jerrywickey

What am I missing here?

This graph clearly shows that the earth is currently at the coldest it has ever been and the CO2 levels don't correlate with global temperatures nearly as much as people are worried about.

It also shows that we are very due for a much larger temperature rise than anyone is talking about. Both humans and animals will adapt to the temperature when the earth returns to its apparently more normal hotter temperature. Human civilization may be a different story.

Can anyone fill me in? What is the global warming, humans are doing it, fuss all about? If this graph is correct, it really doesn't look like we have a chance of stopping it and we sure didn't cause it.

The million year ride back to the more normal 22 Celsius will be a rough ride, probably replete with cold and hot spells. Periods of calm and periods of incredible climate upheaval. Some lasting ten years, some a hundred years and some ten thousand years. But all inevitable, none the less. We are clearly overdue for this rise to what looks like the earth's preferred temperature.

Jerry

History channel aired the show "How Life Began" will air again 10 PM Saturday June 21

Very disappointing. Full of platitudes and they spent only one minute on the very title of the show, "how life began." It took place behind a curtain about which the narrator commented that no one understands how life began.

I think the show should have gone more like this. Perhaps anyone can chime in and suggest errors I made.

1) chemicals and condition necessary for abiogenesis

????? presto chango -- ABIOGENESIS of one or more first replicators over perhaps 100 to 500 million years ???????

2) first replicators adapt to acquire nutrients and avoid fatal circumstances

3) replicators successful at step 2 utilized DNA as info storage and developed RNA transcript and protein coding expression regulatory mechanisms

4) somehow all alternate expression mechanisms ceased leaving only the one we see today.

...............and

gene splicing mechanisms developed so that separate organisms could share genes

5) earliest life we observe, first O2 producing algae, complete with DNA promotion, transcription, genetic code for translation and gene splicing mechanisms that we see today.

6) gene splicing rotates and tests genetic combination for perhaps 3 billion years but accomplishes little.

7) about half a billion years ago something happens in a geologic blink of an eye that 3 billion years of gene splicing was unable to accomplish, all life categories we see today emerge.

8) today

This still doesn't address exactly how life began. Of course, that is a mystery as the show said. No one knows and no one has yet demonstrated a suitable first replicator molecular system.

Jerry

Death is accepted as a natural part of life.

I have even heard educated people say: "The job of bacteria is to eat, reproduce and die." Death seems to be assumed as a natural component of life. Perhaps in some religious or an irrational dogma connected to a yin yang idea of some mythical balance to the universe.

The fact is that biology tends to organize material and keep it that way. Bacteria don't die. They eat, reproduce daughter cells and continue themselves. They continually renew themselves. One has to define the process of reproduction as death to claim otherwise.

Immortality does not protect an organism from diseases or fatal injury. None the less the majority of the biomass of earth is immortal. There is no natural life span for most of the biological organisms on earth. The longer an individual organism lives the greater the chances that organism will encounter some fatal circumstances, but the majority of organisms do not experience genetically organized death.

Even the cells of most land vertebrates who experience genetically organized death, regenerate continually as if they were immortal until the mechanism of death is triggered.

There really is no reason to call death a natural part of life. Death must be a special adaptation reserved to the minor portion of life on earth.

Jerry

Yes.

That is the assumption of my simulation software.

But RNA world theory provides a perfect environment for just such diversity. Although we don't see it.!!??

Jerry

Universally conserved sequences of DNA strongly suggest a single common early ancestor.

Any one disagree?

This common ancestor must predate the Cambrian explosion of life, since all life today shares these sequences.

Any one disagree?

"...New chemistry and genomic tools have revealed that the Shark Bay stromatolites have remarkable biodiversity, with evidence so far of more than 100 species of bacteria. In effect, this suggests that by 3.5 billion years ago Earth was already teeming with diverse microbial life." --ACA deputy director Professor Brett Neilan

Earliest life on earth was both anaerobic and diverse.

Any one disagree?

The common ancestor must have been among these diverse anaerobic organisms.

Any one disagree?

Now for the question.

Could some of this diverse anaerobic early life have utilized some other mechanisms than DNA, promotion, transcription, and protein translation?

Is it more likely that a single strain of these anaerobics were the common ancestor of all present day life? Or is all present day life descendant from many of these diverse organisms?

If many, and since all present day life utilizes DNA, promotion, transcription, protein translation, should we see remnants of these divers mechanisms?

Since we don't observe this, what happened to all this diversity?

