"Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

A new low for ID

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#21  Postby ughaibu » Mar 18, 2011 1:39 am

Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
Why?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#22  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 18, 2011 2:40 am

ughaibu wrote:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
Why?

Indeed! HGT mainly occurs if a single gene codes for a single trait. This is why anti-biotic resistance is easily transfer between non-related bacteria, and sometimes between bacteria and eucaryotes, such as Wolbachia species infecting arthropods. The Wolbacia case is particularly interesting because it interferes with the reproduction of it's host.

Werren, J. H., W. Zhang, et al. (1995). "Evolution and phylogeny of Wolbachia: reproductive parasites of arthropods." Proceedings: Biological Sciences 261(1360): 55-63.

http://www.rochester.edu/college/bio/la ... lution.pdf

Because traits are often under the control of complex modular gene regulatory networks with multiple signaling pathways, such traits are not usually transferred by HGT. In other words, the signaling and network machinery is too large to be transferred in one 'go", although it does happen. So basically the 'tree" concept is basically sound. If it were not, if the tree of life were in fact a tangled web, then you would get 'crocoducks". So the tree of life is best seen still as a tree, with lots of thin creepers connecting the branches. Organisms maintain their "identity" even if they experience extensive HGT. Thus no 'fly-men" or human flies. This is because development is hard to change early on, but easier to change in later development. The evolutionary consequence of this is that innovation mainly occurs in late development and early development is highly conserved.

Cohen, O., U. Gophna, et al. (2011). "The Complexity Hypothesis Revisited: Connectivity Rather Than Function Constitutes a Barrier to Horizontal Gene Transfer." Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(4): 1481-1489.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a prevalent and a highly important phenomenon in microbial species evolution. One of the important challenges in HGT research is to better understand the factors that determine the tendency of genes to be successfully transferred and retained in evolution (i.e., transferability). It was previously observed that transferability of genes depends on the cellular process in which they are involved where genes involved in transcription or translation are less likely to be transferred than metabolic genes. It was further shown that gene connectivity in the protein–protein interaction network affects HGT. These two factors were shown to be correlated, and their influence on HGT is collectively termed the “Complexity Hypothesis”. In this study, we used a stochastic mapping method utilizing advanced likelihood-based evolutionary models to quantify gene family acquisition events by HGT. We applied our methodology to an extensive across-species genome-wide dataset that enabled us to estimate the overall extent of transfer events in evolution and to study the trends and barriers to gene transferability. Focusing on the biological function and the connectivity of genes, we obtained novel insights regarding the “complexity hypothesis.” Specifically, we aimed to disentangle the relationships between protein connectivity, cellular function, and transferability and to quantify the relative contribution of each of these factors in determining transferability. We show that the biological function of a gene family is an insignificant factor in the determination of transferability when proteins with similar levels of connectivity are compared. In contrast, we found that connectivity is an important and a statistically significant factor in determining transferability when proteins with a similar function are compared.


This is another interesting article about phylogenetic relationships by Cavalier-Smith:-

Cavalier-Smith, T. (2010). "Deep phylogeny, ancestral groups and the four ages of life." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1537): 111-132.
Organismal phylogeny depends on cell division, stasis, mutational divergence, cell mergers (by sex or symbiogenesis), lateral gene transfer and death. The tree of life is a useful metaphor for organismal genealogical history provided we recognize that branches sometimes fuse. Hennigian cladistics emphasizes only lineage splitting, ignoring most other major phylogenetic processes. Though methodologically useful it has been conceptually confusing and harmed taxonomy, especially in mistakenly opposing ancestral (paraphyletic) taxa. The history of life involved about 10 really major innovations in cell structure. In membrane topology, there were five successive kinds of cell: (i) negibacteria, with two bounding membranes, (ii) unibacteria, with one bounding and no internal membranes, (iii) eukaryotes with endomembranes and mitochondria, (iv) plants with chloroplasts and (v) finally, chromists with plastids inside the rough endoplasmic reticulum. Membrane chemistry divides negibacteria into the more advanced Glycobacteria (e.g. Cyanobacteria and Proteobacteria) with outer membrane lipolysaccharide and primitive Eobacteria without lipopolysaccharide (deserving intenser study). It also divides unibacteria into posibacteria, ancestors of eukaryotes, and archaebacteria—the sisters (not ancestors) of eukaryotes and the youngest bacterial phylum. Anaerobic eobacteria, oxygenic cyanobacteria, desiccation-resistant posibacteria and finally neomura (eukaryotes plus archaebacteria) successively transformed Earth. Accidents and organizational constraints are as important as adaptiveness in body plan evolution.


