RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   
  Topic: Abiogenesis discussion thread, No trolls please, we're adults< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2011,14:46   

Hat tip to Mike Gene for linking to this PDF which I I freely admit I don't understand but I'm hoping somebody will explain. Are extremophiles our direct ancestors? Are we Archaeans?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2011,18:14   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 27 2011,13:46)
Are extremophiles our direct ancestors? Are we Archaeans?

The tree of life website http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1 indicates that eukaryotes (don't ask me how to pronounce that) are closer to archaea than they are to bacteria.

There is (or at least was when that web page was last updated) disagreement over whether eukaryotes are closer to one kind of archaea than to another kind of it.

Henry

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1074
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2011,18:45   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 27 2011,18:14)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 27 2011,13:46)
Are extremophiles our direct ancestors? Are we Archaeans?

The tree of life website http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1 indicates that eukaryotes (don't ask me how to pronounce that) are closer to archaea than they are to bacteria.

There is (or at least was when that web page was last updated) disagreement over whether eukaryotes are closer to one kind of archaea than to another kind of it.

Henry

You-carry-oats.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2011,20:29   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 27 2011,15:46)
Hat tip to Mike Gene for linking to this PDF which I I freely admit I don't understand but I'm hoping somebody will explain. Are extremophiles our direct ancestors? Are we Archaeans?

Alan,

I don't see the direct connection between the results discussed in the PDF and your two questions.

As I read it, the study of gene expansion across thousands of genes is leading these researchers to the conclusion that genes for some kinds of metabolism expanded greatly during an early period of life's history, after the basics of nucleotide handling, and before oxygen respiration became important.

Are extremopiles our ancestors? Quite possibly, if you think life started in an extreme environment such as an undersea vent, or if you think the surface temperature and pressure of the planet were much higher than they are now. These are 'extreme' only in a relative sense, in that they are extreme now. They would have been normal then, while today's oxygenated atmosphere would have been bizarre and poisonously extreme back then.

The study referenced in the PDF uses Archaean to signify a period of time. It can also be used to classify a set of organisms, different from bacteria and eukaryotes. Your question sounds like a conflation of the two senses of the term.

The relationship of our group, the eukaryotes, to the other two is complicated. I recommend Nick Lane's book, Power, Sex, and Suicide, which discusses theories of how eukaryotes may have developed. Nick's main thesis is that eukaryotes respresent a merging of some bacteria and archaea that lived symbiotically until one became the mitochondria, triggering a whole series of profound changes leading to the eukaryote cell.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2011,21:03   

My understanding is that for many biochemical traits eukaryotes are more closely related to archaebacteria than eubacteria.  

(My spelling sucks right now, I think you get the drift.)

That being said, there's a pretty good case for archea being more likely to be THE common ancestor to everything.  In which case, eubacteria likely diverged first, then eukaryotes did.

The wikipedia article on the Three Domain System covers a little of it, with links to the literature discussing it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,03:48   

Quote
I don't see the direct connection between the results discussed in the PDF and your two questions.


I am (in my simplistic way) speculating whether Darwin's "warm little pond" even with tidal cycles and clay adhesion, is not such a good candidate for the development of the earliest life as, say, hydrothermal vents, with their juxtaposition of very hot and very cold water, turbulence and mixing, plenty of dissolved and deposited minerals, substrate for chemosynthetic reactions. I was wondering whether the paper I linked to might throw light on whether either environment is the more likely pathway. I guess as the Earth's early atmosphere was anoxic, the late expansion of genes involved in oxidation would be expected either way.

Sorry if this is not clear. I am talking of the domain, Archaea.

 
Quote
Nick's main thesis is that eukaryotes respresent a merging of some bacteria and archaea that lived symbiotically until one became the mitochondria, triggering a whole series of profound changes leading to the eukaryote cell.


