Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you mean that my quote "wasn't"?

This

"The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified." The origin of life on Earth, explained.​

Thank you.

Emphasis mine.
The quote has nothing to do with what environments existed on early earth and / or what is or isn't known about it.

I can only repeat myself: at least try and keep track of your own posting.

 

[Dimi95]

Which is why with the Miller-Urey experiment they reran it and reran it with various different models of the early Earth atmosphere. They kept getting positive results. Meanwhile many abiogenesis hypotheses are done in known environments. For example deep sea environments at hot spots would be almost the same today as they were back then. The surface environment may have varied a bit, but that does not mean that all environments were different.

Hi
Can you share here more detailed information , i am really into Abiogenesis and i have the time in the next 3 weeks to do something.

 

[cladking]

Can you point me toward what you mean by this?

There is relatively little change from the bottom of a sedimentary layer to the top. Major changes tend to occur between them.

I see. You're perfectly entitled to your views, but I'd be lying if I said I could understand where you're coming from on this. As far as I can tell most population bottlenecks don't produce new species.

Usually when population drops there is an extinction at hand. I believe most cause of change in species not caused by mutation results from events that kill off most of a population especially where the survivors display some highly atypical behavior. All behavior is caused by consciousness which derives from individual genetics and experience.

Darwin seemed to have been pretty clear that populations were inherently variable, rather than stable.

No. Not really.

Obviously he was aware that populations waxed and waned but he specifically said that populations were too stable for this to influence "Evolution". He simply assumed bottlenecks and consciousness were irrelevant to speciation so he missed the causes and means of change in species.

You've mentioned random walks a couple of times now, and maybe there is a connection there that might help us. Environments might change in a random(ish) walk like you say.

Species could also be viewed as moving through a space; one of genetic combinations.

The changes required to get from the first whales (land dwelling furry things) to modern whales require a large difference in genetics. Every generation the dice are rolled and you get a bunch of individuals with slight variations on a common theme. If mathematics is your thing you could think of the genetics of these individuals as vectors in a massive dimensional space and the common theme as a kind of average or centre of mass.
Individual members of successive generations move through the genetic space from the space where the genetics produces land-dwelling furry bodies to a places where the genetics produces water borne hairless bodies.

Do you follow me so far?

Sure.

But such slight variations (excluding mutations) will not point in a single direction in a random walk.

Natural selection is the feature of biological evolution that is easiest to understand and probably the most effective. In your example of a species beginning as another ends, due to some important difference in individuals you were describing natural selection.

No matter what you call it change in species is not gradual and not the result of survival of the fittest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi
Can you share here more detailed information , i am really into Abiogenesis and i have the time in the next 3 weeks to do something.

Gladly. Here is an article about abiogenesis and black smokers. No, that is not about African American consumers of tobacco products. It is about how life may have arisen around hydrothermal vents. We can observe those today and they would have been very similar in the past. I am not sure if it mentions that the same sort of chemicals made in the Urey-Miller experiment are also produced around black smokers. That is just an intro. But I can provide more after you read that one.


EDIT: Oops!!:

Hydrothermal vents, abiogenesis and life in the solar system

Deep at the bottom of the sea lies one of the most probable locations for the origin of life on Earth… hydrothermal vents. But what are they? How could they have created life? And what does it mean…

marinemadnessdotblog.wordpress.com

 

[cladking]

Sure.

But such slight variations (excluding mutations) will not point in a single direction in a random walk.

Obviously there will always be a slight bias in one direction or another when the niche is changing. And obviously niches are always changing, but to extrapolate this obvious truism into the nature of change in species with no evidence or experiment to support it is a massive leap. We only observe species changing at bottlenecks. Selective breeding is the imposition of such artificial bottlenecks in a systematic way. Nature does it exactly the same way with natural bottlenecks but this is hidden by the fact that so much change, especially minor changes that can have huge effect, are caused by mutation rather than bottlenecks. There is no "Evolution" and no "survival of the fittest" except in the minds of most homo omnisciencis.

 

[Dimi95]

Gladly. Here is an article about abiogenesis and black smokers. No, that is not about African American consumers of tobacco products. It is about how life may have arisen around hydrothermal vents. We can observe those today and they would have been very similar in the past. I am not sure if it mentions that the same sort of chemicals made in the Urey-Miller experiment are also produced around black smokers. That is just an intro. But I can provide more after you read that one.

You may missed to share the article , but i can search on my own by what you said.
Thanks.

 

[cladking]

Gladly. Here is an article about abiogenesis and black smokers. No, that is not about African American consumers of tobacco products. It is about how life may have arisen around hydrothermal vents. We can observe those today and they would have been very similar in the past. I am not sure if it mentions that the same sort of chemicals made in the Urey-Miller experiment are also produced around black smokers. That is just an intro. But I can provide more after you read that one.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your conclusion. The genome of life at the black smokers is alien to all life on earth that all share a very similar genome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may missed to share the article , but i can search on my own by what you said.
Thanks.

