Abiogenesis and Evolution

[SkyWriting]

The theory fully embraces organisms dying.

So how would that lead to abiogenesis?

 

[SkyWriting]

Which is the only logical way to have bacterium reproduce since their job in nature is to take care of decaying matter - would be by binary fission.

What non living decaying matter are we referring to?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What non living decaying matter are we referring to?

They take care of decaying matter that was once alive. All of it. All of the trees, grass, animals - as they die the bacteria's job is to decompose it back into inorganic matter - the dust it started as so it just doesn't sit there year after year after year. Without that bacteria something dead would just lie where it died for ages. The evolutionists know the importance of this bacteria - which is why fossils exists, because they were buried quickly without air and bacteria could not begin the decomposition they were designed to perform. Every form of life on this planet has a specific job to perform in the ecosystem. A non-random job assigned from the start - built into their genomes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Abiogenesis has simple species emerging from non-living matter, not complex modern species.

We agree - abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. Living organisms from non-living matter. Descent from non-similar organisms. Your complex versus simple strawman holds no water. Simple life is alive - are you now going to claim the dust was alive before it became those simple organisms. Or are you going to actually be honest for once on this forum and just admit that living organisms from non-living matter is spontaneous generation.

Did the failed attempt at the first powered flight disprove airplanes?

The first powered flight was successful and showed the promise that it held.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer

Strawmen are useless and just end up showing your reliance on untruths in your attempt to defend spontaneous generation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd like to know, in the abiogenesis model, what the life mated with to create more life?

Why with itself of course - even if we understand that today it takes a set number of a population to keep a species viable due to the loss of genetic perfection as the years go by. If mutation and increasing complexity were true, it would not require a minimum number of individuals to sustain a population.

But since genetic information has been lost over the ages - we see why it is now needed compared to the past when the genome was complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

Life is not becoming more complex - but is loosing genetic information over the years from those mutations which are damaging the genome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication,"

No new information is ever gained. Mutations affect only what already exists - damaging it - new information is only gained when two different infraspecific taxa mate and exchange genetic information - if - one has genetic information the other lost. Otherwise information is just rearranged into new dominant and recessive traits. We have never observed anything else even with 200+ years of actual mutational experiments with breeding animals and plants.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why with itself of course - even if we understand that today it takes a set number of a population to keep a species viable due to the loss of genetic perfection as the years go by. If mutation and increasing complexity were true, it would not require a minimum number of individuals to sustain a population.

That only applies to animals that reproduce sexually. The first life would have been similar to bacteria and other simple life forms that reproduced by fission. But thanks for telling us that the Noah's Ark story is wrong.

But since genetic information has been lost over the ages - we see why it is now needed compared to the past when the genome was complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

Life is not becoming more complex - but is loosing genetic information over the years from those mutations which are damaging the genome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication,"

No new information is ever gained. Mutations affect only what already exists - damaging it - new information is only gained when two different infraspecific taxa mate and exchange genetic information - if - one has genetic information the other lost. Otherwise information is just rearranged into new dominant and recessive traits. We have never observed anything else even with 200+ years of actual mutational experiments with breeding animals and plants.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Sorry but now you are simply repeating the refuted nonsense of John Sanford. Mutations are not damage, they are by definition "New information". Sometimes that information is bad. Natural selection eliminates those. Sometimes the information is neutral, natural selection has no effect on those mutations. Sometimes the mutation is positive. Natural selection makes those mutations more likely to be passed on. No "degradation" of the genome. Simply change over time. The human genome is a bad example to use since man's advances have largely removed natural selection so people that would naturally have died off tend to survive. Don't worry, we can put off natural selection for only a limited period of time. Sooner or later we will have to learn how to clean our genome or our genome will be cleaned for us. The so called "degradation" that can be seen in man's genome does not appear in nature.

 

[Gene2memE]

The first powered flight was successful and showed the promise that it held.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer

Strawmen are useless and just end up showing your reliance on untruths in your attempt to defend spontaneous generation.

Bad example. There were thousands of failed attempts at heavier than air aircraft before the Wright brothers got into the air. Even then, most of their early attempts ended up cracked and broken.

Besides, the Wright Flyer was only the first powered heavier-than-air aircraft to carry a human passenger. It was the culmination of about 350 years of experiment and gradually advancingvaviation technology.

The principles for manned heavier-than-air aircraft were developed over from the mid 1600s onwards and formally laid out in 1799 by Cayley, fully 103 years before Wilbur and Orvil got into the air. Model glider flights had been made as early as the 1650s.

Manned balloon flight had been around for 120 years before the Wright Flyer.
Powered balloons and other lighter-than-air aircraft had been flying for 50 years.
Manned glider flights had been around for about 80 years. Otto Lillienthal made better than 2000 manned glider flights before the Wright brothers ever started building anything.

If you were hoping to somehow disparage research into abiogeneis by comparing it aviation, let them work on the problem for another 250-300 years. If nothing is solved by then, then by all means, make fun of the research.

 

[Loudmouth]

So how would that lead to abiogenesis?

Who said it would?

 

[Loudmouth]

We agree - abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

Who is this "we"?

Spontaneous generation is the frequent emergence of modern animals from non-living matter in short time periods

Abiogenesis is the extremely rare emergence of simple replicators from non-living matter over long time periods.

Not the same thing.

Your complex versus simple strawman holds no water. Simple life is alive - are you now going to claim the dust was alive before it became those simple organisms. Or are you going to actually be honest for once on this forum and just admit that living organisms from non-living matter is spontaneous generation.

Why doesn't it hold water?

Also, how would the theory of evolution need to be changed if the first simple replicators were created by an intelligence of some kind, followed by the natural evolution of all life from that point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why with itself of course - even if we understand that today it takes a set number of a population to keep a species viable due to the loss of genetic perfection as the years go by.

