Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
another declaratory with no basis in fact.Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
another declaratory with no basis in fact.Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
The idea we started with is pretty simple use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy. Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy. Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
Coincidences that built up over billions of years. I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy. Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism. Here is the link one more time. Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance. If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what REAL ID Theory purports, I would welcome your comments.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism. Here is the link one more time. Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance. If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what REAL ID Theory purports, I would welcome your comments.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
I watched a much briefer excerpt of Meyer describing his theory of ID. Basically, he said, "We have only seen intelligence create this complexity. Therefore, we should reasonably assume that intelligence is behind everything of a certain complexity.". I've never been impressed with the complexity argument. Without getting into that, however, it doesn't seem like a matter of science. A question of logic or reason, perhaps, but not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
I have no problem with someone saying that evolution is driven by intelligence, as Meyer seems to do. Apparently he believes in changes in life forms over time, he just doesn't believe it happened in a completely random manner. That's fine, I can get that belief. That does not, however, make it science.
Maybe scientist should,because it is illogical to believe that precise coincedences happen time after time.
Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID. ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind. No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened. Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism. Here is the link one more time. Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance. If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what REAL ID Theory purports, I would welcome your comments.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
I watched a much briefer excerpt of Meyer describing his theory of ID. Basically, he said, "We have only seen intelligence create this complexity. Therefore, we should reasonably assume that intelligence is behind everything of a certain complexity.". I've never been impressed with the complexity argument. Without getting into that, however, it doesn't seem like a matter of science. A question of logic or reason, perhaps, but not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
I have no problem with someone saying that evolution is driven by intelligence, as Meyer seems to do. Apparently he believes in changes in life forms over time, he just doesn't believe it happened in a completely random manner. That's fine, I can get that belief. That does not, however, make it science.
Guess your oversimplified version didn't flesh out all the details. His argument was not about complexity, but actual digital code. And his method was to use Lyell's and Darwin's method to arrive at the argument. So to say his theory is not science is to also discredit the theory of evolution.... a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it to. That is fine. You've made it clear you have no desire to know the REAL truth or investigate things further. You are as pathetic as people who follow religion with blind faith. The same saying that "if Jesus Christ showed up and told you Christianity was fake you wouldn't believe it" applies here. If Charles Darwin showed up and told you he made it all up, you would still cling to it. I will not waste any more time with you. It is pretty obvious you don't care to REALLY investigate what ID is all about.
We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
Coincidences that built up over billions of years. I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.
We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new traits to pass through the entire population as you say.
another declaratory with no basis in fact.Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
The idea we started with is pretty simple use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
project much?another declaratory with no basis in fact.Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
Characterizing the “Missing Era” of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. – would we recognize “prelife” if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we can’t quite see the full picture yet.
Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers – things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a “missing era” of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biosphere’s past.
The idea we started with is pretty simple – use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we don’t know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesn’t appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this “missing era” in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
Coincidences that built up over billions of years. I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.
We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new traits to pass through the entire population as you say.
How did you get different populations with different mutations, if an individual can only reproduce one like itself? Traits WILL spread within a population. Those you mention are either ones confined to a specific group, making isolation the reason it's rare in the general population, OR it's in the general population, making your objection moot BTW, and is rare because it's deleterious.
Maybe scientist should,because it is illogical to believe that precise coincedences happen time after time.
Perhaps, but your definition of precision differs from others', I think.
another declaratory with no basis in fact.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
The idea we started with is pretty simple use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution
project much?another declaratory with no basis in fact.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
The idea we started with is pretty simple use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
here's the experiment :PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