If DNA, promotion, transcription and protein translation are the only route to life, and if they evolved so early and so rapidly in abiotic conditions, much less conducive to abiogenesis than today's biotic conditions, why has not other sets of conserved sequences arisen within only the last billion years, giving rise to distinct genealogies of life with their own conserved sequences?

i.e. Why does not exist more than one set of widely but not universally conserved sequences? The domains Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota all use the same highly conserved sequences for promotion and transcription. Why do we not see another domain with vary divergent sequences?

Either life is very robust, in which case we should see more than one set of conserved sequences for promotion and transcription.

Or life is very very special, too special, in which case, we should not be here.

Or the conditions which existed on earth were so carefully controlled and fell so perfectly within that thin line between the two conditions above suggesting some extra natural force was involved.

Which is it?

Jerry

Of course! There are four nucleotides, (actually five. U and T are very similar, U appearing in RNA while T appears in DNA) each pairing with its compliment. But the message sent into space intended to indicate the size of human DNA as being comprised of a total of 4 billion nucleotides, each one of these would be one of the four. A T C G.

We have since found that human DNA is only 3.2 billion nucleotides long.

Did you have a comment relavant to what someone unfamiliar with the message sent might see in the message? Or how the message might be inturpreted?

Jerry

In 1974 the Arecibo radio telescope transmitted a radio signal into interstellar space. The intended content of the message was almost entirely biological information. Among which information was the inaccurate number of nucleotides in human DNA. In 1974 we believed that there were in excess of 4 billion base pairs in human DNA.

What would a group of humans with an interest and varying degrees of education in biology make of such a message, if they had intercepted it?

Anybody want to take a crack at cracking the code?

Anyone can look up what the message means by simply Googling "1974 Arecibo radio message" But thinking people might prefer to "decipher" the message on their own. Just to find out if another group of humans or aliens might be able to figure it out.

If you chose not to Google the info and look at the signal instead just as you might have seen it with out prior knowledge of it, you may learn some things about how communication works.

What follows is a representation of the actual information as it might be received, "demodulated" and recorded by some alien radio receiver intercepting the signal at some unknown time and at some unknown place.

While, the likelihood of receiving a response from an intelligent ET from this outward bound radio message is very slight for many reasons, the raw data that was transmitted is interesting in itself as a study of the nature of information.

The purpose of this thread is to investigate the commonality of all information. Not to discuss the likelyhood of alien intelligance. The information you are about to see communicates basic information about biology. This section of this forum should include people who know some things about biology. Lets find out?

=============NEWS FLASH=============

A radio transmission of an arraignment not likely of natural origin was recorded.

Please help in deciphering this signal.

To help your investigation you will find comments on 1) the signal's origin, 2) the reason for the certainty that the signal contains information, 3) the signal's mode of transmission, 4) the signals contents and some suggestions as to the meaning.

Signal Origin:

No star system is currently in the vicinity from which direction the signal came. But, a star having eight planets of highly regular orbits and one of elliptical orbit would have intersected the signal path and would have been present at that location exactly at the time the signal traveling at light speed would have passed that point. The likelihood of intelligent origin from within that star system is elevated.

Information in the Signal:

The signal flip flops between two very close frequencies 794 times and the time between the shortest flip flop is exactly one 1679th the total length of the signal.

This flip flop can be described as four different modes. 1) Rising in frequency 2) falling in frequency 3) remaining at the higher frequency and 4) remaining at the lower frequency. The respective number of these four modes is not natural or the likely result of any natural phenomena.

Rising occurred 221 times

falling occurred 221 times (this two being same would be expected of course)

remaining high occurred 176 times

remaining low occurred 1060 times (this discrepancy suggests order is present)

Change of frequency in one time frame

/ - 221 rising

\ - 221 falling

¯ - 176 remaining high

_ - 1061 remaining low

Change of frequency in three time frames

___ - 899 remaingin low three time periods in a row

__/ - 160 rising after remaining low

\__ - 160 falling and remaining low curiosly the same

/¯\ - 130 rises and falls

/¯¯ - 91 rising and remaining high

¯¯\ - 91 falling from a sustained high curiously the same

¯¯¯ - 85 remains high

\_/ - 61 falls then rises

1697 is a curious number but may not mean anything. 1697 is only the product of two prime numbers 73 and 23. The significance of this may be nothing, however.

The actual signal now follows. Represented as the rising and falling frequency changes. The same data is represented three times. It is the same data but broken to fit on a page.

(I understand cultures alien to us might be as comfortable with a long line of data as they are with breaking it up into segments to fit it on a page as we are. What would you make of a long line of data? Anything? This is one of the important questions, the answer to which will tell us if information follows the same rules everywhere. Does the information in DNA share characteristics with data on a written page?)

