Punctuated Equilibria theories

[paultrr]

Standard evolution has life evolving from simplier forms to higher forms. The type of model you propose has life evolving from something complex enough to contain all the genetic code for everything into simplier forms where there is a specific genetic code in each organism. Now, even assuming for the moment that somehow the bridge between non-living and living was accomplished by some Creator or God the general gist of say the Bible is that man is the highest form of life on this planet while the general gist of you're approach would be that man is a specialized off-spring of something far more complex genetically. At least standard theistic evolution kept the pattern of higher forms from simplier forms as does normal evolutionary teaching in general.

 

As far as the preserved historical record goes when it comes to genetic evidence the two latter are more in line than you're own proposal. Genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed that nearly 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes-millimeter-long soil-dwelling worms. Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study that is published that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is about 95 percent. Generally, by genetic evidence, while both lines have a common ancestor we are far closer genetic wise to chimps than to nematodes and the complexity of the genetic material between both species is vastly different. Nematodes in general predate our line and the lack of complexity tends to argue against you're own theory.

 

So even if one wants to propose some theory in which one finds a progression simular to evolutionary theory based upon an initial special creation event one is still forced to accept the general idea of life evolving from the simplier to the more complex. At that point the only difference is one theory assumes life had to evolve from the non-living to the living and one theory assumes some special agent was involved in that process. The problem from a scientific perspective again boils down to showing evidence in the first place that such an agent exists from out of the natural evidence itself. Here most creationists and other religious perspectives simply lack the evidence that demands a verdict. Without that evidence one is simply presenting evolutionary theory admixtured with a faith based assumption of an outside agency. Up to the faith assumption one has science. Beyond that point one has a belief system being presented as science. At the least it's simply an alternative theory of evolution which is fine to a point. However, it raises the question of why bother to argue with the evolutionists in the first place since one would have 99% in common teaching with the remainder 1% stemming from faith which more properly belongs a subject of home and Church teaching.

 

Telemad is correct that you are substituting faith based ideas into the mix. Some of those faith based ideas simply do not pan out via genetic research itself when you look at the genetic differences as far back as we can study them. It's that lack of solid evidence more than the "creator" invocation that get's the argument going in the first place. Most general older theistic evolutionists had far less arguements out of the scientific community in general than the intelligent design camp has today. The reason is they stuck with the scientific evidence and simply offered a special agent or creator as a solution on how non-living matter became living. The only part one encountered an argument on was showing proof for that special agent in the first place. However, in fairness, given the lack of solid evidence in the record for that crossover period from non-living to living they could also argue that we had little evidence ourselves.

 

My suggestion is that the ID camp stick to tried and true science if they want recognized. They are welcome to hold the belief that the bridge between point was somehow accomplished by devine intervention or agency. I might suggest that perhaps they ought to experimentally try simular paths to those evolutionists have attempted to explain that bridge point in perhaps a way to amass evidence that some outside agency had to be involved. A lack of a positive result in many carryed out experiments is evidence in itself. To my knowledge evolutionists only attempted experiments to bridge such a gap between living and non-living over a very short period of time. A wider range experiment trying different conditions would be in order to more properly address that area.

[Biochemist]

I might not get to see the answer for another month or two since I will be traveling some, but, you're replacement theory as someone else has termed it seems to still be evolution of sorts with the difference being all the primary genetric coding was already there in the first cells. So my question would be, and forgive me if this has already been given, just how and where did those first primitive cells with all that genetic code come from?...

Paultrr-

 

1) Any discussion of speciation is evolution, irrespective of mechanism.

2) I was not trying to address any issues related to abiogenesis. I was trying to view empirical evidence and posit a mechanism to address the rapid speciation as represented in the fossil record. My hypothesis was that most speciation is likely to be driven by programmed code changes in the parent species, not some sort of random mutation. Although mutations certainly exist, the evidence for mutation driving speciation in animals is essnetially absent.

3) If parent species genes code for for daughter species genes, the implication is there that all "parent" code rolls back to a "super parent" in the first prokaryote. Maybe. But my only point was that mutation based speciation is inconsistent with the fossil record. I think it is time that we consider other mechanisms that are consistent with our current knowledge of intracellular biochemistry and are more closely aligned with the fossil record.

4) Nothing about this argument was driven by theism. It is only based on empirical observations. There are probably dozens of specifics that could be tested. It is true that some of the anti-theists on this site see a risk of God at every turn, and react adversely to the risk of support for theism. That is just bias, not science. I am just to looking logically at the extant data and suggesting a slight change in perspective. I am sure that Zohaar will suggest this is even better aligned with his interventionist view.