Thus a single trait [such as antibiotic resistance] can be tranferred easily between -say- E.coli and Psuedomonas.sp, but E.col remain E.coli, and psuedomonas remain pseudomonas. At the eukaryote level Humans remain humans even after a retrovirus like HIV adds its code tothe human genome. Of course, this does affect the evolution of the host, and many endogenous retroviruses are known to "infect" the human genome. But HGT cannot turn a human into a bat or fly. The embryological development has diverged too significantly between taxa to allow this to happen. Although all metazoans share many Hox genes, the expression networks of these Hox clusters and other regulatory genes is vastly different as is the signaling pathways that connect these modules. HGT can never transfer a Hox cluster. It is just too big. Hence, no 'crocoducks".
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#23  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 18, 2011 3:12 am

ughaibu wrote:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
Why?


One reason I can think of is that the genetic code is itself an evolvable entity. Any alternate lineage of organisms that arose from a prebiotic beginning now, assuming that this was ever possible, would start off with a genetic code that was different to ours, simpler than ours, and once enough time had elapsed to drive the evolution of its genetic code to encompass more options amino acid wise, the probability of it alighting upon the exact same genetic code as ours would be small. Consequently, its genes would be incompatible with those of current lineages, and would have a totally different meaning to current lineages, possibly not even being meaningful as genes, depending upon what start and stop codons were assigned in the new lineage. Indeed, it's entirely possible that a new lineage would alight upon a different mechanism for determining the start and end of genes, in which case, its genes would quite possibly be total gibberish with respect to our genetic code.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#24  Postby Latimeria » Mar 18, 2011 3:45 am

ughaibu wrote:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
Why?


You seem to be thinking of horizontal gene transfer only in terms of its functionality within extant biological species descended from a common ancestor with a common genetic code. I am unaware of any particular reason why any process of abiogenesis would be likely to construct a self-replicating information-storage molecule and metabolic process similar enough to existing life forms that the genetic coding system could be used by an organism which arose from entirely separate origins and shares no common ancestry. Even if a stochastic process which gives rise to autocatalytic replication of a molecular structure is likely to lead to nucleic acid polymers as the basis for information storage, why should we expect it to be “readable” in the biochemical processing format of the already existing cell? This would be required in order for the HGT to maintain any fidelity of the "meaning" of the information contained within the molecule. Even if the new life form was based on a genetic code of double-helix DNA which served as instructions for protein synthesis using L-amino acids, why should it evolve the same system in which it is transcribed to mRNA and then the base pairs read off in triplets, with a transfer molecule (ie tRNA) bringing in the same amino acid for each codon, to a growing polypeptide chain? I see no inherent reason that “UGG” would have to add a tryptophan molecule or that AUG would be a start codon as well as coding for Methionine.

The genetic code as we know it is nearly universal, but not entirely. There are a number of known exceptions to the “universal” genetic code (including human mitochondrial DNA and several prokaryotes) which already exist, demonstrating that the biochemistry could indeed function differently. In fact, there are people in the realm of synthetic biology exploring theories of intentional genetic code encryption. This could theoretically be applied in genetic engineering to produce the same protein products within an organism, yet simultaneously render the genetic instructions of an invading virus virtually equivalent to a series of missense mutations in terms of its protein product.

In other words, we really don’t know enough about abiogenesis to even suggest that a process which allowed a self-organizing system to create life would even be likely to do it again in a manner similar enough for HGT to have any meaning.