The first representation breaks the data into pieces each of 41 equel lengths. This leaves two time slices vacant on the last line.

But using the prime number factors of 1679 we find that the data can be represented with out any missing time slices, because the data can be equally divided among all the lines.

_____/\/\/\/\___________/\/\____/\/\_____

_/\_/\__/\__/\__/\_/\/¯\_/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

/\_/\_/\_________________________________

___/¯\__________________/¯\/\____________

______/¯\/\_________________/\/\/\_______

__________/¯¯¯¯\_________________________

______/¯\___/¯¯\__/¯\___/¯\__/\__________

__/¯\_/\___/¯\/\__/¯\__/¯\___/¯\/\/¯¯¯¯\/

¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\________________________

_/\________________/\____________________

_______/\________________/¯¯¯¯¯\_________

___/¯¯¯¯\______________________/¯\___/¯\_

__/¯¯\__/¯\__/\______/\________/\___/¯\/\

___/¯\__/¯¯\_/¯\/\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯

\_________________________/\_____/¯\_____

___/\__________/¯\______________/\____/¯\

_________/¯¯¯¯¯\____/¯\_____/¯¯¯¯\_______

__/¯\____________/\_______/\_______/\____

/\_____/¯\______/\______/¯\___/¯\_____/\_

________/¯\__/\___/¯\______________/¯\_/¯

\____________/¯\__/\___/¯\________/¯\___/

¯\_____/\______/\_____/\_______/\____/\__

____/¯\_______/\__/\_______/¯\_______/\__

/\________/\______/\____/\______/\______/

\______/\___________/¯\________/¯\_______

/¯\________/\__/¯¯\/\/¯\__________/\_____

_/\_____________/\____/¯¯¯¯\___________/\

___/\/¯¯\/\_/\/¯\/¯\_____/\_/¯¯\_/\_/¯¯¯¯

¯¯\/¯¯\___/¯¯\____/¯\/¯¯\________/\/\____

/¯¯\/¯\_/\_____/\/\____/¯¯¯¯¯\_/\_____/\/

\____/¯\_____/\____/¯\/¯\________________

__________________/¯¯\____/\_____________

/¯¯\/\/\__/\/\/\/\/\/\_/¯¯\________/\/\/\

/\_______________/\/\_____________/¯¯¯¯\_

______________/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\___________/¯¯\__

____/¯¯\________/¯\__________/¯\______/¯\

/\________/\/¯\____/¯\_/¯\______/¯\_/¯\__

_/\__/\/\____/\/\__/\___/\__/\_/\__/\_/\_

_/\_______/\__/\/\__/\___________/\___/\_

__/\___________/\________/\_____________/

\_/\/\__________/¯¯¯\_/¯¯¯¯\/\_/¯¯¯\__

_____/\/\/\/\__________

_/\/\____/\/\______/\_/

\__/\__/\__/\_/\/¯\_/\/

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\_/\_/\__

_______________________

___________/¯\_________

_________/¯\/\_________

_________/¯\/\_________

________/\/\/\_________

________/¯¯¯¯\_________

______________________/

¯\___/¯¯\__/¯\___/¯\__/

\____________/¯\_/\___/

¯\/\__/¯\__/¯\___/¯\/\/

¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\

_______________________

__/\________________/\_

_______________________

___/\________________/¯

¯¯¯¯\____________/¯¯¯¯\

______________________/

¯\___/¯\___/¯¯\__/¯\__/

\______/\________/\___/

¯\/\___/¯\__/¯¯\_/¯\/\/

¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\

_______________________

__/\_____/¯\________/\_

_________/¯\___________

___/\____/¯\_________/¯

¯¯¯¯\____/¯\_____/¯¯¯¯\

_________/¯\___________

_/\_______/\_______/\__

__/\_____/¯\______/\___

___/¯\___/¯\_____/\____

_____/¯\__/\___/¯\_____

_________/¯\_/¯\_______

_____/¯\__/\___/¯\_____

___/¯\___/¯\_____/\____

__/\_____/\_______/\___

_/\______/¯\_______/\__

/\_______/¯\_______/\__

/\________/\______/\___

_/\______/\______/\____

__/\___________/¯\_____

___/¯\_______/¯\_______

_/\__/¯¯\/\/¯\_________

_/\______/\____________

_/\____/¯¯¯¯\__________

_/\___/\/¯¯\/\_/\/¯\/¯\

_____/\_/¯¯\_/\_/¯¯¯¯¯¯

\/¯¯\___/¯¯\____/¯\/¯¯\

________/\/\____/¯¯\/¯\

_/\_____/\/\____/¯¯¯¯¯\

_/\_____/\/\____/¯\____

_/\____/¯\/¯\__________

_______________________

_/¯¯\____/\____________

_/¯¯\/\/\__/\/\/\/\/\/\

_/¯¯\________/\/\/\/\__