Thanks for the recommend. Is this different from Lynn Margulis?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,03:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 27 2011,16:03)
My understanding is that for many biochemical traits eukaryotes are more closely related to archaebacteria than eubacteria. †

(My spelling sucks right now, I think you get the drift.)

That being said, there's a pretty good case for archea being more likely to be THE common ancestor to everything. †In which case, eubacteria likely diverged first, then eukaryotes did.

The wikipedia article on the Three Domain System covers a little of it, with links to the literature discussing it.

Thanks, Ogre. Is stuff by Carl Woese a good way to proceed?

ETA;

This, for example?

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,11:56   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 28 2011,04:48)
 
Quote
I don't see the direct connection between the results discussed in the PDF and your two questions.


I am (in my simplistic way) speculating whether Darwin's "warm little pond" even with tidal cycles and clay adhesion, is not such a good candidate for the development of the earliest life as, say, hydrothermal vents, with their juxtaposition of very hot and very cold water, turbulence and mixing, plenty of dissolved and deposited minerals, substrate for chemosynthetic reactions. I was wondering whether the paper I linked to might throw light on whether either environment is the more likely pathway. I guess as the Earth's early atmosphere was anoxic, the late expansion of genes involved in oxidation would be expected either way.

Sorry if this is not clear. I am talking of the domain, Archaea.

† †
Quote
Nick's main thesis is that eukaryotes respresent a merging of some bacteria and archaea that lived symbiotically until one became the mitochondria, triggering a whole series of profound changes leading to the eukaryote cell.


Thanks for the recommend. Is this different from Lynn Margulis?

I think the study in the PDF actually cuts against the vent origin theories. Vent OOL relies on chemistry to provide the energy gradient that surface OOL is getting from the Sun. Wachtershauser's †Iron-Sulfur World is an example. But according to the study, the genes for iron-sulfur and other kinds of chemistry don't show up until a few hundred million years after OOL -> RNA World -> cells -> LUCA. If vents are where OOL happened, my expectation is that genes for iron sulfur, etc chemistry would be old and ubiquitous. They are not.

Symbiotic, yes as Margulis has hypothesiszed about the mitochondria for a long time. Lane cites studies that X part of the eukaryote genome resembles bacterial, while Y part looks like archaea, where X and Y are groups of genes that hang together, functionally.

re: Woese, sure he's got lots of good things to say, but that essay in particular is the kind of ruminatory navel gazing I find cringe-worthy from elder statesman of science. Reductionism iz Teh Bad and sooo 19th Century. To be replaced by what, exactly, sensei?

He quotes Bohm:
Quote
Nearly 40 years ago the physicist-philosopher David Bohm exposed the fundamental flaw in the mechanistic reductionist perspective (5): ďIt does seem oddÖ that just when physics isÖ moving away from mechanism, biology and psychology are moving closer to it. If the trend continuesÖ scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is too complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism.Ē


Yeah, that's because biology falls into that range of sizes and range of forces where classical physics actually works. We don't need chaos, complexity, and quantum mechanics to explain 99% of biology. Deal with it.


He makes some good points in the middle of that essay about HGT and cellular evolution. But by talking about archaea and bacteria swapping genes for tRNA related functions he's showing that LUCA was before the translational machinery was locked down. Given these vast differences in core protein-genetic machinery, it is hard to see how bacteria came from archaea, instead of both coming from a very basic cell.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,12:24   

Thanks for thoughtful response, David. Lots to digest. Appreciate your patience with (pretty obviously) my layman's questions.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,14:23   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 28 2011,13:24)
Thanks for thoughtful response, David. Lots to digest. Appreciate your patience with (pretty obviously) my layman's questions.

NP, I'm a layman too. Talking OOL is more fun than my day job (saving the world via financial transparency).

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2163
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,19:26   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 28 2011,12:23)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 28 2011,13:24)
Thanks for thoughtful response, David. Lots to digest. Appreciate your patience with (pretty obviously) my layman's questions.