DB, you are correct that a more complex organism with a large genome is more or less committed to a certain biochemical functionality, body plan, and so on, but from what I know experiments show that a very early genetic code matching mRNA codons to tRNA carrying a particular amino acid would be subject to quite a bit of variable coevolution which could allow for an entirely different genetic code to evolve.

Once an organism is more “committed” to that code, by relying on it for the production of essential proteins, it would become increasingly fixed. This is a very good explanation for why the genetic code of life forms as we know them are nearly universal, but doesn’t suggest that the same code should arise by natural processes were such a thing to happen again in an entirely separate manner.
" [This space is for rent to "which ever version of POOF creates the largest cloud of obnoxious smoke following the POOF."[1] "- God
Works Cited:
[1] - theropod. Parsimony of the Miraculous. RatSkep Peanut Gallery Press, 2011.
User avatar
Latimeria
RS Donator
 
Posts: 1083
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#25  Postby halucigenia » Mar 18, 2011 8:03 am

ughaibu wrote:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
Why?

See other replies for a detailed explanation but here's an illustration.
A picture says a thousand words so they say.

Think of the tree/bush debate in the video relating to this topic.
It would be possible for the tree of life to have anastomosing trunk or branch system if you include HGT.
Image
But not separate points of origin as if it had aerial roots i.e. separate abiogeneses (is that a word?) producing different heritable systems that then merge.
Image
I can't find and don't know of an example of an actual plant that would illustrate Venter's point well, (it's not a bush, see below) but imagine the aerial roots in the second image connecting one branch to the other rather than reaching the ground.

Here's someone's attempt at drawing an actual representation of the tree of culture but the tree of life including HGT would be similar.
On the Left is the tree of life. On the Right is the tree of culture (or life with HGT)
Image
The one on the right is still a tree with a single main stem.

As an horticultural aside, whether the tree of life is shaped like a tree or a bush is not the actual issue here as a bush (shrub) is defined as a plant with numerous woody stems arising near, at or below ground level whereas a tree usually has a single main stem. But of course as per the images above there are many variations on a theme. I once taught a course on plant identification and this was one of the single most difficult concepts to get across to students as they often want concrete examples whereas nature is usually not so discretely defined. You can have one species of woody plant which under different conditions of culture either produces tree or shrub like growth. In fact many varieties of species of tree require a strict and harsh pruning regime, which produces a shrub like pattern of growth, to retain their ornamental attributes such as coloured immature bark. So tree/shrub is not a biological classification but simply one that commonly gets used to define a plant's growth pattern and/or horticultural uses. I bet the average authoritarian/religious/discontinuous mind-set has great difficulty with such concepts. :dopey:
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#26  Postby ughaibu » Mar 18, 2011 8:40 am

Latimeria wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Why?
You seem to be thinking of horizontal gene transfer only in terms of its functionality within extant biological species descended from a common ancestor with a common genetic code.
Not at all, as common descent is the matter under dispute, in the subject of this thread, I make no assumptions about it.
halucigenia wrote:It would be possible for the tree of life to have anastomosing trunk or branch system if you include HGT.
But not separate points of origin as if it had aerial roots i.e. separate abiogeneses (is that a word?) producing different heritable systems that then merge.
But this is exactly the belief for which I'm asking justification, there's no point in just repeating it.
The claim made:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
is rather strong. It implies that given the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer, anything but the universal common ancestor hypothesis can be discarded as "absurdly unlikely". But this is very odd, as horizontal gene transfer has been cited in support of hypotheses which compete with UCA. So it seems unlikely to me that there is an argument from probability by which an absurdity can be established. Of course, such an argument would be interesting, however, neither Calilasseia nor Latimeria have given such an argument, in fact Latimeria states
Latimeria wrote:The genetic code as we know it is nearly universal, but not entirely
and
Latimeria wrote:we really don’t know enough about abiogenesis to even suggest that a process which allowed a self-organizing system to create life would even be likely to do it again in a manner similar enough for HGT to have any meaning.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#27  Postby mindyourmind » Mar 18, 2011 8:53 am

In fairness to Dembski (and anyone who loves to watch a good Christian spat) here is Dembski's response at Uncommon Descent :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolutio ... n-descent/
So the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of entire species, is so that some humans who have passed his test can be with him forever. I see.
User avatar
mindyourmind
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1661
Age: 58
Male

South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#28  Postby Rumraket » Mar 18, 2011 1:38 pm

mindyourmind wrote:In fairness to Dembski (and anyone who loves to watch a good Christian spat) here is Dembski's response at Uncommon Descent :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolutio ... n-descent/

In fairness to Dembski he said nothing of value beyond specious creationist propaganda.