_____________/\/\______

_______/¯¯¯¯\__________

_____/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\________

___/¯¯\______/¯¯\______

__/¯\__________/¯\_____

_/¯\/\________/\/¯\____

/¯\_/¯\______/¯\_/¯\___

/\__/\/\____/\/\__/\___

/\__/\_/\__/\_/\__/\___

____/\__/\/\__/\_______

____/\___/\___/\_______

____/\________/\_______

______/\_/\/\__________

/¯¯¯\_/¯¯¯¯\/\_/¯¯¯\___

_____/\/\/\/\___________/\/\____/\/\______/\_/\__/\__/\__/\_/\/¯\_/\/\/\/

\/\/\/\/\/\_/\_/\____________________________________/¯\_________________

_/¯\/\__________________/¯\/\_________________/\/\/\_________________/¯¯¯

¯\_______________________________/¯\___/¯¯\__/¯\___/¯\__/\____________/¯\

_/\___/¯\/\__/¯\__/¯\___/¯\/\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\____________________

_____/\________________/\___________________________/\________________/¯¯

¯¯¯\____________/¯¯¯¯\______________________/¯\___/¯\___/¯¯\__/¯\__/\____

__/\________/\___/¯\/\___/¯\__/¯¯\_/¯\/\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\/¯¯¯¯\_________

________________/\_____/¯\________/\__________/¯\______________/\____/¯\_

________/¯¯¯¯¯\____/¯\_____/¯¯¯¯\_________/¯\____________/\_______/\_____

__/\____/\_____/¯\______/\______/¯\___/¯\_____/\_________/¯\__/\___/¯\___

___________/¯\_/¯\____________/¯\__/\___/¯\________/¯\___/¯\_____/\______

/\_____/\_______/\____/\______/¯\_______/\__/\_______/¯\_______/\__/\____

____/\______/\____/\______/\______/\______/\___________/¯\________/¯\____

___/¯\________/\__/¯¯\/\/¯\__________/\______/\_____________/\____/¯¯¯¯\_

__________/\___/\/¯¯\/\_/\/¯\/¯\_____/\_/¯¯\_/\_/¯¯¯¯¯¯\/¯¯\___/¯¯\____/¯

\/¯¯\________/\/\____/¯¯\/¯\_/\_____/\/\____/¯¯¯¯¯\_/\_____/\/\____/¯\___

__/\____/¯\/¯\__________________________________/¯¯\____/\_____________/¯

¯\/\/\__/\/\/\/\/\/\_/¯¯\________/\/\/\/\_______________/\/\_____________

/¯¯¯¯\_______________/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\___________/¯¯\______/¯¯\________/¯\______

____/¯\______/¯\/\________/\/¯\____/¯\_/¯\______/¯\_/¯\___/\__/\/\____/\/

\__/\___/\__/\_/\__/\_/\__/\_______/\__/\/\__/\___________/\___/\___/\___

________/\________/\_____________/\_/\/\__________/¯¯¯\_/¯¯¯¯\/\_/¯¯¯\___

It appears certain that if information is contained in this signal, the second representation would be the most likely interpretation. Since many straight lines seem to appear.

What could it possibly mean? Or is it simply random information?

Jerry

colors are arbitrarily asigned as the blobs represent individual atoms which of course are smaller than the wavelengths of visable light. We will never be able to actually "see" them.

Jerry

Yup

I think you are correct. The only thing we could do is explore the implications of each of the possibilities I identified. What a waist of effort, since only one of them will be correct.

Jerry

Click the image for the animation

This animation is of DNA polymerase replicating both the leading and lagging strand of DNA.

This is a visualization of a group of molecules that are smaller than the wavelength of visible light, copying the instructions of life. It a spectacular animation of a process going on inside all of our bodies a billion times over as you watch it on the screen.

The molecular sized machines at work here are built according to instructions found in the very DNA they could be replicating. The instructions in DNA describe how to build molecular sized machines, proteins, that carry on both chemical and mechanical activity.

Enjoy!

Thanks to http://www.wehi.edu.au

Jerry

YES!!!

You see the obsticles. Others post that protein evolution is a simple matter that has been solved over and over again.

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. But I was more interested in understanding it in depth than reinventing anything.

I find learning is much better then just reading.