NP, I'm a layman too. Talking OOL is more fun than my day job (saving the world via financial transparency).

(Henry J)Financial transparency? I've got that! My wallet's so thin you can see right through it!(/Henry J)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,23:18   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 28 2011,03:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 27 2011,16:03)
My understanding is that for many biochemical traits eukaryotes are more closely related to archaebacteria than eubacteria. †

(My spelling sucks right now, I think you get the drift.)

That being said, there's a pretty good case for archea being more likely to be THE common ancestor to everything. †In which case, eubacteria likely diverged first, then eukaryotes did.

The wikipedia article on the Three Domain System covers a little of it, with links to the literature discussing it.

Thanks, Ogre. Is stuff by Carl Woese a good way to proceed?

ETA;

This, for example?

The stuff by Woese is pretty high level.  He's talking about how the higher levels should be classified rather than the details about why.

This is the article I wrote on his paper.  It's got the references for some of the statements I made (I think).

http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/the-three-domain-system/

You might try those references.  As much as I'm aware (and it's not that much) it's still arguable either way.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2011,23:21   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 28 2011,11:56)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 28 2011,04:48)
Quote
I don't see the direct connection between the results discussed in the PDF and your two questions.


I am (in my simplistic way) speculating whether Darwin's "warm little pond" even with tidal cycles and clay adhesion, is not such a good candidate for the development of the earliest life as, say, hydrothermal vents, with their juxtaposition of very hot and very cold water, turbulence and mixing, plenty of dissolved and deposited minerals, substrate for chemosynthetic reactions. I was wondering whether the paper I linked to might throw light on whether either environment is the more likely pathway. I guess as the Earth's early atmosphere was anoxic, the late expansion of genes involved in oxidation would be expected either way.

Sorry if this is not clear. I am talking of the domain, Archaea.

† †  
Quote
Nick's main thesis is that eukaryotes respresent a merging of some bacteria and archaea that lived symbiotically until one became the mitochondria, triggering a whole series of profound changes leading to the eukaryote cell.


Thanks for the recommend. Is this different from Lynn Margulis?

I think the study in the PDF actually cuts against the vent origin theories. Vent OOL relies on chemistry to provide the energy gradient that surface OOL is getting from the Sun. Wachtershauser's †Iron-Sulfur World is an example. But according to the study, the genes for iron-sulfur and other kinds of chemistry don't show up until a few hundred million years after OOL -> RNA World -> cells -> LUCA. If vents are where OOL happened, my expectation is that genes for iron sulfur, etc chemistry would be old and ubiquitous. They are not.

Symbiotic, yes as Margulis has hypothesiszed about the mitochondria for a long time. Lane cites studies that X part of the eukaryote genome resembles bacterial, while Y part looks like archaea, where X and Y are groups of genes that hang together, functionally.

re: Woese, sure he's got lots of good things to say, but that essay in particular is the kind of ruminatory navel gazing I find cringe-worthy from elder statesman of science. Reductionism iz Teh Bad and sooo 19th Century. To be replaced by what, exactly, sensei?

He quotes Bohm:
Quote
Nearly 40 years ago the physicist-philosopher David Bohm exposed the fundamental flaw in the mechanistic reductionist perspective (5): ďIt does seem oddÖ that just when physics isÖ moving away from mechanism, biology and psychology are moving closer to it. If the trend continuesÖ scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is too complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism.Ē


Yeah, that's because biology falls into that range of sizes and range of forces where classical physics actually works. We don't need chaos, complexity, and quantum mechanics to explain 99% of biology. Deal with it.


He makes some good points in the middle of that essay about HGT and cellular evolution. But by talking about archaea and bacteria swapping genes for tRNA related functions he's showing that LUCA was before the translational machinery was locked down. Given these vast differences in core protein-genetic machinery, it is hard to see how bacteria came from archaea, instead of both coming from a very basic cell.

David, one point about the vent stuff.

