using newer models of the early earth atmosphere, also produced amino and nucleic acids, just not in as large a quantity. so they proved thier initial point--inorganic can yield to organic.
we don't know if it only happened once. but the ways we are related are so similar so as to suggest a common ancestor(s). now then, unless your man in the sky is tricking us, why would the three domains be so like?
and here's an interesting thought for you. if they don't share a genetic ancestry, as you claim, are that they were designed, do they still share a common ancestry? I'd say yes--same dude designed them. but I'm going to stick with the genetic ancestry. it's where the evidence is pointing to.
you're right, I've got some catching up do to. I've only taken one year of college level biology--nowhere near the amount of class time to fully understand abiogenesis.
as the silicon stuff, let's see if anyone else has anything to say on those possibilities.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 5:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 8:23 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 170 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 11:49 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 167 of 194 (339051)
08-10-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by randman
08-10-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
We've gone over this before, and it seemed any conclusions were premature, but that you suspected that analogous structures were indeed based on similar or identical genetic patterns.
Way to misrepresent my opinion Randman. What I said was that many structures considered to be analogous at best, such as the forelimbs of vertebrates and the wings of insects share a number of genetic modules regulating pattern and growth. The examples of the morphologies of the marsupials and placentals has absolutely no evidence of a common genetic basis for their morphologies beyond those generally applicable to the growth of tissues such as bone and muscle.
If the same structures can arise without and do arise without a common genetic basis, then why should we assume similar structures represent common descent in the first place?
Because they are almost always not the same structures, but rather highly morphologically similar and of course because we now have a wealth of genetic evidence suggesting common descent which regulate the development of those similar structures.
Genes must have evolve, right? So if evos think the environment can dictate common patterns via convergent evolution, then why discount that the chemical environment does and did the same?
It does of course place constraints but their extent and their relation to form and function in a genetic rather than gross morphological setting make the degree of those constraints quite distinct from an organismal environment's pressures. Unless there is only one suitable genetic sequence for a function there is no environmental constraint for a specific sequence.
In the total absence of any evidence for such a strict environmental constraint there is no reason to needlessly multipy the entities neccessary for particular genetic features to arise.
But you are saying more. You are saying that if it happened multiple times, it wouldn't always produced DNA, etc,...and I am saying that's bogus.
No I didn't say that, I said that we don't know what the products would have been.
As to your complaints about Kuresu and PaulK driving you to topic drift, I fail to see what that has to do with our own discussion which has not involved ether of those two, I am not talking about the thread, just our own dialogue.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 3:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 8:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 168 of 194 (339085)
08-10-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wounded King
08-10-2006 6:37 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
he examples of the morphologies of the marsupials and placentals has absolutely no evidence of a common genetic basis for their morphologies beyond those generally applicable to the growth of tissues such as bone and muscle.
Well, what do you think? Do you believe analogous structures are the result of analogous genetic aspects or not? Do we have the data yet to even determine that?
Because they are almost always not the same structures, but rather highly morphologically similar
Ok, so if we were to isolate the area within a creature's genome that is responsible for the mammalian ear bones, and did a sample from one strain that arose independently of the other, would the genetic area be similar or not, in a roughly analogous manner to similar morphology, function, etc,....?
If not, then it's really not fair to say, is it, that just because 2 species share a common feature, that this is indicative of a common ancestor?
In the total absence of any evidence for such a strict environmental constraint
Hold on a minute here. If there is an absence of data on abiogenesis and there is, you can't just formulate a detailed theory that has very little evidence for, and then when someone formulates an alternative, you say, hey, that doesn't work because of a lack of data. IF and it's a massive IF abiogenesis occurred, the environment consisted of the properties of chemicals that would give rise to the life form, and so all of the evidence (not a total lack) indicates that the early environmental pressures would be chemical, and so would assert a known pressure to develop in a certain pattern.
Now, of course, since abiogenesis is essentially an imagines process and we don't know the principles involved really, it's hard to say, but we do know those principles would be chemical, or we think we know, right?
No I didn't say that, I said that we don't know what the products would have been.