Jerry

Mile stones between prebiotic chemistry to present day DNA based life

Organic Chemistry

(no evolutionary principles apply yet)

First replicator

(fundamental principles of evolution apply for the first time)

Something analogous to if not Ribozymes (serving only as enzymes) or Nucleic Proteins But limited to only what can arise spontaneously again and again for each generation of replicators.

(This is the toughest time for replicators, since natural selection still can not operate on the enzymes and nucleic proteins that may have arisen.)

Replication of Information Describing Organisms (possibly nucleotides) Coincident with Active Metabolism (This is the single most important step required for further growth toward current biology)

AND

True Riboszymes (serving a ribosomal function to interpret the information) and Nucleic Proteins carried over from the previous generation.

would have had to arise independently and coincidentally

(only after both previous steps, can natural selection begin to select superior advantages to replication) (replication becomes reproduction)

A switch to DNA with nucleotides if not already nucleotides

DNA Polymerase

DNA Transcriptase

Ribosome

True Protein

(evolution proper would begin to apply here)

Current Observed Biology

What's wrong here, anything? Are there any steps that could be skipped?

Can anyone suggest a different order?

Are any steps missing? Do we need all these steps?

Jerry

I apologize. Looks like you read what I thought you didn't. It is just that you don't accept some of the findings. Fair enough.

Jerry

This is getting frustrating.

You believe that I do not understand variation and selection.

You believe that my post is inconsistent with accepted findings.

You answer questions which have not been introduced.

However, you do not address the post. You have not yet made one comment germane to my argument.

My post is consistent with accepted findings.

I do understand variation and selection. You wrote a lot but at no point did you quote any thing I wrote under the heading "Here is how it works."

I clearly and slowly describe the process. Each statement is identified and it is true. Can you find a single error? You didn't comment on any of it.

Perhaps, you read a phrase and it triggers a recollection of an unrelated topic. Then you habitually spin off in that direction.

Try reading the explanation and finding the error there.

I have run into a lot of people who should understand evolution, but keep getting caught up in terminology which prevents them from understanding some of the basic principles. I am writing an evolution primer that addresses many of these misunderstandings.

I bet you are going to have fun with that.

Jerry

CONTENTS

compliment to your ability

discussion of your error

MOST IMPORTANT a logical progression describing my post

organized in such a manner as to make your critique as easy as possible.

(don't be afraid to say, "I see what you mean now. It was just communication.")

It is important never to allow something that feels comfortable to overshadow observations. This applies not only to my software but also to currently accepted interpretation of observations. We also have to remember that the correct answer is usually very illusive. But attempts to answer the questions help us both to learn.

Observations are king. However, most of the things we are talking about are not actually observations. They are interpretations of observations. Neither of us nor the large community of researchers have actually observed the mechanisms of variation and natural selection.

What we have observed are the end results. Interpreting the observations in an attempt to understand the mechanisms is what you and I are doing right now.

You are much more proficient than most posters. I appreciate discussing this with you. As we each explain our points of view, we learn as much as we are teaching.

Your point of view contains two errors. I understand well the temptation of these errors.

1) If two variations are present, where one is a much greater advantage than the other, the greater advantaged will not limit the lesser. Both variations will proliferate throughout the population over time. You state "if you have a variation with s = 0.001 but there is already in the population a variation with s = 0.01, then of course the variation with the lower s is not going to succeed. It can't compete with a better variation."

The variations only compete when they both are forced to compete for the same resources. I am sure you agree with that. We don't actually disagree.

2) This one is the important one. "natural selection increases the ability of the individual to do better in competition for scarce resources. A consequence of doing better in the competition is that the individuals will have relatively more offspring than other individuals."

Sounds good. But wording it this way makes it easy to misapply. Natural selection does not act on a variation at all. It acts only on individual organisms allowing reproduction of the organisms entire genome or not. There is no half way. That means that if a variation endows some advantage to gathering food or to escaping predators, that variation ultimately is an advantage to reproduction.

It is the variations effect on reproduction which the phrase natural selection is describing. Organisms well advantaged enjoy selection preference in that their genome proliferates through out the population.

My simulation does not contain any simulation engines which select anything. The eight sim engines do these things

1) In according with user parameters for, keep track of a large number of RNA sequences

2) In according with user parameters for, randomly alter a single nucleotide in a randomly selected RNA sequence

3) In according with user parameters for, randomly remove a single nucleotide in a randomly selected RNA sequence

4) In according with user parameters for, randomly add a random number of random nucleotides to a randomly selected RNA sequence.

5) In according with user parameters for, search each RNA sequence for constituent sequences which are arbitrarily assigned as endowing chemical activity which is fatal to the RNA sequence.

6) In according with user parameters for, search each RNA sequence for constituent sequences which are arbitrarily assigned as endowing chemical activity of unspecified advantage to replication to the RNA sequence.

