Jump to content

abiogenesis via natural selection


Moontanman

Recommended Posts

This is a public forum. Members are entitled to comment on any remark by any other member.

 

 

The you need to work on your communication skills. Just for your information, though it has nothing to do with me, more than 50% of your posts come across as insulting and condescending. If that is not what you are aiming for I'm afraid you missed.

 

 

See what I mean?

 

On the abiogenesis topic, since you wish to return to it, you have several questionable ideas, some of which have been adequately challenged by Moontanman and others. Here are some that concerned me.

 

There is no fallacy here. What makes you think there is? Of course if life came from elsewhere it would have to originate elsewhere. That is a trivial statement. It is not a fallacious statement.

 

I'm fascinated by the topic of abiogenesis and have done a lot of reading in this area. Could you tell me which chemists have undertaken these tests. I am not aware of any serious attempts in this area. There are a huge number of experiments designed to investigate prebiotic chemistry, but no serious attempts that I know of designed to create life.

 

This is interesting: in your first statement below, directed I think at Moontanman, you criticise for vagueness, yet your remarks seem an excellent commentary upon your own second statement. To use your own well established liking for the corny vernacular, isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

 

 

 

Yet metaphorically this is precisely what we may be able to do through genome studies and cladistics. The one obstacle may be the practice of horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes.

 

Protozoans and lichens are incredibly advanced and sophisticated organisms. They were most certainly not the product of that initial event.

 

This has already been commented on, but there is no doubt, other than that which should be associated with all scientific pronouncements, that photosysnthesis was a relative latecomer.

 

Rigney, you readily admit, almost with an inverted snobbery, that your are ignorant of almost every aspect of this topic, yet you gaily assert that you believe this and you believe that, without an ounce of supporting evidence. I am curious. What do you think is the advantage in that?

 

Snobbery? Perhaps perverse, but not inverted. And the ignorance thing?, you're absolutely right. It's because of that fact alone I come to this speculations section of the forum. And it is Speculations, right? I do inquire a lot, simply because, as you so graciously informed me, most of my answers are questionable right down to being inane. But I don't think it was necessary for you to read the riot act to me over it. This is Moons post and if he thinks I'm getting in the way?, well that's Moons business. Now, can we get back to Abiogenesis?

 

He's right though... copying DNA (look up PCR) is a fairly simple process, at least if someone hands you the ingredients as in my case. Easier than making a pie in my opinion. Of course, if I had to get the ingredients myself that would be a different story, but the same would be true for the pie.

 

I'd really like to get away from the incident if we can. but I do have a question on the ozone layer that I'd like to get your opinion on. I looked all over Google trying to find something less than vague, but come up empty. And that is, even after the earth cooled to something less than a melting pot, how would oceans have formed before evaporation had created the ozone layer to contain an atmosphere? If there was a lot of liquid at that time, wouldn't it likely to have been boiling? Or did evaporation have anything to do with the ozone layer at all? As Ophiolite says, everything I have are questions; but only questions, because I don't have answers. Some of you guys do and I would appreciate your thought on this.

 

Moon gave me his opinion below, but I'm still cofused?

 

Moontanman Posted Yesterday, 04:45 PM

The modern ozone layer as we know it is thought to have come from oxygen generated by cyanobacteria. Some photosynthetic bacteria do not release oxygen and they are thought to predate the ones that do. I personally think that some was probably generated by disassociation of water by UV light in the upper atmosphere. So how does this apply to the earth having oceans?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really seeing the connection between an ozone layer and an atmosphere, nor between an ozone layer and oceans. The way ozone is formed in our atmosphere is UV light hits oxygen (O2) turns it into a different allotrope of oxygen, ozone (O3). This of course requires the presence of oxygen. The ozone layer blocks UV light, light which can damage complex organic molecules. But small inorganic molecules for the most part wouldn't really care, especially since most of them will be in the lowest energy state anyways. For example if you split H2O you get hydrogen and oxygen, but these two will spontaneously react to form H2O again given enough time or a catalyst.