Ill sum up his response : "A bush is different from a tree, the doctrinal Darwinists are wrong because of insert-argument-from-ignorance-here".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#29  Postby halucigenia » Mar 18, 2011 6:32 pm

ughaibu wrote:
halucigenia wrote:It would be possible for the tree of life to have anastomosing trunk or branch system if you include HGT.
But not separate points of origin as if it had aerial roots i.e. separate abiogeneses (is that a word?) producing different heritable systems that then merge.
But this is exactly the belief for which I'm asking justification, there's no point in just repeating it.
I did not simply repeat it I illustrated and qualified it; see the highlighted phrase.
ughaibu wrote:The claim made:
Latimeria wrote:If it arose entirely separately, it seems to me absurdly unlikely that any horizontal gene transfer could even happen.
is rather strong. It implies that given the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer, anything but the universal common ancestor hypothesis can be discarded as "absurdly unlikely". But this is very odd, as horizontal gene transfer has been cited in support of hypotheses which compete with UCA.
Then you misunderstand what HGT implies. It does not compete with UCA it simply modifies the structure of the tree of life. Let me illustrate yet again ImageYes I found a more illustrative image, this time of early HGT in which many early organisms contribute to the main stem of the tree of life. Now, this does not necessarily mean that there were many abiogeneses, simply that many organisms compete for the position of LUCA of modern organisms. The point is that all of those competing organisms also had an UCA, the one which passed on the heritable system shared by all organisms.
ughaibu wrote:So it seems unlikely to me that there is an argument from probability by which an absurdity can be established. Of course, such an argument would be interesting, however, neither Calilasseia nor Latimeria have given such an argument, in fact Latimeria states
Latimeria wrote:The genetic code as we know it is nearly universal, but not entirely
and
Latimeria wrote:we really don’t know enough about abiogenesis to even suggest that a process which allowed a self-organizing system to create life would even be likely to do it again in a manner similar enough for HGT to have any meaning.
I would not deny that there could have been many abiogeneses, ones which produced different heritable systems, even ones which produced the same heritable system, however, once a heritable system is in place it is only that heritable system that could participate in HGT as other systems would simply be incompatible.
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#30  Postby ughaibu » Mar 18, 2011 11:04 pm

halucigenia wrote:I would not deny that there could have been many abiogeneses, ones which produced different heritable systems, even ones which produced the same heritable system
In short, UCA may be false regardless of HGT.
halucigenia wrote:once a heritable system is in place it is only that heritable system that could participate in HGT as other systems would simply be incompatible.
If the matter is framed in a way that rules out HGT by definition, then the question has been trivialised. It has not been answered.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#31  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 18, 2011 11:25 pm

The only organisms known that exhibit wholesale [many genes transferred at once] , rather than retail gene transfer [only one or a few genes] via HGT are giant viruses such as Mimi which inhabit protist hosts. Protists are only single-celled, and therefore do not have complex developmental Gene Regulatory Networks such as seen in the metazoans. GRN's are modular and discrete, and their flexibility is due to the number of signaling pathways in and out of each GRN. Therefore a GRN cannot be transferred in a wholesale manner. Firstly due to the many genes involved, and secondly those genes have to be transferred as a set to retain function as GRNs are modular. Lastly, the input and output signaling also has to be transferred for function to be retained. Therefore it is unlikely that the phenotype output of these modules would retain function, or even have a function, in a different genome. Even housekeeping genes responsible for DNA transcription or core metabolic function are not easily transferred, although this sort of transfer does happen.