7) In according with user parameters for, search each RNA sequence for constituent sequences which are arbitrarily assigned as endowing chemical activity of unspecified disadvantage to replication to the RNA sequence.

8) In according with user parameters for, search each RNA sequence for constituent sequences which are arbitrarily assigned as endowing replicative activity to the RNA sequence.

That's it. That is all of them. My simulation does nothing more. It does not message the RNA sequences. All results are an emergent resolution of these activities. No garbage in, simply because there is no garbage to be put in.

Here is how it works. Take a look at this section and comment on any errors here.

Every variation having arisen by mutation or activity of sexual reproduction or by any other means will either endow some, however small or great, advantage to replication or it will endow no advantage to replication.

This statement is true.

For the moment don't worry about what you feel I might be forgetting. You might be thinking "he is forgetting that some variations endow advantage but not to replication." Just follow the progression.

If the variation endows no advantage to replication what so ever, this variation will be replicated every time this organism reproduces. But since it does not endow any advantage to replication, this organism will reproduce with only the same robustness as all of its sisters. After a thousand generations, the number of organisms with this variation will remain the same percentage of organisms which the one in which it arose was of the entire colony. i.e. if there were ten organisms when the variation arose in a single organism, after 10 generations of reproduction unhindered by lack of resources. 1* repo_rate^10 organisms will contain the variation, while 10* repo_rate^10 will not contain the variation.

1/10 of the organisms contained the variation when the variation first arose, after 10 generations of unhindered reproduction still only 1/10 of the organisms contained the variation. The same proportion as when the variation first arose.

Natural selection does not operate on variations which do not effect replication. We understand that variation to be neutral.

A variation which endows no direct or indirect advantage to reproduction is simply not a variation which makes any difference at all. But there is more.

These paragraphs are true.

However, if the variation endows even a small advantage to reproduction such as a slight increase in the number of foods it can metabolize or a slight advantage to predator evasion, such that any organism which contains this variation has a replication rate of repo_rate*1.1. After 10 generations of reproduction unhindered by limitation of resources or predators the variation will have proliferated through out the population at a much higher rate. The variation will exist in not 10% of the population as before but in 22% In a hundred generations the variation will exist in 99% of the population.

Natural selection acts on even a slight advantage exponentially but the advantage is only available to be acted upon by the emergent process of natural selection if it effects reproduction even in the slightest.

These paragraphs are true.

But the world does not provide environments with unlimited resources and with out predators. So repo_rate is always +- some amount.

The activity of predators and limitation of resources after adjusting for disadvantage and other calculable factors will still provide some random offset to reproduction for each organism.

If that random component is +-0.3 but the variation endowing advantage to replication endows only a statistically insignificant increase compared to the mean deviation of the random component to replication, that variation endowing advantage never has the opportunity to effect the emergent process of natural selection.

If you can, please point out the error in these paragraphs.

If these last paragraphs are with out error, the implication is that there exists a lower limitation of reproduction advantage, below which a variation endowing advantage is the same as a neutral variation. It does not proliferate through out the population.

Jerry

One of my big interests is protein evolution. But still no luck on following the evolution of a protein. I have tried. No studies. No papers. No evidence it happens ever. Just flawed theories. No help from interested and knowledgeable people.

I wrote software to study it. The simulation gave me many things to think about which I did not expect to find. But it did not provide even a ghost of a pathway to the first protein.

Perhaps proteins never came into existence. Perhaps, proteins don't exist. (Just kidding. frustrating that I have to actually say that, lest some joker replies: "Proteins do exist, You're dumb." If you are this sort of member, please refrain from replying to this post.)

We observe 45,000 protein domains. Each of which is used over and over again throughout all proteins of all organisms.

There are two possible explanations for this repeated use.

1) There are many other peptide sequences which carry on useful chemical activities but only this set of 45,000 were selected by evolutionary processes and as such proteins for all organisms have a lineage traceable back to these domains. Or

2) Evolutionary processes have tried many or nearly all sequences and these 45,000 are the only ones which express useful chemistry, and therefore it is this conservation of function that dictates these same constituents for all proteins.

Each possibility carries important implications for evolution. Figuring out which will advance our understanding of evolution. There are many facts of which we are certain, that might make one of these possibilities more likely than the other.

There may already be enough information to make a confident choice. I don't have all that information but many forum members together may.

Express your interest and I will begin to post queries that make an attempt to organize the information in to a task resolution.

The first query is:

Do we observe splicing of protein coding genes which produce a protein coding mRNA with an incorrect splice at a point in the middle of the nucleotide sequence coding for a domain?