Well if we don't know there is no reason not to think it didn't happen multiple times, and always produce a similar result, and so produced multiple lineages such as the 3 kingdoms, or maybe it didn't happen and those lineages appeared in some other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wounded King, posted 08-10-2006 6:37 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 169 of 194 (339086)
08-10-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by kuresu
08-10-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
as to miller and urey, so what if they got the atmosphere wrong. it was wrong in proportion of what was there, and it was the best estimate at the time. newer experiments, using newer models of the early earth atmosphere, also produced amino and nucleic acids, just not in as large a quantity. so they proved thier initial point--inorganic can yield to organic.
So contrary to what you ealier claimed, a whole bunch of different atmospheres can be in place and organic molecules be produced. Glad we got that cleared up, but once again, so what? Haven't organic molecules been on meteorites as well. That doesn't mean life has evolved there too, nor does it mean life forms aren't spontaneously generating every single day and we haven't noticed it because they are share a similar pattern dictated by the heretofore unknown principles of abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 5:36 PM kuresu has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5994 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 170 of 194 (339182)
08-11-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by kuresu
08-10-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
as to miller and urey, so what if they got the atmosphere wrong. it was wrong in proportion of what was there, and it was the best estimate at the time. newer experiments, using newer models of the early earth atmosphere, also produced amino and nucleic acids, just not in as large a quantity. so they proved thier initial point--inorganic can yield to organic.
Sure, but there's a couple of little oft-glossed over details that are kind of important:
First, Miller Ulrer's experiment and subsequent one's have all assumed chemical compositions that are just that - assumptions.
Second, these experiments have been subjected to continual energetic input (Usually in the form of electric current). this is in contrast to the occasional (not constant) input the pre-biotic soup would have received from occasional lighting storms (yes, current researches of the pre-biotic soup hypothesize that waves among other things may have been the constant sourve of energy but that is a model that has been largely unverified)
Third, the success of these experiments has been dependent upon the removal of the compound molecules from the solution from which they were formed - lest they be destroyed by it.
Fourth, the amino acids formed by these experiments constitute a very small number of those needed for life.
Conclusion? The occurrence of a few man-generated amino acids given very specific assumed conditions and undergoing constant energetic stimulation AND being artificially sheltered from the very solution they were formed in and from is a given...congratulations!!
Does that type of experiment tell us anything about the likelihood that ALL of the neccessary amino acids developed spontaneously from a composition of chemicals that can only be assumed, not proven, undergoing sporadic energetic input, being subjected and deriving from a solution that by it's very nature would destroy them?
It tells me that it likely didn't happen..But of course I would say that, I'm a creationist; but consider this quote from Scientific American:
In July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets and reported that "New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question."
Looks like i'm not the only one...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kuresu, posted 08-10-2006 5:36 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2006 2:34 PM mjfloresta has replied
 Message 173 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-11-2006 4:28 PM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 177 by ramoss, posted 08-12-2006 6:41 PM mjfloresta has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 194 (339242)
08-11-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mjfloresta
08-11-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
In July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets and reported that "New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question."
Looks like i'm not the only one...
Well, that was July 1999. In the subsequent 7 years, has Scientific American come out and endorsed the creationist position?
No? Hrm. I wonder why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 11:49 AM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 3:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5994 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 172 of 194 (339260)
08-11-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by crashfrog
08-11-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
No, of course not. Scientific American is undeniably in support of ToE. However, the point of the article is that skepticism over the abiogenesis experiments has caused scienctists (including Scientific American) to look for the origins of life in space...
The point being, not that SA is endorsing creationism but that there is skepticism over the abiogenesis experiments...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2006 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2006 10:42 PM mjfloresta has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 173 of 194 (339306)
08-11-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mjfloresta
08-11-2006 11:49 AM


Stop the misrepresentation!
mjfloresta writes:
It tells me that it likely didn't happen..But of course I would say that, I'm a creationist; but consider this quote from Scientific American:
In July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets and reported that "New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question."
Looks like i'm not the only one...
Here is the article you quote:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/...in%2520et%2520al.%25201999.pdf
That line from the article is refering to the exact atmospheric components used in the experiment, meaning that it is now understood that the primitive atmosphere was different then (but still capable of producing organics from inorganic components). You are implying that Scientific American is questioning abiogenesis in that statement.