[Biochemist]

You complaining because you feel science can’t explain a walk up a relatively smooth incline to reach the top of a mountain, whereas your replacement involves a single leap from base to summit!! Only Superman, or gee, maybe God, could make that leap your replacement requires.

I said nothing of the sort. You are obfuscating.

 

What I suggested was that existing theory is inconsistent with empirical evidence. The evidence for mutation-based speciation is absent, and the fossil record is characterized by extended periods of stasis puncuated by sudden arrival of new body plans in animals. There is nothing new in this.

 

I just suggested that we recognize that in the 30+ years since Gould and Eldredge published their seminal articles on puncuated equilibirium, we have learned a lot more about biochemistry. There is now a substantial body of knowledge that suggests that many mechanisms that alter genes might not be mutative, even though we ofter assume that they are (in the absense of evidence).

 

If you want to draw a consousion about abiogenesis from this, have at it. Goodness, you could even start your own thread on it. God. Extraterrestrials. Meteorite dust. Primordial lightening. I was making no assertions about abiogenesis. I was using extant data to posit a mechanism for PE.

[paultrr]

Paultrr-

 

1) Any discussion of speciation is evolution, irrespective of mechanism.

2) I was not trying to address any issues related to abiogenesis. I was trying to view empirical evidence and posit a mechanism to address the rapid speciation as represented in the fossil record. My hypothesis was that most speciation is likely to be driven by programmed code changes in the parent species, not some sort of random mutation. Although mutations certainly exist, the evidence for mutation driving speciation in animals is essnetially absent.

3) If parent species genes code for for daughter species genes, the implication is there that all "parent" code rolls back to a "super parent" in the first prokaryote. Maybe. But my only point was that mutation based speciation is inconsistent with the fossil record. I think it is time that we consider other mechanisms that are consistent with our current knowledge of intracellular biochemistry and are more closely aligned with the fossil record.

4) Nothing about this argument was driven by theism. It is only based on empirical observations. There are probably dozens of specifics that could be tested. It is true that some of the anti-theists on this site see a risk of God at every turn, and react adversely to the risk of support for theism. That is just bias, not science. I am just to looking logically at the extant data and suggesting a slight change in perspective. I am sure that Zohaar will suggest this is even better aligned with his interventionist view.

 

My general problem is one has to propose a mechanism by which evolution or change and development of different species takes place. Given that most of the ID camp makes the faith based assumption that God or a creator is behind it all(why I assumed the other), and yet, proposes that the path followed is evolutionary based then exactly what mechanisms do you think we should invoke as a possible solution? I might add that there are some modern examples of mutation producing what we could define as a species difference where interbreading is no longer possible. I mentioned simular in another post here though I've forgotten the exact link. Generally these cases would be simular to say chimps and humans where they all share a common ancestory and still are in the same general line. So I would suggest that while perhaps mutations do not provide an answer for everything and there may well be other aspects involved that one must come up with at the very least historical evidence and modern case examples of exactly the replacement mechanism or mechanisms one's theory would put forth.

 

If anything I take more exception with the idea often put forward that perhaps the early life had the coding for everything already there given that nothing in the record of genetic evidence lends support to that.

[bumab]

While I don't buy the precoded genetic hypothesis either, it's fair to notice the ID and relgious aspects of the conversation were not brought in by Bio.

 

As you said, Paul, there are places where mutation doesn't seem to work. Precoding is a valid alternative. It has it's problems, which we were discussing rather well before this tanget (not brought on by you, of course). I would like to see this thread get back on topic, personally.

 

New protiens (produced by mutation or not) must survive the intercellular machinery that guards against foreign protiens and invaders. How, and how could that machinery have evolved (or not) concurrently with the life it facilitated? Could a break down in that machinery have produced the fossil record of morphological growth spurts we observe?

[Biochemist]

My general problem is one has to propose a mechanism by which evolution or change and development of different species takes place. ..If anything I take more exception with the idea often put forward that perhaps the early life had the coding for everything already there given that nothing in the record of genetic evidence lends support to that.

Underlining Bumab's point, none of the original interlocutors on this thread brought up God until someone did after post 150 or so.

 

The issue on the table is purely evidenciary. It has nothing to do with theism, or ID.