Are the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps a loss of genetic perfection from our shared ancestor?

 

[ecco]

.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps a loss of genetic perfection from our shared ancestor?

And yes - any mutation is damage. What was once a perfect genome is becoming corrupted over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements."

There haven't been 40 million mutations. It is your incorrect labeling as to what mutation is.

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.

And every person born underwent a permanent change in his or her genomes as they were recombined into different dominant and recessive traits - all occurring by the natural process of those genes recombining. So yes - you can show us where this change occurred naturally - without mutations - for it damages the genome and we know these sites are not damaged sites. You can also show us where DNA was inserted through HGT. Which you confuse as being relatedness.

We are not debating the correctness of the data - just YOUR interpretation of that data - contrary to all observations of how life propagates.

 

[Loudmouth]

There haven't been 40 million mutations. It is your incorrect labeling as to what mutation is.

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.

That is exactly what I am talking about. There are 40 million permanent changes to the nucleotide sequences of the human and chimp genomes that separate them as species.

Are you saying that all 40 million of these mutations are harmful?

And every person born underwent a permanent change in his or her genomes as they were recombined into different dominant and recessive traits - all occurring by the natural process of those genes recombining.

That's not what a mutation is. A mutation would produce a new allele not found in either parent.

So yes - you can show us where this change occurred naturally - without mutations - for it damages the genome and we know these sites are not damaged sites. You can also show us where DNA was inserted through HGT. Which you confuse as being relatedness.

Here is a comparison of the chimp and human genome.

You will notice that out of 420 bases there are 11 places where the genomes are different. These are permanent changes to the nucleotide sequence of each genome. These are mutations.

Also, no chimp has the human sequence, and no human has the chimp sequence. These mutations weren't caused by HGT, either. HGT doesn't cause single substitution mutations. It inserts big chunks of DNA.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

We are not debating the correctness of the data - just YOUR interpretation of that data - contrary to all observations of how life propagates.

You don't even know what a mutation is, and you want to judge the interpretations made by trained geneticists across the world? Ego much?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And yes - any mutation is damage. What was once a perfect genome is becoming corrupted over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements."

There haven't been 40 million mutations. It is your incorrect labeling as to what mutation is.

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.

It must be noted that you have, let's say accidentally, misrepresented what the wiki article is saying. You have quoted it as evidence that mutation = damage when in fact it states that damage is only one way mutations occur. It says mutations can occur as the result of damage OR replication errors OR by insertion/deletion by mobile genetic elements. If you want to support the notion that mutation is synonymous with damage you will have to look elsewhere.

So yes - you can show us where this change occurred naturally - without mutations - for it damages the genome and we know these sites are not damaged sites.

Please cite the source that describes how we can identify what damaged DNA looks like and (this part is crucial to your argument so please don't forget to include it) evidence demonstrating that all mutations produce these identifiable markers of damaged DNA.

 

[In situ]

What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if the first life on Earth were created by God, and all the life and species we see today evolved through natural processes from that first created life that we all share as a common ancestor?

Unfortunately my CV does not extend this type of job description so based on my limited none-existing experience as God I can only make an unqualified preliminary guess of; nothing, except for a couple of rabbits and an empty bottle of Jack Daniel's in the pre-cambrian rock layers as a start up. Then it would be good to go I guess. ... Oh did I forget the popcorn and the 6-pack of beers to watch the after match with?

 

[whois]

It must be noted that you have, let's say accidentally, misrepresented what the wiki article is saying. You have quoted it as evidence that mutation = damage when in fact it states that damage is only one way mutations occur. It says mutations can occur as the result of damage OR replication errors OR by insertion/deletion by mobile genetic elements. If you want to support the notion that mutation is synonymous with damage you will have to look elsewhere.



Please cite the source that describes how we can identify what damaged DNA looks like and (this part is crucial to your argument so please don't forget to include it) evidence demonstrating that all mutations produce these identifiable markers of damaged DNA.

what exactly is a "mutation"?
could HGT be considered a mutation?
gene duplication?
transposons?
gene loss?

i always considered a mutation as some kind of "error" such as protein misfolding or faulty transcription.

 

[In situ]

what exactly is a "mutation"?

Wikipedia is your friend.
.

 

[Loudmouth]

what exactly is a "mutation"?

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

could HGT be considered a mutation?

Yes. It would be considered an insertion mutation.

gene duplication?

Yes. That would also be an insertion mutation, or more precisely an insertion caused by genetic recombination.

transposons?

Yes.
". . . or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements."

gene loss?

Yes. Loss of DNA is a deletion mutation. Insertion and deletion mutations are often put into the same word, indel. This is because when you compare two genomes you can't always differentiate between a loss of DNA in one lineage or an insertion of DNA into another. Only when you compare multiple genomes from multiple species can you rebuild the ancestral genome and whether indels are through insertion or deletion of DNA. Things such as transposons and ERV's are bit easier to tag as insertions since we know that they aren't created by deletions.

i always considered a mutation as some kind of "error" such as protein misfolding or faulty transcription.

Neither of those are heritable.

 

[In situ]

when you compare two genomes you can't always differentiate between a loss of DNA in one lineage or an insertion of DNA into another. Only when you compare multiple genomes from multiple species can you rebuild the ancestral genome

And because we have the gorilla that is why we know humans are the mutant freak when compared to the chimpanzee. (Oh well we could tell that from Chr-2 as well, but whatever...)

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A small clean up was done on this page to remove some Flaming/Goading posts. Please remember to address the content of the post not the poster personally. This includes making comments about a group of members. Also, if a post is in violation report it and do not reply to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~