 

Generally, I've been hearing that the early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere. Since oxygen is an oxidizer, it would have trouble surviving in a reducing atmosphere in any significant amounts, as it would instead react with something. The same would be even more true for ozone.

 

Another effect that the ozone layer has is to modify the heat conveyed by sunlight. By absorbing some sunlight far up in the atmosphere, it will slightly reduce the temperature that reaches the surface. I suppose that could have a slight effect on ocean formation, but then you have to explain where all the oxygen came from (the standard explanation is from photosynthesis in the early oceans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really seeing the connection between an ozone layer and an atmosphere, nor between an ozone layer and oceans. The way ozone is formed in our atmosphere is UV light hits oxygen (O2) turns it into a different allotrope of oxygen, ozone (O3). This of course requires the presence of oxygen. The ozone layer blocks UV light, light which can damage complex organic molecules. But small inorganic molecules for the most part wouldn't really care, especially since most of them will be in the lowest energy state anyways. For example if you split H2O you get hydrogen and oxygen, but these two will spontaneously react to form H2O again given enough time or a catalyst.

 

Generally, I've been hearing that the early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere. Since oxygen is an oxidizer, it would have trouble surviving in a reducing atmosphere in any significant amounts, as it would instead react with something. The same would be even more true for ozone.

 

Another effect that the ozone layer has is to modify the heat conveyed by sunlight. By absorbing some sunlight far up in the atmosphere, it will slightly reduce the temperature that reaches the surface. I suppose that could have a slight effect on ocean formation, but then you have to explain where all the oxygen came from (the standard explanation is from photosynthesis in the early oceans).

 

I'm glad you didn't just shut me down. Ringer came up with the perfect reasoning for my ignorance. I'm too damn old to grasp so much in so little time. People who did the experiments with DNA and RNA development, I pretty much got that. But, here's a thing I got off Google today: Quote: Huge glaciers scraped out big holes where oceans formed. I know there are better answers than that, just don't know how to find them? My question was simply, how and why did ocean(s) form at all? I didn't even ask where the water came from?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rigney, do you have a link to that?

 

Yep!, thanks to you; I do! Just dialed up Skeptic and tried relating my inadequacy to him. You guys are so damn far above my head it pisses me off. I'd quit completely, but there is so much to learn. The topic?, wish I knew more about it. Got a million questions, but would settle out of court, if I had just one answer.

 

This is a public forum. Members are entitled to comment on any remark by any other member.

 

 

The you need to work on your communication skills. Just for your information, though it has nothing to do with me, more than 50% of your posts come across as insulting and condescending. If that is not what you are aiming for I'm afraid you missed.

 

 

See what I mean?

 

On the abiogenesis topic, since you wish to return to it, you have several questionable ideas, some of which have been adequately challenged by Moontanman and others. Here are some that concerned me.

 

There is no fallacy here. What makes you think there is? Of course if life came from elsewhere it would have to originate elsewhere. That is a trivial statement. It is not a fallacious statement.

 

I'm fascinated by the topic of abiogenesis and have done a lot of reading in this area. Could you tell me which chemists have undertaken these tests. I am not aware of any serious attempts in this area. There are a huge number of experiments designed to investigate prebiotic chemistry, but no serious attempts that I know of designed to create life.

 

This is interesting: in your first statement below, directed I think at Moontanman, you criticise for vagueness, yet your remarks seem an excellent commentary upon your own second statement. To use your own well established liking for the corny vernacular, isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

 

 

 

Yet metaphorically this is precisely what we may be able to do through genome studies and cladistics. The one obstacle may be the practice of horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes.

 

Protozoans and lichens are incredibly advanced and sophisticated organisms. They were most certainly not the product of that initial event.

 

This has already been commented on, but there is no doubt, other than that which should be associated with all scientific pronouncements, that photosysnthesis was a relative latecomer.

