CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #17317
      Cat
      Participant

      1. All natural systems are “cycles”
      http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 … f_life.jpg
      Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

      2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch … ibrium.jpg
      Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

      3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

      4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
      http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
      Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
      Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

      So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?

    • #113759
      JackBean
      Participant

      Really? I thought you know something…

      quote Cat:

      1. All natural systems are “cycles”
      http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 … f_life.jpg
      Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

      That’s not really relevant to evolution of species, is it?

      quote Cat:

      2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch … ibrium.jpg
      Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

      This is no circle.

      quote Cat:

      3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

      LOL

      quote Cat:

      4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
      http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
      Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
      Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

      Now, the question is, what is complete for you. Of course you can make one huge biochemical cycle starting with CO2 and ending with CO2, but that’s not purpose of the metabolism contrary to the well-known biochemical cycles.

      quote Cat:

      So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?

      You mean like humans evolving into bacteria?

    • #113778
      Cat
      Participant

      If you want to go sentence by sentence:

      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      1. All natural systems are “cycles”
      http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 … f_life.jpg
      Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

      That’s not really relevant to evolution of species, is it?

      I am NOT talking about "evolution". I am talking about the "origin". Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing…

      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch … ibrium.jpg
      Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

      This is no circle.

      NOT Circle, CYCLE: Reactants to products to reactants…

      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

      LOL

      I am glad you find it funny.

      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
      http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
      Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
      Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

      Now, the question is, what is complete for you. Of course you can make one huge biochemical cycle starting with CO2 and ending with CO2, but that’s not purpose of the metabolism contrary to the well-known biochemical cycles.

      First, "metabolism" has NO "purpose" as it in NOT alive to contemplate one. Second, I am trying (and apparently blundering) to establish that conservation of matter and energy laws predispose any life process’ to being cyclic in nature.

      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?

      You mean like humans evolving into bacteria?

      NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion…
      Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing…

    • #113780
      JackBean
      Participant

      1. origin is one point, evolution is process. To have cycle, you have to have process. "Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing…" that’s evolution… but it’s not cycle (unless the bacteria would evolve into micelle)

      2. circle-cycle, there’s no difference. And that doesn’t mean that it is cycle, just because they write some arrows up and down. It’s just back and forth.

      3. of course it’s funny, because you talk about change in time and then you mention shape!

      4. Of course it has some purpose. Purpose of TCA cycle is to metabolise acetyl-CoA, provide intermediate metabolites for amino acids metabolism etc., Calvin cycle’s purpose is to bind CO2 and convert it into sugar. I’m not saying it’s willing, but it is the purpose. There is difference between these two.

      quote Cat:

      NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion…
      Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing…

      Where is the cycle? I see only one direction.

    • #113802
      easr1
      Participant

      The electron transport chain is "one way".

    • #113834
      Cat
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      quote Cat:

      NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion…
      Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing…

      Where is the cycle? I see only one direction.

      Let me clarify:

      1. Unless/until someone can produce in the lab "Micelle to liposome to bacteria" spontaneous process, I will not believe in "origin of life THROUGH process of evolution".

      2. It seems more likely to me that origin of "life" far precedes "life on this planet". It seems to me that a fall of a foreign object (+bacteria) from another planet/system into primeval sea is much more likely than "Micelle to liposome to bacteria" evolution.

      Example: we sent robots to Mars. As far as we know, there is no life currently on that planet. It’s very likely that robots were contaminated with bacteria. Should life appear on Mars (or other planets nearby) in the future, it would probably be because of our actions…

    • #113835
      JackBean
      Participant

      Nice try, but this only moves the problem of origin of life somewhere else somewhen else, but doesn’t say, how did life emerge.

    • #113836
      Cat
      Participant

      Exactly my point. I think the "true" origin (if it exists) is so far removed in both time and space that none of the current theories on the subject can possibly be true.

    • #113844
      JackBean
      Participant

      now you’re just unreasonable…

    • #113951
      thoffnagle
      Participant
      quote Cat:

      Exactly my point. I think the “true” origin (if it exists) is so far removed in both time and space that none of the current theories on the subject can possibly be true.