 

1) The fossil record does not support a gradual, mutative pattern. Phyla (and, in fact, Orders) spring up suddenly

2) No one can demonstrate that mutations are beneficial

3) No evidence for mutation-driven speciation exists at all

4) We have many documented mechanisms for genetic change that are all highly specific (in terms of sites of alteration of the genome)

 

Ergo, my hypothesis is that the genetic code of the daughter species is carried (mainly) in the genetic code of the parent species. We do not know what the trigger is (during cataclysmic events) that excites the parent genome to spawn a daughter species. But we do know mechanisms that increase the quantity of genetic material, and several mechanisms that alter it in tightly defined ways (discussed above).

[bumab]

1) The fossil record does not support a gradual, mutative pattern. Phyla (and, in fact, Orders) spring up suddenly

 

True.

 

2) No one can demonstrate that mutations are beneficial

 

Not true. Bacterial mutations are often beneficial, such as mutations for resistance against anti-biotics. Those mutations then spread throught the gene pool- highly beneficial. Or the moths in England changing color to match the polluted trees, for example.

 

3) No evidence for mutation-driven speciation exists at all

 

There are speciation examples, but no phyla or order change examples. But you should remember that the fossil record preserves unevenly, and it may be too much to ask. Or not... but something to think about.

 

4) We have many documented mechanisms for genetic change that are all highly specific (in terms of sites of alteration of the genome)

 

...and many that are random.

 

 

But we do know mechanisms that increase the quantity of genetic material, and several mechanisms that alter it in tightly defined ways (discussed above).

 

This goes against your hypothesis. If the vast majority of code is already present, then increasing the quantity of genetic material is superfulous and a waste of energy.

 

I still think a better line of investigation is into which new, mutation produced protiens are conserved and why (ditto for chromosomal rearrangments, regulatory gene changes, etc.) Why does the immune system (or it's intracellular counterpart, whatever the name) allow some mutations to persist and not others? It can't be natural selection, because this would operate irregardless of expression. Natural selection would be one more check- but you got to get past the first hurdle (expression) first.

[Biochemist]

Bacterial mutations are often beneficial, such as mutations for resistance against anti-biotics. Those mutations then spread throught the gene pool- highly beneficial. Or the moths in England changing color to match the polluted trees, for example.

These are good examples of a contrasting interpretive framework. In both cases, existing genetic biochemical services allow for sophisticated adaptive behavior. You could regard this as based on mutation, but I think the evidence is weak.

 

In the case of bacteria, the little beggars even can trade plasmids with other species. This biochemical service is extraordinarily complicated. The bacterium can a) identify a toxic substance, create a genetic defense, c) roll the defense gene into a plasmid d) export the plasmid, or e) receive a plasmid from a donor. I think it is a strecth to think that this biochemistry is a mutation. It could be, but this is an awfully sophisticated one.

 

In the case of the English moths, the dark wing color is a normal variant. It was truly selected, but it is a postulate to suggest it was a mutation. It might be, but I think it is more likely ot be part of the code of the species.

...But you should remember that the fossil record preserves unevenly, and it may be too much to ask. Or not... but something to think about.

I understand the difficulty in getting fossils. But for me, the most instructuve element of this discussion is that the support for gradualism is getting worse with more fossils, not better. Gould and Eldredge sort of bit the buillet in 1972 when they came out and acknowledged that (in their opinions) the fossil record is reasonably complete, and that the record is more fairly characterized as static than gradualy changing. The fossil record has expanded significantly since 1972, and I think the PE hypothesis/framework has better support now than it did then.

 

If we just elect to stop assuming that processes are mutative, I think we would be a little more objective about the data in front of us.

This goes against your hypothesis. If the vast majority of code is already present, then increasing the quantity of genetic material is superfulous and a waste of energy.

Well, to be honest, the biggest leap I made was that there is a lot more information in the DNA than in the genes expressed in the species. For my hypothesis to have any merit, it would have to include a mechanism to created new genes that were not used by the parent species. This does not mean that the daughter species genes themselves pre-exist. It mean that a mechanism to create them does. Ergo, the biochemical services that extend genetic code (e.g., transposons, chromosome doubling, etc) are not mutative, they are part of an explicit process.

 

It is certainly a leap, but it seems to me that we have consistently underestimated the biochemical sophistication of the cell at every turn. I frankly have a hard time getting my head around the fact that (in humans) 35,000 genes can code for approximately 300,000 proteins and get life out of it. These little machines are so incredibly sophisticated that a very small number (300,000) can support massive sophistication. I don't know how many parts are in the space shuttle (Paultrr- can you tell us?) but it sure seems to me that we packed an awful lot of sophistication into a pretty small parts list.