 

Rigney, you readily admit, almost with an inverted snobbery, that your are ignorant of almost every aspect of this topic, yet you gaily assert that you believe this and you believe that, without an ounce of supporting evidence. I am curious. What do you think is the advantage in that?

 

Just be careful with using the word gaily. Some of us still think of it as fun between 'opposite" sexes.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really seeing the connection between an ozone layer and an atmosphere, nor between an ozone layer and oceans. The way ozone is formed in our atmosphere is UV light hits oxygen (O2) turns it into a different allotrope of oxygen, ozone (O3). This of course requires the presence of oxygen. The ozone layer blocks UV light, light which can damage complex organic molecules. But small inorganic molecules for the most part wouldn't really care, especially since most of them will be in the lowest energy state anyways. For example if you split H2O you get hydrogen and oxygen, but these two will spontaneously react to form H2O again given enough time or a catalyst.

 

Generally, I've been hearing that the early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere. Since oxygen is an oxidizer, it would have trouble surviving in a reducing atmosphere in any significant amounts, as it would instead react with something. The same would be even more true for ozone.

 

Another effect that the ozone layer has is to modify the heat conveyed by sunlight. By absorbing some sunlight far up in the atmosphere, it will slightly reduce the temperature that reaches the surface. I suppose that could have a slight effect on ocean formation, but then you have to explain where all the oxygen came from (the standard explanation is from photosynthesis in the early oceans).

 

I had previously went to google with the question: "How were primordial oceans formed"? I didn't come away still totally ignorant, but there was basically nothing I hadn't read about the processs somewhere before. And other than some dedicated folks making it a life career of running down a few of the facts to provide them as hard evidence, most is still hypothetical and conjectural. What I'm trying to say or ask is, when the earth finally attained its spherical shape, supposidly it was very hot. Apparently, all kinds of pyrotechnics continued to go off for years. Volcanoes, earhhquakes, technocic movement and whatever. Some later later, things began to cool down. My question is, with such intense heat from the sun, the earth still rather volitile and water rapidly evaporating as free Hydrogen and Oxygen, wouldn't they; along with other gases have continued to rise and escape into outer space to simply disappear, had not the ozone layer been formed sufficiently to contain them?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had previously went to google with the question: "How were primordial oceans formed"? I didn't come away still totally ignorant, but there was basically nothing I hadn't read somewhere before. And other than some dedicated folks making it a life career to run down some of the facts we have, most is still hypothetical and conjectural. What I'm trying to say or ask is, when the earth finally attained its spherical shape, supposidly it was very hot. Apparently, all kinds of pyrotechnics continued to happen for years. Volcanoes, earhhquakes, technocic movement and whatever. At some time later, things began to cool down. My question, with such intense heat from the sun, and water rapidly evaporating as Hydrogen and Oxygen, wouldn't they; along with other gases have continued to rise into outer space and simply disappear without the ozone layer having been formed sufficiently enough to trap them in?

 

 

Rigney, the ozone layer does not trap anything in, it keeps UV radiation out, the Earths gravity is what keeps our atmosphere in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, with such intense heat from the sun, the earth still rather volitile and water rapidly evaporating as free Hydrogen and Oxygen, wouldn't they; along with other gases have continued to rise and escape into outer space to simply disappear, had not the ozone layer been formed sufficiently to contain them?

 

The ozone layer is a gas, not some sort of airtight container. Gravity keeps our atmosphere from floating into space, and this includes our ozone.

 

Oh, and ozone is also a greenhouse gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ozone layer is a gas, not some sort of airtight container. Gravity keeps our atmosphere from floating into space, and this includes our ozone.

 

Oh, and ozone is also a greenhouse gas.