(Again, this is my limited study of the subject, so take with salt and read more than just me)

The photosynthetic compounds have analogues in chemosynthetic organisms.  Some of them seem to be more primitive versions in the CS organisms.  If that is correct, then the equipment needed to take advantage of the sun, developed first in the CS organisms, then was coopted for photosynthesis.

Did I say this already?

Man, isn't cough syrup with codeine awesome?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2011,02:22   

Quote
The photosynthetic compounds have analogues in chemosynthetic organisms. †Some of them seem to be more primitive versions in the CS organisms. †If that is correct, then the equipment needed to take advantage of the sun, developed first in the CS organisms, then was coopted for photosynthesis.

Did I say this already?

Man, isn't cough syrup with codeine awesome?


You could also try warm milk and a shot of dark Jamaican rum. I recommend a pint 50/50 mix. Drink and retire to bed. It doesn't cure but time passes quickly!

Anyone else with thoughts on chemosynthesis being a precursor to photosynthesis?

ETA:

Sorry, only just checked your link Great stuff!
Quote
Archaebacteria are (arguably) the original life form on Earth.
 :)

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2011,12:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 01 2011,00:21)
David, one point about the vent stuff.

(Again, this is my limited study of the subject, so take with salt and read more than just me)

The photosynthetic compounds have analogues in chemosynthetic organisms. †Some of them seem to be more primitive versions in the CS organisms. †If that is correct, then the equipment needed to take advantage of the sun, developed first in the CS organisms, then was coopted for photosynthesis.

Did I say this already?

Man, isn't cough syrup with codeine awesome?

Never argue with a man drinking cough syrup.

That said, I don't think your point on chemo-synthesis preceding photosynthesis is dispositive for vent vs. surface OOL. No one is arguing that surface OOL relied on anything like the photosynthetic pathways to get energy into the system. It relied on photons directly exciting molecules, on phosphate compounds floating by in abundance.

Look at the first graph in that paper Alan linked to. The Archaean Expansion enriched the use of iron, iron-sulfur, etc, while the genes for exploiting phosphate compounds significantly predated the AE. To me that says solar powered phosphate chemistry was earlier than vent exploiting metallo-chemistry.

Not that there needs to be a great dichotomy in our thinking. As I've said previously, the guys behind the Zinc World hypothesis point out that processes which we now associate with deep sea vents were occuring at the surface 3.5 billion years ago. Volcanoes spewing megatons of zinc sulfide and iron sulfide, forming the deposits we are still mining today. These surface deposits getting hit by UV, storing energy that can later be transferred to other molecules.

There were plenty of undersea vents back then, life was incipient in every place simultaneously. Where it first blossomed may be very hard to untangle.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2011,15:09   

The origin of a derived superkingdom: how a gram-positive bacterium crossed
the desert to become an archaeon

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-6-16.pdf

I'd normally put this kind of thing in Science Break, but since we've been discussing the relation of bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes, it lands here.

An argument from many directions (several somewhat tenuous) that LUCA was a gram negative bacteria, that archaea derive from gram positive bacteria, and eukaryia branch off early from archaea.

Even if you don't agree with his reasoning, a heck of a lot of cool research is referenced here.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2011,13:17   

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....164.pdf

This is a book of just abstracts of relatively current (2008) OOL research. 214 pages of abstracts!!1! Teh field is dying! Teh last nail in the coffin of Darwinism is being driven in!

Some very cool stuff here. I'm currently researching aerosol OOL, since there is a lot more time for life to develop if you don't have to wait for liquid water on the surface.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2011,13:23   

I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know?  :O  :p

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2011,13:49   

Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2011,14:23)
I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know? †:O †:p

Only to Joe G!

To be clearer, I should have said standing water. The aerosols do contain bacteria sized drops of water (liquid), which can float around for quite a while, especially if we allow for a higher temperature and pressure in the early atmoshere. The surfaces of the drops add up to an enormous area for concentrated organic chemistry.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,01:26   

Quote (dvunkannon @ April 05 2011,13:49)
Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2011,14:23)
I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know? †:O †:p

Only to Joe G!