Laughing at myself there. I was not laughing at you. And my apologies.

Hydrothermal vents, abiogenesis and life in the solar system

Deep at the bottom of the sea lies one of the most probable locations for the origin of life on Earth… hydrothermal vents. But what are they? How could they have created life? And what does it mean…

marinemadnessdotblog.wordpress.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately the facts don't support your conclusion. The genome of life at the black smokers is alien to all life on earth that all share a very similar genome.

Actually they do. I need to remind you that you refuse to learn the basics of science. Your opposition to a scientific claim could be considered to be evidence for it.

But here is the article that I forgot to link:

Hydrothermal vents, abiogenesis and life in the solar system

Deep at the bottom of the sea lies one of the most probable locations for the origin of life on Earth… hydrothermal vents. But what are they? How could they have created life? And what does it mean…

marinemadnessdotblog.wordpress.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unfortunately the facts don't support your conclusion. The genome of life at the black smokers is alien to all life on earth that all share a very similar genome.

Why would you expect it to be any different?
As these lifeforms would be separated by likely billions of years, about the most separated as likely possible on this planet, it is expected that these genomes would have diverted the most also.

I don't know about you, but I for one wouldn't expect the DNA of extremofiles in black smokers to exhibit the same degree of similarity to humans as say a salmon. Or any other eukaryote.

 

[cladking]

Why would you expect it to be any different?
As these lifeforms would be separated by likely billions of years, about the most separated as likely possible on this planet, it is expected that these genomes would have diverted the most also.

No! The genome of life at the black smokers is not more or less evolved than all other life on earth. It is distinct.

I don't know about you, but I for one wouldn't expect the DNA of extremofiles in black smokers to exhibit the same degree of similarity to humans as say a salmon. Or any other eukaryote.

Or even an acorn!

 

[wellwisher]

Obviously there will always be a slight bias in one direction or another when the niche is changing. And obviously niches are always changing, but to extrapolate this obvious truism into the nature of change in species with no evidence or experiment to support it is a massive leap. We only observe species changing at bottlenecks. Selective breeding is the imposition of such artificial bottlenecks in a systematic way. Nature does it exactly the same way with natural bottlenecks but this is hidden by the fact that so much change, especially minor changes that can have huge effect, are caused by mutation rather than bottlenecks. There is no "Evolution" and no "survival of the fittest" except in the minds of most homo omnisciencis.

The better way to examine species is with entropy. Entropy is considered a state variable, meaning any given state of matter is defined by a constant entropy. Water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has an entropy constant of 188.8 J/K-mole. At the nano-scale, a lot is going on in the water; quantum mechanics, but this all adds to a constant entropy value at the macro-level.

Each species define a material state of fixed entropy. These states appear to be quantized, with gaps between species states. It will take more than a single positive mutation to jump to a higher or new species state. The better model for change is like a mixing pot, until there is sufficient integrated change, for the next quantum step upward; higher entropy or new species state. Distinct species cannot reproduce with other species since each has a unique DNA state.

Entropy is also connected to complexity, induced within each state, with humans adding complexity, even to nature and the earth, beyond any other species on earth. Species are complexity generators, adding entropy; new states of technology.

Say we have a mutation on the DNA. This is then transcribed into mRNA, and then translated into protein. The water then takes the protein and folds and packs it to minimize its surface tension. It then is placed in its equilibrium spot. If it does not fit in, it goes to recycle. If does fit in, it becomes part of the mixing pot, until enough changes occur for a new quantum species state.

Most of the DNA is noncoding. These are called junk genes, but are anything but junk. The preponderance of junk genes on the DNA suggest that most mutations are not coded, but are connected to the junk genes. These changes have impact on the configurational potential of the entire DNA, which may play more of a role for defining a species.

This is similar to an enzyme, that has a surface active site, but is composed of a longer balled up protein structure, that is all necessary, for the enzyme expression. The junk genes sort of stay balled up, since they are not coded to make mRNA, but their presence allows the coded genes to work and become active. There is not much difference between species when it comes to coding genes, with noncoding the majority and the wild card for a species DNA entropy constant. If the noncoding genes are changing, it may not appear we are add anything new; new function, but still this can alter the expression of what is already there, until you can't breed with another or previous species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No! The genome of life at the black smokers is not more or less evolved than all other life on earth. It is distinct.


Or even an acorn!

Of course it is distinct. That is modern life. No wonder you are confused. Abiogenesis occurred 3.8 billion years ago. It is not occurring now.

And acorns are eukaryotes.

