Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 02:59pm PT
|
Hey BASE104, Just want to say thanks for your super interesting posts about core samples and geological layers. Really fascinating for me to hear about the things you find out as a byproduct of searching for oil.
I also wonder about whether the creation of life was a one time occurrence or an ongoing process. Seems to me that it almost has to be an ongoing process when ever conditions are right. But, if all life has the same genome foundation, then it is hard to argue that there are multiple sources of life. Perhaps our strand of life became so dominant that it is just extremely difficult to find examples of competing strands, or that those other strands are at such a basic level that we do not recognize them as life. Lets take viruses for instance. I have no idea how viruses come into existence or whether it is possible to trace a viral family tree.
Another possibility is that there was such a free sharing of genetic material and proteins in the early stages of life development that the contributions of various strands of life are all intermixed. Like rock climbers in a way. Many of us could trace our heritage back through our teachers, but there has been such a sharing of information that we all have fairly similar ways of climbing. We have similarities not because we all learned from the same individual, but because we have learned from the same larger community with its shared knowledge and evolving traditions.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 12:00am PT
|
If you take the idea that you put a lot of ingredients into the soup and cook it until life comes out, you have an issue with the recipe, and knowing what ingredients are available to you.
The problem with DNA and with RNA is the difficulty of creating them in the first place from the primordial ooze. People have tried... so there is a retrenching and attempts at other recipes... here is an interesting one
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3868.full
PNAS April 11, 2000 vol. 97 no. 8 3868-3871
Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule
Kevin E. Nelson, Matthew Levy, and Stanley L. Miller
But my suspicion is that we can keep trying to work through the possible combinations and never stumble upon "the one" and even more tragic, we might have it in the lab and not recognize it...
in the paper: Nonenzymatic Template-directed Synthesis of Informational Macromolecules by G.F. JOYCE Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Volume 52, p41 (1987) http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/52/41.full.pdf we get a flavor of what reducing the problem to it's essence is all about:
"Two informational processes are fundamental to the operation of an evolving system. First, the genetic information must be replicated in order to compensate for the inevitable loss of individual copies due to chemical degradation. Second, the genetic information must be expressed as a behavioral phenotype so that its usefulness can be assessed by natural selection. In biology, both of these processes rely on the use of a polymerase enzyme. Following the central dogma, replication utilizes a DNA-dependent DNA polymerase to produce additional copies of itself, whereas expression utilizes a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to produce mRNA, which is then translated to protein. A modern extension of the central dogma would include RNA viral genomes that can be replicated by an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and RNA enzymes that are transcribed directly from DNA.
In trying to capture the ability to evolve catalytic materials in the laboratory, we ask, What are the minimum requirements for the construction of a chemical evolving system? The basic requirement is for an informational macromolecule that can be replicated irrespective of its primary sequence and can be expressed as a behavioral phenotype in a way that is sequence-dependent. If the system is to be self-sustaining, then it is also required that the ability to carry out replication and expression be part of the expressed phenotype. Taking a cue from biology, the most attractive candidates for the role of informational macromolecule are those compounds that have inherent template properties. Templating greatly simplifies the task of information transfer during the replication process. The ideal candidate would be a polymer that acts as a template to direct the synthesis of additional copies of itself. Biology has settled on a slightly more complicated solution by relying on the reciprocal synthesis of complementary templates."
but this is still descriptive, and still relates to the recipe ingredients that we know about, not the general problem of abiogenesis, though you can see it going in that direction. The paper concludes with a promising candidate reaction, but concludes that there are known problems with that candidate.
The more general problem is also discussed at this symposium: Evolution of the Genetic Apparatus: A Review by L.E. ORGEL Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Volume 52, p9 (1987) http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/52/9.full.pdf+html here we get a discussion of "genetic chemistry" and some of the more general issues: "The first appearance of a mechanism of molecular memory based on replication was a crucial event in the origins of life. Any macromolecule, however remarkable its properties, must ultimately have decomposed. Without a memory mechanism, it could have had no long-term effect on the chemistry of its environment. Only macromolecules that operated on their environment to produce further copies of themselves had an evolutionary future. This seems to be generally accepted. Everything about the nature of the first replicating molecules on the primitive earth remains controversial."
If you've read down this far you probably have formed an opinion that this is all a work in progress, much work has been done to try to put the pieces together and see if it all works out, and though much has been learned, it is usually in the form of a "failed" hypothesis.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 12:48am PT
|
Those are interesting reads, Ed.