 

The statement was presented wrongly with my approach to it. And as you say, the ozone layer is a gas and a product of oxygen being reassembled by sunlight. Its density? Right now we are in a situation of losing helium at an extreme rate as it escapes into outer space because of industrial necessity and that the ozone layer isn't a glass bubble. From what I gather, the layer is created through a process of the sun reacting with oxygen. Can't go any farther that 'cause I haven't a clue. But we're extremely luckt to have it hovering above us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't think it was necessary for you to read the riot act to me over it.
I didn't. I'm not authorised to read the riot act to you. If you don't want critiqued for writing nonsense' date=' don't write nonsense.

 

Now, can we get back to Abiogenesis?
That's what I did. You chose to ignore the questions I asked and not to address the points I raised. Will you respond this time?

 

1. Would you now agree that is is not a fallacious argument to suggest pan spermia is plausible, simply because this moves the location of abiogenesis? If not, why not?

2. Which experiments have been conducted with the intention of creating life?

3. Would you agree that the combination of cladistics and genome analysis may eventually allow us to determine the approximate character of the last common ancestor for all life? If not, why not?

4. Would you agree that protozoans and lichens were definitely not the first life forms? If not, why not?

5. Would you agree that photosynthesis post-dated the very earliest life forms? If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't. I'm not authorised to read the riot act to you. If you don't want critiqued for writing nonsense, don't write nonsense.

 

That's what I did. You chose to ignore the questions I asked and not to address the points I raised. Will you respond this time?

 

1. Would you now agree that is is not a fallacious argument to suggest pan spermia is plausible, simply because this moves the location of abiogenesis? If not, why not?

2. Which experiments have been conducted with the intention of creating life?

3. Would you agree that the combination of cladistics and genome analysis may eventually allow us to determine the approximate character of the last common ancestor for all life? If not, why not?

4. Would you agree that protozoans and lichens were definitely not the first life forms? If not, why not?

5. Would you agree that photosynthesis post-dated the very earliest life forms? If not, why not?

 

Let me first say, what you may consider my nonsence, to me; can be life's blessings.

 

#5. Not necessarily. If land based plants were the origin of life, perhaps photosynthesis would have beaten them by a whisker, but not much. If life began deep in an ocean? Probably later. In a mud puddle?, it's a toss up.

 

#4, It's very likely these two different life forms mutated over many eons, because each is multicelluiar.

 

#3, Tracking each group to its origin will likely produce a common ancestry linking the two.

 

#2. None as I know of, other than Dolly the sheep, the Frankenstein monster and stem cell research. Well, maybe a couple others? But no, to my knowledge, RNA and DNA seem to have been used primarily for this research.

 

#1. Since sugars and other basic building blocks have been found in meteorites, perhaps life came from outer space? But with Abiogenesis?, we do have a lot of good places and things to look for it at our disposal.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ophiolite, good, bad or indifferent; I answered your questions, and have been on vacation for over a week. Yet, you have made no response. Are we going to let Moon's thoughts of Abiogenesis die because of my ignorance, or your reluctance to continue on the subject?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ophiolite, good, bad or indifferent; I answered your questions, and have been on vacation for over a week. Yet, you have made no response. Are we going to let Moon's thoughts of Abiogenesis die because of my ignorance, or your reluctance to continue on the subject?

You have been on vacation for a week. I've been working my ass off. Do you think I might be permitted a break from construction of a response that will require more work on my part?

#5. Not necessarily. If land based plants were the origin of life, perhaps photosynthesis would have beaten them by a whisker, but not much. If life began deep in an ocean? Probably later. In a mud puddle?, it's a toss up.

1. The evidence is unequivocal: land based plants are very recent entries in the game of life. If you require references for this generally known snippet I shall oblige.

2. The first organisms were heterotrophs, taking their energy from their immediate environment. Organisms capable of photosynthesis followed these. They did not precede them. I f you require references I shall provide.

 

 

#4, It's very likely these two different life forms mutated over many eons, because each is multicelluiar.

Is that a yes, or a no?

 

#3, Tracking each group to its origin will likely produce a common ancestry linking the two.
Was that a yes?