 

[cladking]

Each species define a material state of fixed entropy. These states appear to be quantized, with gaps between species states. It will take more than a single positive mutation to jump to a higher or new species state. The better model for change is like a mixing pot, until there is sufficient integrated change, for the next quantum step upward; higher entropy or new species state. Distinct species cannot reproduce with other species since each has a unique DNA state.

There is some reason to believe this is a valid way to see change however species do not have "entropy". Not even individuals do. Every individual can excel or fail dependent almost solely on his consciousness and pure blind luck. The first individual to build a dam effectively caused a speciation event in Beavers.

The problem with thinking of "species" this way is the same problem that Darwin had; It ignores the fact that ALL life is individual. It's not a "squirrel" that scampers across the lawn, it's "George" or "Marilyn".

 

[cladking]

Of course it is distinct. That is modern life. No wonder you are confused. Abiogenesis occurred 3.8 billion years ago. It is not occurring now.

If you are intentionally not understanding I am not going to pursue this.

All other life on earth had a common ancestor and share huge amounts of DNA. Life at black smokers are distinct and alien to other life on earth. I believe this is indicative of life having arrived from outside the earth before life had a chance to form here probably naturally. Life at black smokers thus is the only terrestrial living thing.

We are the aliens and probably the result of some nova somewhere.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No! The genome of life at the black smokers is not more or less evolved than all other life on earth.

I didn't say "more or less" evolved. I said "diverted".
There is no such thing as "more or less evolved" in evolution.

It is distinct.

Citation required.

Or even an acorn!

Sure. Any eukaryote that doesn't live in black smokers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are intentionally not understanding I am not going to pursue this.

You appear to be intentionally wrong almost all of the time. I need to remind you that I am not the one lacking in understanding.

All other life on earth had a common ancestor and share huge amounts of DNA. Life at black smokers are distinct and alien to other life on earth. I believe this is indicative of life having arrived from outside the earth before life had a chance to form here probably naturally. Life at black smokers thus is the only terrestrial living thing.

And this is a silly belief of yours. If true it would have been exceptionally easy to confirm but you did not even try. Once again appearing to be wrong on purpose.

We are the aliens and probably the result of some nova somewhere.

Well, you may be. You can have your DNA checked these days. Perhaps that would explain why you are always wrong. My family has had theirs checked. We are just boring old earthlings.

 

[cladking]

I didn't say "more or less" evolved. I said "diverted".
There is no such thing as "more or less evolved" in evolution.

Citation required.



Sure. Any eukaryote that doesn't live in black smokers.

"P. fumarii, an obligate chemolithoautotroph, is able to survive on
inorganic chemicals, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide.
Accordingly, the genome of
this organism is expected to contain many novel metabolic enzymes of
commercial interest.
The genome of P. fumarii was found to be 1.85Mbp in
length and contains approximately 2,000 genes.
Initial sequence annotation
has revealed an unusually high number of genes with no obvious similarity to
previously described genes from eubacteria and archaea.
The novelty of the
organism’s genes is expected to yield similarly unique gene products, some of
which have already been characterized by Diversa."

Diversa Completes of Sequencing of Pyrolobus fumarii Genome – the World’s Highest Temperature Organism

Diversa Corporation today announced the completion of the sequencing of the Pyrolobus fumarii genome. The work was completed with Celera Genomics, an Applera Corporation business. The sequence of P…

spacenews.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"P. fumarii, an obligate chemolithoautotroph, is able to survive on
inorganic chemicals, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide.
Accordingly, the genome of
this organism is expected to contain many novel metabolic enzymes of
commercial interest.
The genome of P. fumarii was found to be 1.85Mbp in
length and contains approximately 2,000 genes.
Initial sequence annotation
has revealed an unusually high number of genes with no obvious similarity to
previously described genes from eubacteria and archaea.
The novelty of the
organism’s genes is expected to yield similarly unique gene products, some of
which have already been characterized by Diversa."

Diversa Completes of Sequencing of Pyrolobus fumarii Genome – the World’s Highest Temperature Organism

Diversa Corporation today announced the completion of the sequencing of the Pyrolobus fumarii genome. The work was completed with Celera Genomics, an Applera Corporation business. The sequence of P…

spacenews.com

Higher order taxa:​

Archaea; Crenarchaeota; Thermoprotei; Desulfurococcales; Pyrodictiaceae

Pyrolobus fumarii - microbewiki

microbewiki.kenyon.edu

Not sure what point you think you are making here.

 

[cladking]

Higher order taxa:​

Archaea; Crenarchaeota; Thermoprotei; Desulfurococcales; Pyrodictiaceae

Pyrolobus fumarii - microbewiki

microbewiki.kenyon.edu

Not sure what point you think you are making here.

Initial sequence annotation
has revealed an unusually high number of genes with no obvious similarity to
previously described genes from eubacteria and archaea.