It seems that the crux of the biscuit is discovering a credible hypothesis s to how life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules through strictly "naturalistic" means, whereby inorganic matter organized itself.
This to be sounds like trying to explain a supposedly mechanical procedure sans a mechanism. Not sure I follow how that's workable.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 01:02am PT
|
it may not be workable, but it is the pursuit of a hypothesis of abiogenesis... in comprehensive reviews the possibility of material getting to Earth by meteorite collision is often invoked when the going gets rough for purely terrestrial mechanisms... turning the "Great Bombardment" into some crazed egg/sperm "dance," a bit violent.
Of course, that pushes the abiogenesis to some other place and time, guaranteeing that we will not reveal the mechanism by puttering around in the lab with all those molecules, forcing the issue of creating a theory which explains how such physical systems can exist.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 04:12am PT
|
This to be sounds like trying to explain a supposedly mechanical procedure sans a mechanism. Not sure I follow how that's workable.
Largo, even if replicating organic biochemistry was of metaphysical origins, at some point these systems were physically manifest. And given the many strange molecular mechanisms variously involved in these replications it's a safe bet the first manifestations were pretty damn simple. So simple, and potentially something obtuse or completely out of left field, that it may be on par with looking for a particular grain of sand on a beach. It could also easily be something we might never think in hundreds of years given how many permutations over millions of years it likely took to manifest itself into a form we can recognize.
I for one certainly don't believe there was any molecular Adam and Eve conjured in whole fabric out of some metaphysical consciousness. But however it got going, it's a fascinating exercise in imagination to even try narrowing it down.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:01am PT
|
healyje -- "I for one certainly don't believe ..."
The proponents here of modern science has prided itself immensely on basis of facts and that religion is it based on the inferior method of belief, faith and fairy tales.
Instead we see its proponents constant contradictions and hypocrisy.
healyie -- "But however it got going, it's a fascinating exercise in imagination ... "
Here again the same contradiction and hypocrisy when modern science says in their quest for knowledge "it's a fascinating exercise in imagination"
Modern science caught with it's pants down and foot in mouth.
Thus "they make up sh!t as they go along" under the guise of "Science"
Just saying ..... :-)
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:13am PT
|
Modern science caught with it's pants down and foot in mouth.
Thus "they make up sh!t as they go along" under the guise of "Science"
Science has its pants down on a bewildering number of topics if you blame it for not understanding everything.
A lot of things are understood. Just look around you and see how fast things are changing. The things about nature that are not understood is unknown. How to we know how much we Don't know.
Myself, I just like wondering about things, mainly rocks. A pebble can contain an unreal amount of information.
Deifying science is very dangerous. It is no good for that. There is too much back and forth and free exchange of ideas. Look at climate study. If you publish in that arena, you are under intense scrutiny.
If I do crappy work I just get fired.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:30am PT
|
Deifying science is very dangerous.
Who's deifying science?
Certainly not me. It may "look" like that to you.
My previous post was just a friendly karma kick back to the individuals (and they who they are) for their incessant idiotic lambasts in the "name of science" in the past .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:31am PT
|
...thanks for the karmic kick back Werner!
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:37am PT
|
I can't stand people using the word "science" like it is a dirty word.
Science is just figuring out nature. Not more.
If you take apart an old radio and figure out how it works, that is very similar to science. It is also reductionism and materialism that Largo doesn't like.
A mechanic is much like a scientist. He figures out how engines work and then fixes them. He gets the data on how the engine behaves, runs some tests to aquire data, and then comes up with a hypothesis of what is wrong. Then he goes and fixes that part. If that was the problem, then his hypothesis held water. If it was something else, he starts over.
It isn't hocus pocus. I know how to find oil. That may sound like some amazing thing, but it is really pretty fundamental. I could teach you enough to understand it in a weekend seminar.
It is cool, though. Put a gold star on the map (PLEASE DRILL HERE!), and then a big drilling rig shows up, drills down to the target, and you hit it within ten vertical feet, even though it may be two miles deep and take 6 weeks to get there.
That part is cool. It isn't particle physics, though.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Social climber
Retired to Appalachia
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:40am PT
|
my recommendation is to teach it as it is, as a science
and since you are teaching a science class, that is all you need to consider, the science.
The problem is that the Evangelical christians will tell you that their alternate theories are also science, "But it's just a different kind of science than the narrow-minded Western view of science."
They also want to attribute everything that is unexplainable to "God."