This is a crucial question. If no one is aware of any lab work or papers which document this observation, we can draw some incremental conclusions and ask the next question.

If there is interest, I will go further and explain further. I've already typed more than most like to read in one post.

Feel free to disagree with the possible reasons for the same domains being reused in all proteins. Post another possibility. That could be an important clue.

Jerry

Cheron,

very helpful thank you

JErry

You simply didn't read the whole post.

I was responding to a reply which suggested it was all impossible. I was simply suggesting from the top of my head possible ways a microorganisms might accomplish what was observed.

You are correct, air resistance against a long flagellum would keep it airborne. And considering size of the organism to the area of sunlight, transparency is not needed.

Your challenge to the claim that microbes play a larger role than dust is in direct opposition to the findings of the study, which found 69% to 100% of the various samples they examined were nucleated by this protein.

Jerry

It seems more diffucult for some than for others to adapt to new discoveries.

The things which my simulations have brought to my attention are not inconsistent with anything you have said. I suspect you are not understanding the simulation. Be careful to not OVER think the problem, and don't underestimate my skill.

Let me rephrase the post.

We all know that any mutation which is acted upon by natural selection must to a greater or lesser degree effect reproduction. Any mutation which has absolutely no effect on reproduction of the organism is a mutation which can not be acted upon by natural selection.

My simulation suggested that there is a lower limit to the degree of effect. If a mutation has less effect on reproduction than the random effects of environment and other temporary and random external effects on reproduction, natural selection can not operate on it.

So, a mutation which endows an unspecified slight advantage to reproduction, but less then that of random statistical variation (math term not biologic term,) is a mutation upon which natural selection can not operate.

You actually touch on this when you point out that an organism can not half reproduce. Just imagine an advantage which endows 0.0001 increased reproduction when natural variation in reproduction by random environmental conditions which might, alter reproduction at any given time by perhaps as high as 0.001.

Now you probably see what I mean. Natural selection can not operate on that advantageous mutation. Now, you probably realize that all the things that raised flags in your head were miscommunications. All that I am saying is that 0.00000000000....1 equals zero. I am applying that to limitations of natural selection operating on advantageous mutations.

Until I saw it in my very controlled simulations, I was unaware of this limitation to advantageous mutations. It appears you also were unaware of this limitation. Finding such as these are difficult or impossible to observe in vivo. And...

We have to be careful what we take from simulations and of what we have to be suspicious instead. I am very good at identifying the difference. Perhaps, better than you are, considering it took this long to explain my post to you.

Jerry

"A bit too simplistic. "

Actually no. Evolutionary selection can not operate on any mutation which has no direct or indirect effect on replication. The effect it has on replication may be very complex. A mutation which makes getting food easier effects replication probabilities pretty directly.

"The unit of selection is the individual,"

Of course.

"Define insignificant."

That is the point of my post. I do not know exactly what that value is. But it must exist.

This is true because evolutionary selection can not operate on any mutation which indirectly effects replication to a lesser degree than random variations in replications.

For example. If a given mutation effects replication advantageously such that any organism with that mutation replicates 1% more often than the average for that organism, but the average replication rate for that organism is 10% per month, and random environmental activity kills 9% per month, the 1% increase over 10% base rate will have a measurable effect if the population is 1000s but if the population is 300, you will find that the statistical variation negates an appreciable effect.

Now if we use realistic figures of billions of organisms and replication rates of 100 million +-10 million per 20 minutes, and random deaths of 100 million +- 10 million per 20 minutes, a mutation endowing less than a 0.1% advantage to replication no longer retains the statistical likelihood for selection. Not a little bit. Not at all. The advantage falls to less than 1% of the statistical variation.

This is the "threshold" in this case.

"LOL! It isn't necessary for "randomness" to be turned off"

Who is suggesting it is? Perhaps, you misunderstood.

"you have is a phenomenon called boom and bust. "

Now I know you misunderstood. My simulation is of EARLY evolution. Any first replicator must "boom" otherwise random nucleotide assembly would destroy it. It has no cell wall to protect it.

These are fundamental principles. Their application to evolution is to understand the process. Many studies, perhaps even such as the one you cite, attempt to use real world examples of processes we see today, to extrapolate evolutionary fundamental principles. The fault in this is that we can never know all the variables. The results may seem universal, when in fact they are applicable only to the small set of variables present in the observed real world example.

The only way to know all the variables is to make them our selves. By using this simulation, I can state every assumption and set every variable.

Jerry

1. Air buoyancy is not dependent on size. Reference a blimp. The organisms may be much larger but less dense due to their structure as directed by their genetics. They may also be transparent. Reference the proteins which make the lens of our eyes.