I still think a better line of investigation is into which new, mutation produced protiens are conserved and why (ditto for chromosomal rearrangments, regulatory gene changes, etc.) Why does the immune system (or it's intracellular counterpart, whatever the name) allow some mutations to persist and not others? ..

Boy, I agree with you there. The answer to that would either support my position or the standard mutation theory, but it sure would be good to get clarification on that. I think the expanding study of ubiquitin will help in this regard.

 

(LATE ADDITION: there are about 250,000 parts in the space shuttle)

[bumab]

It mean that a mechanism to create them does. Ergo, the biochemical services that extend genetic code (e.g., transposons, chromosome doubling, etc) are not mutative, they are part of an explicit process.

 

Well, if this is the new hypothesis (or a better understanding of your first one), shoot- I agree with you. I'm willing to bet there's a system for creating viable genes. I bet many here agree with that.

 

Perhaps we've been misunderstanding since the get go.

[paultrr]

True.

 

 

 

Not true. Bacterial mutations are often beneficial, such as mutations for resistance against anti-biotics. Those mutations then spread throught the gene pool- highly beneficial. Or the moths in England changing color to match the polluted trees, for example.

 

 

 

There are speciation examples, but no phyla or order change examples.

 

I have myself been wondering what the chances are that the original single cell organisms in their many types might have given rise to the major orders and suborders one finds later developing. For one, if there where multiple different cells all from a specific time period it would limit the idea of one certain organism having to be the source of different genes. For certain cases, which we do have examples today, mutational changes could account for changes within a given order and for direct speciation. Other factors I would agree would be involved which would account for other changes in general that lead to even further speciation and perhaps even further phyla and order changes into perhaps subbranches, etc. Going back far enough in time simple genetic differences between simple cell organisms could be the original source of the differences we find today after mutational and other changes came into effect.

[Biochemist]

..Perhaps we've been misunderstanding since the get go.

Maybe. But I think I was not very articulate at the beginning of this thread. And I had not thought through the possible mechanisms for genetic transition until you and Buffy dragged me into it.

 

As I distill my thinking, the core point is that I think mutation essentially unrelated to speciation. Once you start there, the only logical next step (unless you include divine intervention or extraterrestrial intervention) is that the parent species holds the drivers for the daughter species. Everthing else is a cascade from there.

 

I agree it is problematic that I shoved the real problem further back in history (i.e., abiogenesis looks even more difficult), but I always thought that was an unsolved problem anyway.

 

I do think it is odd that (to my knowledge) none of the ID folks have taken a position like this. I have not seen it anyplace, and I have looked around a bit.

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: Underlining Bumab's point, none of the original interlocutors on this thread brought up God until someone did after post 150 or so.

 

Wrong. Your "theory" in POST 2 relied upon God.

 

Biochemist: This would suggest that the majority of animal and plant kingdom information content was reflected in the first prokaryote. Go figure. But I think this model better reflects our current state of biochemical understanding and our current state of paleontological knowledge than any mutation-based model. Mutations actually might occur, but they have nearly nothing to do with speciation.

 

Doesn't stike me as a whole lot more difficult to swallow that the entire mass of the universe being squashed into a space the size of a Planck length.

 

Feel free to name my theory. I think I like "Biological Big Bang". Do keep in mind that if my heretical theory is true, then the IDers would have to prove an incredible level of CSI in the first prokaryote. Everyting after that would be a natural consequence of that information load, and a fundamentally "natural" process.

 

That involves a miracle. The Creationist’s claim it would take a miracle to form hemoglobin – gee, using arguments remarkably similar to yours! – how much more of a miracle would it take for the genetic information needed to make hemoglobin AND arms, forearms, hands, and fingers; thighs, legs, feet, and toes; hearts, veins, arteries, and capillaries, neurons and brains; nephrons, kidneys, ureters; cardiac, smooth, and skeletal muscles; endoskeletons and exoskeletons; eyes, ears, and mouths; wings; hair, scales, and feathers; echolocation; and so on, to all have arisen all at once? You replaced the typical Creationist’s miracle with one many many many many orders of magnitude greater!.

 

Perhaps aliens did it? Pure speculation; not a shred of evidence supporting such. And YOU YOURSELF SAID YOU DISMISS ALIENS! That leaves just God.