To be clearer, I should have said standing water. The aerosols do contain bacteria sized drops of water (liquid), which can float around for quite a while, especially if we allow for a higher temperature and pressure in the early atmoshere. The surfaces of the drops add up to an enormous area for concentrated organic chemistry.

You're researching the formation of proteins (or whatever it might be) in vapor in the atmosphere?

Kewl!

(wait, does that mean that if we introduced some water vapor into the peanut butter jar, then we might have life?)

(also, [or is it pps now?], I am not sure how "gas to you" will sound.  "Airborne goo to you"?  We'll have to work on it)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,07:32   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 06 2011,01:26)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 05 2011,13:49)
Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2011,14:23)
I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know? †:O †:p

Only to Joe G!

To be clearer, I should have said standing water. The aerosols do contain bacteria sized drops of water (liquid), which can float around for quite a while, especially if we allow for a higher temperature and pressure in the early atmoshere. The surfaces of the drops add up to an enormous area for concentrated organic chemistry.

You're researching the formation of proteins (or whatever it might be) in vapor in the atmosphere?

Kewl!

(wait, does that mean that if we introduced some water vapor into the peanut butter jar, then we might have life?)

(also, [or is it pps now?], I am not sure how "gas to you" will sound. †"Airborne goo to you"? †We'll have to work on it)

"The goo that flew to you"

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,09:48   

Quote (George @ April 06 2011,07:32)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 06 2011,01:26)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 05 2011,13:49)
 
Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2011,14:23)
I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know? †:O †:p

Only to Joe G!

To be clearer, I should have said standing water. The aerosols do contain bacteria sized drops of water (liquid), which can float around for quite a while, especially if we allow for a higher temperature and pressure in the early atmoshere. The surfaces of the drops add up to an enormous area for concentrated organic chemistry.

You're researching the formation of proteins (or whatever it might be) in vapor in the atmosphere?

Kewl!

(wait, does that mean that if we introduced some water vapor into the peanut butter jar, then we might have life?)

(also, [or is it pps now?], I am not sure how "gas to you" will sound. †"Airborne goo to you"? †We'll have to work on it)

"The goo that flew to you"

It's a pretty goo idea.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
k.e..



Posts: 3067
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,10:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 06 2011,17:48)
Quote (George @ April 06 2011,07:32)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 06 2011,01:26)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 05 2011,13:49)
Quote (Henry J @ April 05 2011,14:23)
I think I'd rather wait for the liquid water. Besides, gaseous water isn't really water, you know? †:O †:p

Only to Joe G!

To be clearer, I should have said standing water. The aerosols do contain bacteria sized drops of water (liquid), which can float around for quite a while, especially if we allow for a higher temperature and pressure in the early atmoshere. The surfaces of the drops add up to an enormous area for concentrated organic chemistry.

You're researching the formation of proteins (or whatever it might be) in vapor in the atmosphere?

Kewl!

(wait, does that mean that if we introduced some water vapor into the peanut butter jar, then we might have life?)

(also, [or is it pps now?], I am not sure how "gas to you" will sound. †"Airborne goo to you"? †We'll have to work on it)

"The goo that flew to you"

It's a pretty goo idea.

THIS IS A BETTER IDEA HOMOS!

OFFER KITSCH GOO ON A CROSS AS A TEAM PRAYER PRIZE!

ONLY $599.00 complete with a set of JOE'S BALLS AND A MICROSCOPE.

JUST IMAGINE TEH GOOING OVER TAHT.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,10:13   

Airborn goo?

In the beginning there was hydrogen. (just the regular; not the heavy stuff.)

  
Quack



Posts: 1803
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,09:58   

Is there any reason to take the Discovery Science channel seriously?