2. They may also be transparent. Reference the proteins which make the lens of our eyes.

3. They seem to be present at the altitude that 69% to 100% of rain nucleates.

Jerry

The only evolutionary imperative is replication. Any characteristics thought to have arisen by evolutionary process must do so by augmenting replication in some manner, since robustness of replication is the only characteristic which can be tested for adaptive success.

Nature tests replicative success when a species either succeeds and thrives or fails to thrive. Success validates a new characteristic's augmentation to replication, while replicative failure deselects the characteristic.

Replicative success is effected my many random factors at once. Any new characteristic effecting replication by some insignificant amount relative to the many other random factors, is lost in the "noise." That is to say, there exists a threshold of replicative augmentation below which a new characteristic can not have a lasting effect on replication and therefore can not be tested by natural selection.

An index of replicative augmentation can be derived for any new characteristic. Finding this index may be more complicated for some characteristics than for others, as its effect on replication may be complicated. A threshold value for this index can also be derived, values above which indicates testing by natural selection is possible and below which indicates testing by natural selection is voided by the random "noise" of other events effecting replication.

This threshold value will fall as the robustness of replication of any species rises because small effects of any new characteristic is amplified by each replication. That is to say, the effects of any new characteristic become more significant to replication.

This threshold value rises when a specie's rate of replication is slow. That is to say, the effects of any new characteristic must be greater to have significant enough effect to consistently overcome random effects on replication.

This threshold value falls if the specie's environment is deplete of other random influences to replication.

In a perfect evolutionary world, random mutation would produce a new characteristic, then randomness would turn off, to allow that characteristics to be tested by natural selection. While, in the real world, randomness does not switch off. Which means that any new characteristic must overcome the same randomness which spawned it.

This was suggested by playing with the robustness of replication and the probability of mutation parameters in First Colony early evolution simulation software.

http://www.satellitemagnet.com/firstcolony

I observed successful colonies of organisms if the ratio of replicative success and probability of mutation was higher than 1.4 Lower ratios resulted in dwindling populations and ultimate extinction. This suggests a threshold value less then but near 1.4.

Curiously, static populations are likely impossible. A species either thrives or dies. There seems to be no equilibrium to maintain a midway point. Only rapid growth which feeds on itself or inevitable deterioration, rapidly leading to extinction.

I will refine this threshold index further. 0.4 over unity is statistically very very high. Should this prove to be the threshold, creationists could easily develop a successful argument that the same probability of random mutation required to spawn mutation is just as likely to kill an organism before replication.

The argument would suggest that random mutation and natural selection could only simulate successful evolution in controlled simulations like First Colony.

The threshold must actually lie much closer to one to account for the assumptions of evolution.

Jerry

Surely enough sunlight to carry on any photo bio activity the organism needs but considering the surface area of each organism and the number of organisms the surface area ratio to area of sunlight is insignifcant. No effect.

However, the biological effects may be tremendious. Much more study is needed. But it could turn that the planets ecosystem is much much more responsive and adaptable than we ever imgined. The ground plants and animals, including humans, may be able to turn on or turn off rain at will. Sub conscience chemical signals may be telling these organisms when to turn rain on or off.

If that is so, it is likely other planetary systems, we thought was abiotic might turn out to be under biological control as well. If that is the case, we have nothing ecologically to worry about on this planet. The planets responce will be appropriate and very adequate. However, if the planet can bring to bear as powerful of a responce as rain making organisms suggest, we will not be able to significantly alter the planets responce to any environmental changes.

This does not mean that we will like the responce the earth choses to any environmental issue. In fact it may well be to our great disadvantage. It only means that if the earth can bring to bear that much power, we likily have little chance to change it.

Jerry

What an incredible idea!

Instead of making a hammer, an organism could make a protein coding gene and see if the new protein tissue works like it wants.

First of all, from an engineering point of view, it seems the genetic mechanisms are available for engineering. The mechanisms that would be needed to assemble a temporary sequence given intuitive instructions by thought alone, is little different than the biomechanisms which turn our thoughts into bio signals that actuate our muscles.

The problem would be there is no engineer to put the mechanisms together. I can not imagine a plausible evolutionary path that might arrange genetic mechanisms to produce a temporary nucleotide sequence according to our thoughts, then translate it to peptides and provide a sample for the organism to play with and test to see if it works like he wanted.

With a tool, we can make the handle longer or the hammer head heavier. To be a true biotool, the same testing and adjustment would have to be possible. This even applies when using a twig. Some twigs are too big and have to be discarded.

Jerry