      Why can’t they be true? There’s no reason to believe that the laws of physics have changed since then. And, while we don’t know the exact conditions that were present, we can make reasonable guesses. Lastly, if you really ask a scientist who is studying this topic, he will tell you that s/he is looking for possible/likely ways in which life began. If s/he finds a possible path, s/he would have to admit that s/he won’t know for sure if that is how life actually did begin.

    • #113957
      Cat
      Participant
      quote thoffnagle:

      Lastly, if you really ask a scientist who is studying this topic, he will tell you that s/he is looking for possible/likely ways in which life began. If s/he finds a possible path, s/he would have to admit that s/he won’t know for sure if that is how life actually did begin.

      The problem is that the scientist you depict is a nearly extinct creature. There is a trend to base new conclusions on the CONLUSIONS of scientists that came before us instead of re-examining the original FACTS.

      Look at the simple example:

      Evolution = change over time

      Facts = genetic and phenotypic changes observed in the lab

      Conclusion = evolution is real.

      Evolution of human kind:

      Facts = Lucy, other archeological data

      Common reasoning =

      Assumption 1 = we are more advanced than our ancestors (no bases except our ego)
      Assumption 2 = our scull is larger, thus larger brain, thus we are smarter. That is ego again since in our generation (fact that is observed today) abnormally large heads are associated with mental retardation and not with increased intellect. In fact, Einstein’s Brain was smaller than usual…
      Assumption 3 = "evolution" (above) proves human evolution. Which is just NOT true. All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS. For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN. This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.

      Conclusion – depends on your assumptions…

    • #114021
      thoffnagle
      Participant
      quote Cat:

      All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS. For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN. This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.

      I’m not an anthropologist, so I will have to do a little research on this and post again. However, I do question your claim that "All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS." Do you have citations?

      Also, your statement that "For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN" is not true. Gene modification is also a path for evolution.

    • #114029
      Cat
      Participant

      Look at this experiment:

      http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 480-s1.pdf

      You are right about gene modification. However, it is insufficient to explain human evolution.

    • #114037
      thoffnagle
      Participant
      quote Cat:

      All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.

      Again, I’d like to see citations that show that ALL direct evidence of evolution is evidence of gene loss, not just you cherry-picked citations.

      quote Cat:

      For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN.

      Why does it HAVE to have been gene gain? Is it only because that fits your preconceived idea?

      quote Cat:

      This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.

      No, this paper by Demuth et al. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad … ne.0000085) reports that "expansions outnumber contractions on the human, chimp, mouse, rodent, and ingroup branches" and that "Along the lineage leading to humans, 414 (gene) families have expanded and 86 have contracted…..These changes account for the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes from the human genome."

    • #114047
      Cat
      Participant
      quote thoffnagle:

      quote Cat:

      All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.

      Again, I’d like to see citations that show that ALL direct evidence of evolution is evidence of gene loss, not just you cherry-picked citations.

      There is no more evidence. If you can find any, please, post.

      quote thoffnagle:

      quote Cat:

      This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.

      No, this paper by Demuth et al. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad … ne.0000085) reports that “expansions outnumber contractions on the human, chimp, mouse, rodent, and ingroup branches” and that “Along the lineage leading to humans, 414 (gene) families have expanded and 86 have contracted…..These changes account for the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes from the human genome.

      Please, read your article carefully, especially your cherry-picked citations.

      Original text sais,

      " we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes…" – key word is INFER = no direct evidence!

      Than, it tells you that according to them massive gene gain occurred which answers your questions: "Why does it HAVE to have been gene gain? Is it only because that fits your preconceived idea?"

    • #114080
      thoffnagle
      Participant
      quote Cat:

      All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.

      Yet again, I’d like to see citations that show that "ALL direct evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene loss," not just you cherry-picked citations.

      If you don’t like these inferences, please tell us what your hypothesis is for the vast genetic diversity that we see today.

    • #114084
      Cat
      Participant
      quote thoffnagle:

      quote Cat:

      All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS.

      Yet again, I’d like to see citations that show that “ALL direct evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene loss,” not just you cherry-picked citations.

      If you don’t like these inferences, please tell us what your hypothesis is for the vast genetic diversity that we see today.

      The only way to prove the absence of evidence is to search for evidence of the contrary. I am saying that there is an absence of evidence and you want to see references of absence of evidence??? If you are trying to establish fact of gene gain – you need to find evidence of it (direct proof that is). I have not seen any to date…

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.