I say it's like teaching calculus to a dog. There are some things that a dog will never understand. A dog might look up at a jetliner and think that it's a sign from God because it is far beyond it's comprehension.
Humans may never be able to understand everything. That doesn't mean that it's all an act of God. Science is helping us to learn more and more and understand our world.
If you ever get a chance to read Darwin's book, it makes it clear as day.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:41am PT
|
To the original question, I would have to say that it would be best to skip trying to teach anything about the origin of life. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is not so much about that origin of life as it is about natural selection and processes like mutation (simplifying things a bit). The stuff of which Darwin wrote is plenty of evolution to start with.
One thing that is important about the origin of life is that there is no evidence about it in any form at all other than existing life forms. We may be too far removed from it to be able to come up with testable theories. Even with a theory, experimentation is difficult because we don't have billions of years to run the experiments.
Teach the evolution that Darwin knew. Teach about the evidence and the processes that are known to us. Some information about evolution is considered fact, not theory, because there have been reproducible experiments that have been conclusive. Find that stuff and teach that.
Dave
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:46am PT
|
I should also say that sometimes people just expect scientists to figure things out for them in a type of blind faith. Like there is some kind of magic involved.
Maybe something can be figured out or not, but just wanting has nothing to do with it.
Everyone is a scientist to some degree or another. We often think and solve all sorts of problems using a logical method on a daily basis.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:49am PT
|
Bottom line: you can "teach" evolution, you can only "preach" creationism.
Would you rather be taught or preached to?
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:51am PT
|
The problem is that the Evangelical christians will tell you that their alternate theories are also science, "But it's just a different kind of science than the narrow-minded Western view of science."
And they would be wrong. I can call my cat a dog all day long but it's never gonna be a dog. Faith and religion is not science. Science involves more than just talking about stuff and picking what sounds nice. Sometimes "doing" science results in being proven wrong about something, a situation that is not allowed in religion.
If the evangelicals really thought that they were involved in science then they would be forced to accept the possibility that other religions and concepts of God might be right and theirs might be wrong. Does the Pope really read the Quran and think "This might the right?"
Comparing science and religion is fine but teach that in a philosophy class where physical evidence is not part of the discussion and anecdotal evidence written thousands of year ago is the norm.
Dave
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:52am PT
|
One thing that is important about the origin of life is that there is no evidence about it in any form at all other than existing life forms. We may be too far removed from it to be able to come up with testable theories. Even with a theory, experimentation is difficult because we don't have billions of years to run the experiments.
But that is the point of having a physical theory, that it is testable. It does not have to demonstrate, step by step, how life was formed any more than evolution has to show, step by step, how life evolved. The theory is still testable, it makes hypotheses which can be falsified by observation, or shown to be consistent with observation.
While the inability to detail the specific history of life on Earth may be a disappointment to many, it is not a necessary requirement for a physical theory of life.
I don't see how you can avoid a discussion of the origin of life as any smart student will do the extrapolation "back in time" and come up with that question. It can be turned into a teaching opportunity regarding the nature of scientific research.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:53am PT
|
I agree with SLR.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:58am PT
|
Ed put it well. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 11:59am PT
|
the possibility that religious belief is an evolved behavior that conveys a survival benefit... sort of the physical universe's own little joke..
Religious belief as the physical universe's own little joke on itself is a very creative way of looking at it but I can't help but think this is like Chuang-tze's butterfly dream. One could just as well say, the physical universe is Universal Consciousness' own little joke on itself.
Meanwhile, science is researching the interface between the two. The New York Times today has an interesting article on a new book about the science behind yoga, done with studies of brain waves while people maintained certain postures and breathing regimes. Among other things, it notes the link between yoga and enhanced sexuality and sexuality and spirituality.
I believe the coming century will solve a lot of mysteries regarding the consciousness-physicality dichotomy not just through reductionism but through studies from a whole systems approach. Understanding the overlap first and then working backward in a reductionistic fashion might lend better results with humans at least, than trying to understand the evolution of complex systems through extrapolating from molecules.
|
|
cowpoke
climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 12:03pm PT
|
The problem is that the Evangelical christians will tell you that their alternate theories are also science, "But it's just a different kind of science than the narrow-minded Western view of science." SLR, you should provide some evidence or, at the very least, one example of Evangelical Christians claiming that their beliefs "are also science..." It is a strange perspective that you are claiming they have (that does not make sense from a faith or a science perspective) and one that I have never personally encountered, but I've been surprised before...so surprise me with some evidence.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!