 

But it gets even worse. Even if we go way out of our way to accept that aliens did create that first prokaryote, containing all of that unused information, it doesn’t eliminate the need for the supernatural. We KNOW that unused genetic information quickly degrades because mutations accumulate unchecked. You have VAST amounts of genetic information being protected somehow – COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE – over the course of 3 billion years of non-use!

 

Your front-loaded first-prokaryote “theory” is religion masquerading as science. You brought it up in post 2: you brought religion into the thread in post 2.

 

If you believe otherwise, then please explain how all of that astronomically vast amount of genetic information arose, and how it was then protected from degradation over 3 billion years of nonuse, using only valid, scientific principles. Well, go ahead … try! I won't hold my breath :-)

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: 2) No one can demonstrate that mutations are beneficial

 

A statement only the most hardcore Creationist could make!

 

The leading biochemist-IDist, Michael Behe, recognizes that mutations can be beneficial: he even knows of some. For example, in one experiment bacteria had a gene mutated so that one part of an "IC biochemical system" wouldn't work: the researchers provided "life support" so that the bacteria could continue to survive, and after enough generations, they regained their former abilities, via mutations, allowing the "life support" to be removed. Behe recognizes that these mutations were beneficial (he just argues that an IC system didn't arise by mutation and selection because the organism had to be artificially maintained: but that is irrelevant as to whether or not the mutations occurred and the fact that they restored function to a complex biochemical system).

 

And even the Creationist's favorite protein - hemoglobin - has beneficial mutations occur in it. The mutation that causes sickle cell anemia in homozyotes is beneficial in heterozygotes in regions where malaria is prominent. Unless you are going to suggest that God produced the simple mutation (which causes only a single amino acid substitution) that generates this allele, then you have a beneficial mutation. Other mutations in hemoglobin, seen in high-altitude animals, allow it to tranpsort oxygen more efficiently: a benefit in the low-oxygen environment. Is your position that God created these simple mutations as well?

 

We know of mutations that produced "antifreeze" proteins from prexisting proteins, allowing fish to live in the frigid Artic waters. Is your claim that God snapped his finger to supernaturally create these few, simple mutations too?

 

For more on beneficial mutations, you can start here:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

Here's one of the examples the above site lists.

 

4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

 

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)

 

This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

 

 

WE have MORE THAN ample evidence of beneficial mutations; YOU just don't accept them because of your Creationist bias.

 

Oh, and even Creationists themselves say your argument should no longer be used! Check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: 2) No one can demonstrate that mutations are beneficial

 

Oh Biochemist, you should love this! Not just beneficial mutations, but beneficial mutations that lead to new metabolic pathways!!!

 

”Evolution of New Metabolic Pathways

 

…

 

Xylitol is also not normally metabolized, but Mortlock and his colleagues were able to develop strains (generally through spontaneous mutations, but sometimes with u.v. ray or chemical induced mutations) that could use it because ribitol dehydrogenase (which is usually present in the cells to convert ribitol to D-ribulose) was able to slightly speed up the conversion of xylitol to D-xylulose, for which metabolic pathways already exist. The ability of the strains to utilize xylitol was increased as much as 20 fold when first production of ribitol dehydrogenase was deregulated (the enzyme was produced all the time, not just when ribitol was present), then duplication of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes occurred, then the structure of the enzyme was changed such that its efficiency at working with xylitol was improved, and finally, in at least one case, a line regained control of the modified ribitol dehydrogenase gene so that the enzyme was only produced in the presence of xylitol. Here we have a complete example of a new metabolic pathway being developed through duplication and modification of an existing pathway. “

(http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)

 

Here's a breakdown.

 

1) ribitol deyhydrogenase, an enzyme whose primary substrate is ribitol, can slightly accelerate the rate of conversion of non-usable xylitol into a usable sugar, D-xylulose.

 

Note that one enzyme being able to catalyze several related reactions is not unusual (despite what Biochemist would have us believe).

 

 

2) then one or more mutations in the gene(s) that control the expression of ribitol dehydrogenase cause it to begin being expressed continuously (not just in response to the presence of ribitol). This increased the cells’ ability to utilize xylitol 20 fold

 

3) then a mutation caused the genes coding for the enzyme ribitol dehydrogenase to be duplicated

 

A common mechanism evolution employs is duplicate-and-diverge. After a gene duplication, having two copies of the gene allows one of them to accept mutations without harming fitness (the other one remains the same and continues to carry out its function). This way, the gene/protein can search through similar sequences and possibly find a new function, or, in this case, improve an existing function.