All of that aside, I found something interesting at a site The Miller-Urey Experiement
Evolutionoftruth writes:
In July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets and reported that "New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question."
And again:
mjfloresta writes:
In July 1999, Scientific American presented a new theory that life on Earth was seeded by comets and reported that "New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question."
Those seem a little similar to me....
Now onto topic. I don't think the origins of life are relevant to the question of progenotes and/or the common ancestry of the urkingdoms. I think it is possible, even likely, that early pre/proto life would have 'tried' different possible configurations. Ultimately only one (as far as we can tell) made it.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 11:49 AM mjfloresta has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 174 of 194 (339446)
08-11-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mjfloresta
08-11-2006 3:02 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
The point being, not that SA is endorsing creationism but that there is skepticism over the abiogenesis experiments...
There's no skepticism at all over what the experiments - which are actually not "abiogenesis" experiments at all - actually prove, which is that amino acids can have inorganic origin.
Now, granted, our conclusions about the chemical origins of life are still uncertain at this time. Many competing models exist. But we don't need perfect knowledge about the chemical origin of life to know that the Biblical account, or any other contention of divine origin, simply doesn't match the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 3:02 PM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 2:41 PM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 175 of 194 (339557)
08-12-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
08-11-2006 10:42 PM


the fallacy of evos
But we don't need perfect knowledge about the chemical origin of life to know that the Biblical account, or any other contention of divine origin, simply doesn't match the facts.
This is typical of the deeply erroneous and illogical nature of evolutionism, but you probably cannot see it. Truthfully, even if life sprang up from abiogenesis, that testified to divine beginnings as much as anything else.
"Let the waters bring forth...."
Of course, you have no facts for abiogenesis, but facts never interfere with a good evos dogmatism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2006 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 4:21 PM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 194 (339572)
08-12-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by randman
08-12-2006 2:41 PM


Re: the fallacy of evos
Truthfully, even if life sprang up from abiogenesis, that testified to divine beginnings as much as anything else.
Indeed, no matter what happens, to randman, it proves creationism. Evolutionists have stacks of scientific evidence supporting one conclusion? That proves creationism, because why else would they try so hard. Evolutionists have multiple models for the same event? That proves creationism too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 2:41 PM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 177 of 194 (339644)
08-12-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by mjfloresta
08-11-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
What you seem to not understand is that what the Miller/Ulrey experiment was trying to do. They were trying to show that complex organic chemicals can occur naturally, without life being present.Not only did they succeed, but we have refined the experiments for 50 years after their initial experiment. You are acting as if the Miller/Ulrey experiment was the beinging and ending of that line of inquiry.. it isn't.
Indeed , not only do we have loads of expermental data from other experiments that have refined the results, but we also have objective evidence about the natural environment being able to form rich organic
chemicals in the presence of the atmosphere that is believed to be similar to the old earth. The moon Titan has an atmosphere that approximates those conditions. When the cassini probe recently skimmed saturns moon Titan, it found that it was rich in organic chemicals. So , not only do we have expermental data, but we have those results and conclusions confirmed with the sampling of another atmosphere.
Page has gone | New Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by mjfloresta, posted 08-11-2006 11:49 AM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:57 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-13-2006 12:08 PM ramoss has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 178 of 194 (339674)
08-12-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ramoss
08-12-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
But the presence of organic chemicals basically means squat. It's like saying that because we have one factor in a thousand established, the other 999 are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ramoss, posted 08-12-2006 6:41 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2006 8:55 PM randman has not replied
 Message 180 by ramoss, posted 08-13-2006 7:56 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 179 of 194 (339688)
08-12-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
08-12-2006 7:57 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
It's like saying that because we have one factor in a thousand established, the other 999 are true.
No. It's like saying that because a barrier held to be impenetrable was penetrated, perhaps other such barriers are not so impenetrable either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:57 PM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 180 of 194 (339767)
08-13-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
08-12-2006 7:57 PM


Re: Multiple abiogenetic events
You see, one step at a time. It means that we are getting more and more information all the time. We are thousands of small steps past that. You want to deny each and every step as we get there. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 7:57 PM randman 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