 

#2. None as I know of, other than Dolly the sheep, the Frankenstein monster and stem cell research. Well, maybe a couple others? But no, to my knowledge, RNA and DNA seem to have been used primarily for this research.

So your statement that "Chemists have for several years tried to concoct different brews in an effort to bring about some simple form of life,..." was incorrect?

 

#1. Since sugars and other basic building blocks have been found in meteorites, perhaps life came from outer space? But with Abiogenesis?, we do have a lot of good places and things to look for it at our disposal.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Rigney, I am not trying to give you a hard time, but through your imprecise use of language and your vague claims and statements you are certainly giving me a hard time. My questions and observations are designed to try to elicit what it is you are thinking and sometimes why you are thinking it. Only then can we know if we have something to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been on vacation for a week. I've been working my ass off. Do you think I might be permitted a break from construction of a response that will require more work on my part?

1. The evidence is unequivocal: land based plants are very recent entries in the game of life. If you require references for this generally known snippet I shall oblige.

2. The first organisms were heterotrophs, taking their energy from their immediate environment. Organisms capable of photosynthesis followed these. They did not precede them. I f you require references I shall provide.

 

 

Is that a yes, or a no?

 

Was that a yes?

 

 

So your statement that "Chemists have for several years tried to concoct different brews in an effort to bring about some simple form of life,..." was incorrect?

 

 

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Rigney, I am not trying to give you a hard time, but through your imprecise use of language and your vague claims and statements you are certainly giving me a hard time. My questions and observations are designed to try to elicit what it is you are thinking and sometimes why you are thinking it. Only then can we know if we have something to discuss.

 

I hope you didn't think that. Yet I thought it rather excoriating for you to say: "but through your imprecise use of language and your vague claims and statements"! / "Only then can we know if we have something to discuss". Were those statements meant to be conjunctive?

And your stand on heterotrophs as opposed to autotrophs being first life, you may be right. However as I read it, heterotrophs depend on other living organisms to survive, even their own kind; while autotrophs consume their natural elemental surroundings. Then I read that heterotrophs may have originally started this way. I'm no scientist and have been on this forum about three months or so now and have few answers, many questions and some arguement. Finding Moons theory on abiogenesis interesting, thought perhaps I might inject something making sense, even though conjectural. Sorry to have given you the wrong impression.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still like you to answer my questions. Questions that I have had to repeat. Then I can focus on the other points you have made and questions you have asked.

 

No, I don't think that me trying to explain farther would satisfy your inquisitiveness as to how I answered your questions to start with. As I said, I'm no scientist and would think that you could see that from the get-go. When you pose questions as such, I try going immediately to google for an answer, since I generally don't have a clue. What answers I gave were short excerpts from research that has already been done.

 

Someone very intelligent came up with this rudimentary plan of progression for both plants and animals. Have I read it all? No! Only a little.

 

Life on Earth

view • discuss • edit

-4500 —–-4000 —–-3500 —–-3000 —–-2500 —–-2000 —–-1500 —–-1000 —–-500 —–0 —Life?Photosynthesis?Eukaryotes, Complex multicellular life, Animals, Land plants "Dinosaurs" Mammals, Flowers ←Formation of earth- Meteorite bombardment←Atmospheric oxygen←Ediacara biota←Cambrian explosion←Modern-looking

humans Axis scale: millions of years ago.The basic timeline is a 4.5 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:

 

3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3 billion years of photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,

25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. I'm just trying to get you to say yes or no to some very simple questions. You say you are not a scientist, which is fine, but you felt you had enough knowledge to express an opinion on certain matters. Your statements were ambiguous. Your refusal or inability to remove that ambiguity by answering yes or no leaves me as much in the dark as to your views as ever. I cannot inform you, or direct you to sources of information if I do not know the location and extent of your ignorance. You don't seem interested in addressing that. Consequently I can be of no service to you and I'm out of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.