I just watched an interesting piece about the early Earth. A collision resulting in the creation of the moon. The early moon very close to Earth (Earth rotational cycle 6hrs) setting up enormous tidal waves stirring up a formidable soup - ideal for creating life's building blocks. Things calming down over half a billion years, conditions suitable for first life.

Sounds reasonable to me. Wild physical and chemical forces, plenty of time. Anyone yet calculated improbability of life-generating processes?

Half a billion years seems like plenty of time to prepare for "God's finger" to add the final touch, (Thermal vents?) the act of Creation: The first cell. Awesome.

The world is a much more exciting, fantastic and inspiring place that anything a creationist could ever imagine. (From goo to cattle at one fell swoop.)

Anyway, I trust my little non-scientific comment is not too far off topic.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,10:15   

Quote (Quack @ April 14 2011,09:58)
Is there any reason to take the Discovery Science channel seriously?

I just watched an interesting piece about the early Earth. A collision resulting in the creation of the moon. The early moon very close to Earth (Earth rotational cycle 6hrs) setting up enormous tidal waves stirring up a formidable soup - ideal for creating life's building blocks. Things calming down over half a billion years, conditions suitable for first life.

Sounds reasonable to me. Wild physical and chemical forces, plenty of time. Anyone yet calculated improbability of life-generating processes?

Half a billion years seems like plenty of time to prepare for "God's finger" to add the final touch, (Thermal vents?) the act of Creation: The first cell. Awesome.

The world is a much more exciting, fantastic and inspiring place that anything a creationist could ever imagine. (From goo to cattle at one fell swoop.)

Anyway, I trust my little non-scientific comment is not too far off topic.

I don't really take anything on TV seriously.  Especially after Morgan Freeman's show on the science channel.  Why the SCIENCE channel aired that, I have no idea.  Should have been something for the 700 club.

Anyway, I agree all the cool things that had to happen for life to start and take off is some fascinating study.  I read recently that there are a couple of notions that life actually evolved several times, each wiped out or nearly so by major upheavals.  The remains of the last attempt could be food or templates for the next attempt.

Got a new blog post up about some Origins of Life work that I just found.  

http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....merases

It is just really cool to be able to e-mail these cutting edge scientists and get answers and help from them... almost as if I knew what I was talking about.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,11:08   

Quote (Quack @ April 14 2011,10:58)
Is there any reason to take the Discovery Science channel seriously?

I just watched an interesting piece about the early Earth. A collision resulting in the creation of the moon. The early moon very close to Earth (Earth rotational cycle 6hrs) setting up enormous tidal waves stirring up a formidable soup - ideal for creating life's building blocks. Things calming down over half a billion years, conditions suitable for first life.

Sounds reasonable to me. Wild physical and chemical forces, plenty of time. Anyone yet calculated improbability of life-generating processes?

Half a billion years seems like plenty of time to prepare for "God's finger" to add the final touch, (Thermal vents?) the act of Creation: The first cell. Awesome.

The world is a much more exciting, fantastic and inspiring place that anything a creationist could ever imagine. (From goo to cattle at one fell swoop.)

Anyway, I trust my little non-scientific comment is not too far off topic.

Yes, I think you should take seriously the estimate of the length of day and tide issues. Some points:

- Small continents and 300 meter tides = huge tidal areas for evaporation. A big net positive for OOL.

- Big tides grind up a lot of rock, increasing surface area and dissolved minerals. Also positive.

- World spanning oceans allow big waves to build up (think Roaring Forties, wave heights are proportional to reach - the distance over which the wind has been blowing)

- Frequent tides (every few hours), big tides, big waves = a lot of water drops blown into the air. Good for OOL.

- Mxing of top layer of the open ocean - not good for OOL.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2011,17:06   

I see that PZMyers is discussing the paper that Alan Fox brought up at the top of this page. Sadly, his blog entry is more of a rant against creationists than a discussion of the paper.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
  177 replies since Dec. 15 2006,11:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]