 

 

4) then one or more mutations in the genes coding for ribitol dehydrogenase increased it’s ability to catalyze the xylitol-to-D-xylulose conversion

 

5) then one or more mutations linked expression of one of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes to the presence of xylitol

 

 

Thus, a new, regulated metabolic pathway arising via a chain of beneficial mutations.

[paultrr]

When it comes to abiogenesis, usually people try to caculate odds along these lines. The probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein like an enzyme like carboxypeptidase randomly is (1/20)^300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10^390. But there is a problem with that whole way of looking at this. The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry which are not random.

 

Secondly, in modern abiogenesis theories the first living things would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria. For example, the Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles( see Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR, Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4, 1997). These protolife forms the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. In this case one is looking at early life being govern by the laws of chemistry and biochemistry. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. This in itself calls into question where the older creationist idea of spontaneous generation comes from in the first place when it comes to their idea of what evolution teaches.

 

Mycobacterium genetalium, displays a 400 protein chain, the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. Mushegian and Koonin, examined this chain and found it could be reduced down to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins(see Mushegian AR and Koonin, EV, A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93: 10268-10273). This in itself argues for something far less complex being the original scource of life and at the same time rather well supports the idea that perhaps the original early life already had diversity into seperate general source lines.

 

Given this and other facts I disagree on the abiogenesis issue and would suggest there is solid evidence in its favor even if that evidence is what we would term indirect since it lacks more direct preserved record. Also, notice above that even if one could rely upon those usual creationist ideas of arguing odds that 256 is less than the 300 they tend to argue about. Adding that issue to the fact that this isn't some random governed process in the first place and the backbone of the normal literal creationist apporoach falls totally apart.

 

So rejecting the normal disprovals of abiogenesis, and allowing for mutational changes being involved, what other mechanisms could one propose?

[paultrr]

Oh, and even Creationists themselves say your argument should no longer be used! Check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

One thing I loved in all of that is they now admit that divergence into seperate species can come about by such. Yet, they still assume that all of us still would suggest that "kinds" can somehow be bridged by the same mechanism which is not actually the true case anymore. I've yet to see any evolutionary explaination for the origin of life suggesting one cell being the origin of all the rest. The usual going back to the primordial soup explination is different proto-life emerging around the same time and these eventually braching off into seperate species lines. That more than argues for their idea of kinds being already present when life first started and the rest being divergence into seperate species. For example, while the human/ape line is argued to come from a common ancestor, that ancestor is never argued to be the source of all mamillian life like say dogs and cats also. In general, and by the way I do not myself see all ID proposers in this line, Creationist tend to pick what they think is true and apply the same weird logic when it comes to what they think evolutionists think.

 

But that was a good find when it comes to this whole mutation issue.

[paultrr]

Something I mentioned in another thread about we really do not fully understand all the conditions present when life first evolved comes into play here. What would be considered suffiecient conditions for X at epoch t1 is not suffiecient conditions at epoch t2. The early universe had less elements required to produce life as we know it than it did a few billion years later, so to speak. Our local area itself while ripe for development of planets, etc a few billion years ago is not now ripe for planetary development now. Yet, other regions out there are ripe at the present which also raises the issue of both time and place coming into play when we look at the origins of life.

 

When one looks at close planetary neighbors like Venus and Mars the normal thought is they all started out very simular. Yet, Venus went on to become too hot for life and Mars perhaps too cold to sustain such. Here again, while a lot of factors come into play time and position seems to have mattered.

 

That leaves us all with certain issues when it comes to determining the origin of life. For absolute proof one would desire hard evidence. But hard evidence from a period that far in our past is simply not there. To get indirect evidence we are forced with using the patterns we do find preserved and exploiting backwards. That pattern points towards a progression from simplier to more complex. But it does not actually stipulate one basic cell being the origin of everything else. It seems rather to stipulate different cells being the origin of everything else through a process of mutation and adaption and perhaps other factors which might themselves have a certain time and place reason.

 

Going even further, the median age for earth-like planets based upon evidence we can observe and gather is 6.4 Billion years. Prior to that period the conditions simply are not ripe for planets like our own. If one takes a median age for the Universe of around 14 billion years that translates to life having its best chances about 7.6 billion years ago. Looking at our own system as an example we find that having large planets on the outer regions seems to favor life formation. Yet, the multitude of planetary systems we find out there seems to favor a different situation. Here again place and time come into play.