AgnosticWeb.com - Origin of Life; pre-planning

Origin of Life; pre-planning (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:09:44 +0000

Another example of pre-planning. Amoeba combine to become somewhat multicellular and have epithelium precureres:-http://the-scientist.com/2011/08/31/amoebae-get-organized/

Origin of Life; pre-planning (reply)

dhw — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:46:36 +0000

DAVID: I believe that from the beginning evolution was coded into the genome with pre-planning. Here is an example of early precursors of the nervous system in single-celled organisms:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128283.800-your-brain-chemistry-existed-before-...-Thank you for this extraordinary item. I feel such discoveries should be given a fortissimo trumpeting, whereas it seems to be only weird and wonderful speculations, like multiverses with our alter egos on Planet X, that make a noise. If brain chemistry already existed in single cell organisms, i.e. before animals appeared, isn't this a truly sensational piece of evidence that evolution happened?-"Choanoflagellates are our closest single-celled relatives and, because they sometimes come together in colonies, are on the boundary between single-celled and multicellular animals."-"Today, says Zakon, the nervous system seems 'unbelievably complex', but evidence from these tiny organisms suggests it was built up from several simple systems, which evolved separately for different reasons." -As the researchers say, "the brain is a lot more than a bunch of choanoflagellates", but the basic concept of single cells ALREADY provided with the necessary ingredients to combine into more complex mechanisms surely provides a massive underpinning for evolutionary theory. Of course the question of whether this is the result of divine pre-planning or a chance combination lies beyond the boundaries of that theory.

Origin of Life; pre-planning (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:27:36 +0000

I believe that from the beginning evolution was coded into the genome with pre-planning. Here is an example of early precursors of the nervous system in single-celled organisms:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128283.800-your-brain-chemistry-existed-before-animals-did.html

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:14:44 +0000

http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/john-maynard-smith/ > > Recommended. Without going into the actual chemical structure > of proteins and bases he explains how the biological code works > and also puts forward a theory about how it could have evolved.-A new commentary on how difficult it is to conceive of starting up the first cell and then complex life:- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once.html-Another view of the same article:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fuel-evolution-hypothesis-complex-life.html

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:49:35 +0000

> http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/john-maynard-smith/ > > Recommended. Without going into the actual chemical structure > of proteins and bases he explains how the biological code works > and also puts forward a theory about how it could have evolved.-The following article discusses the comet theory of the origin of lilfe and how glycine, the simplest amino acid might have arrived. Note that it does not support the RNA-world approach:- http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/09/comet-impact-shockwave-may-have-planted-seeds-of-life-on-earth.ars

Origin of Life (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:13:42 +0000

Wow... more assumptions and chest thumping.. how.. original.

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:58:33 +0000

Some self-replicating RNA has been spawned in labs, but that is just intelligent design in sheeps' clothing.-An interesting summary of a book on the 10 best inventions of evolution. Be sure to note the reservations about RNA, and the complete lack of knowledge concerning conciousness.-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/55727/

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:06:09 +0000

The most damning quote I have read in a long time for abiogenesis: > > >Origins of life research initially focused on the production of amino acids from organic materials already present on the planet. However, further research showed that Earth's atmospheric conditions consisted mainly of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water. Shock-heating experiments and calculations eventually proved that synthesis of organic molecules necessary for amino acid production will not occur in this type of environment. > > Now they are grasping at straws.-The grasping has gone on for years. Pan-spermia only removes the problem from Earth to outer space. Some self-replicating RNA has been spawned in labs, but that is just intelligent design in sheeps' clothing.

Origin of Life (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:39:19 +0000

The most damning quote I have read in a long time for abiogenesis:->Origins of life research initially focused on the production of amino acids from organic materials already present on the planet. However, further research showed that Earth's atmospheric conditions consisted mainly of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water. Shock-heating experiments and calculations eventually proved that synthesis of organic molecules necessary for amino acid production will not occur in this type of environment.-Now they are grasping at straws.

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:18:16 +0000

I thought this was worth opening a new thread. > > It's the same subject we have discussed before- Here is a seeding by comets study, a simulation that leads to glysine:-http://www.physorg.com/news203584634.html

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:42:32 +0000

I thought this was worth opening a new thread. > It's the same subject we have discussed before-Here is a study that suppoprts the idea of looking to hydrothermal sea vents as the place of origin of life; a study of extremophile Archaea converting formate to hydrogen and CO2:-http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57688/

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:36:52 +0000

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57688/

Origin of Life (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:51:31 +0000

DT has cited Prof. Gonzalez's "unique earth" theory before and it was easily dismissed -- it's the usual Goldilocks fallacy -- everything is "just right" for life to be here, so the situation was all set up for life to appear -- whereas the much simpler explanation is that life evolved here because the conditions were "just right" -- as opposed to all the other multitudinous places where the conditions were not right.-The other article is just pure biblical apologist stuff. I'm surprised DT posts this here, since he has made clear that his "God" is nothing like the 7-day Creator God of the bible.

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:52:05 +0000

Why I believe in Intelligent Design: the Earth is very special:- http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/privilegedearth112001.htm -This is a designer universe:-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

Origin of Life (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:13:17 +0000

> http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/john-maynard-smith/ > > Recommended. Without going into the actual chemical structure > of proteins and bases he explains how the biological code works > and also puts forward a theory about how it could have evolved.-These latest findings are in contradistinction to the theories of JMS given above, granted that his talk was over 8 years ago. Again, this paper supports my contention that layers and layers of genomic control allow 20,000 genes to do the work of over 100,000, and since many of the controlling genes are over 600 million years old, support the theory of pre-planning and design of evolutionary progress.-http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/08/04/pax_genes_and_boule_have_a_precambrian_o

Origin of Life (reply)

dhw — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:21:56 +0000

George has drawn our attention to an extremely interesting video ... a lecture given by John Maynard Smith on The Origin of Life:-http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/john-maynard-smith-Perhaps the title is a little misleading, as it promises rather more than it can deliver. However, like George I found it generally easy to understand, and was delighted with its clarity and its neutrality. JMS lists the main problems: where did the units come from, how were they "zipped" together, and how were they able to attain the necessary degree of accuracy? While acknowledging and explaining the enormous complexity of the code of heredity, he offers a theory that this may have evolved gradually from a stage at which the units were doing something simpler. This he calls "a plausible guess", and goes on to say: "It may not be right." -One can hardly say fairer than that. The origin of life is something which at the moment we can only speculate about ... and maybe we shall never be able to get beyond speculation. However, this lecture (like David Turell's book) is full of illuminating insights which are particularly helpful to non-scientists like myself. I'll be interested to hear David's response. It certainly helps us to appreciate the immense progress science has made and is making in its study of what constitutes life, though as always it's up to us what conclusions we draw from these findings. Maynard Smith was actually an atheist, but his lecture is totally free from religious/anti-religious references, concentrates solely on the science, and does not pretend to have definitive fillings for the remaining gaps in the pattern. An educative model of its kind. Once again, many thanks to George for this reference.

Origin of Life

George Jelliss — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:04:58 +0000

I thought this was worth opening a new thread. It's the same subject we have discussed before but dhw wants an expert to explain things to us At the bottom of this site there is a video series of a lecture by John Maynard Smith at the Royal Institution which explains a lot of things very simply so that even I could understand it.-http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/john-maynard-smith/-Recommended. Without going into the actual chemical structure of proteins and bases he explains how the biological code works and also puts forward a theory about how it could have evolved.