These considerations make the transfer of single genes with single functions far more likely. Of course, transfer of genes via HGT happens all the time, but they do not always retain their function, or indeed any function, and their fate is likely to be that of a pseudo-gene.

Thus, different lineages retain their "character". Chimera or "crocoduck" organisms are simply not found, unless one counts symbiotic partnerships.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#32  Postby Laurens » Mar 19, 2011 10:32 am

The dishonesty of creationists is astounding. What's worse is the fact that you can demonstrate this dishonesty to a creationist, and they will still carry on accepting their nonsense.

To me the dishonesty completely destroys creationism. If you have the truth on your side you do not have any need to be dishonest. Most creationists aren't intentionally dishonest, they are just repeating arguments that they've heard else where. It's those who make the arguments, and carry on stating refuted arguments that are dishonest. Doesn't "Thou shall not bear false witness" mean anything to these people?
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."
- Karl Popper

Blog | Music
User avatar
Laurens
 
Name: Laurens Southgate
Posts: 384
Age: 34
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#33  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 19, 2011 10:39 am

Laurens wrote:The dishonesty of creationists is astounding. What's worse is the fact that you can demonstrate this dishonesty to a creationist, and they will still carry on accepting their nonsense.

To me the dishonesty completely destroys creationism. If you have the truth on your side you do not have any need to be dishonest. Most creationists aren't intentionally dishonest, they are just repeating arguments that they've heard else where. It's those who make the arguments, and carry on stating refuted arguments that are dishonest. Doesn't "Thou shall not bear false witness" mean anything to these people?


Well, some know they are lying, but others do not. The habit of mind of faith might filter out contrary data.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#34  Postby mindyourmind » Mar 19, 2011 10:40 am

Laurens wrote:The dishonesty of creationists is astounding. What's worse is the fact that you can demonstrate this dishonesty to a creationist, and they will still carry on accepting their nonsense.

To me the dishonesty completely destroys creationism. If you have the truth on your side you do not have any need to be dishonest. Most creationists aren't intentionally dishonest, they are just repeating arguments that they've heard else where. It's those who make the arguments, and carry on stating refuted arguments that are dishonest. Doesn't "Thou shall not bear false witness" mean anything to these people?


I find it particularly interesting when their own wibble-purveyors start dismissing them, in strong language (see BioLogos site as a good example). When not even the scientists in your own tribe are prepared to back you up you know that you are doing sciunz wrong :crazy:
So the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of entire species, is so that some humans who have passed his test can be with him forever. I see.
User avatar
mindyourmind
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1661
Age: 58
Male

South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#35  Postby Laurens » Mar 19, 2011 12:21 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Laurens wrote:The dishonesty of creationists is astounding. What's worse is the fact that you can demonstrate this dishonesty to a creationist, and they will still carry on accepting their nonsense.

To me the dishonesty completely destroys creationism. If you have the truth on your side you do not have any need to be dishonest. Most creationists aren't intentionally dishonest, they are just repeating arguments that they've heard else where. It's those who make the arguments, and carry on stating refuted arguments that are dishonest. Doesn't "Thou shall not bear false witness" mean anything to these people?


Well, some know they are lying, but others do not. The habit of mind of faith might filter out contrary data.


Indeed, which is why I was careful to say that most creationists aren't intentionally dishonest.

People like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Dembski on the other hand...
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."
- Karl Popper

Blog | Music
User avatar
Laurens
 
Name: Laurens Southgate
Posts: 384
Age: 34
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#36  Postby halucigenia » Mar 19, 2011 5:34 pm

ughaibu wrote:
halucigenia wrote:I would not deny that there could have been many abiogeneses, ones which produced different heritable systems, even ones which produced the same heritable system
In short, UCA may be false regardless of HGT.
Uh, no, you are not following my reasoning are you. Simply because there could have been more than one event from which life, of the same or different kind as ours, arose does not mean to say that the products of those events went on to contribute at all to modern life forms. The UCA simply happens to be the one that passed on it's heritable system to all subsequent life forms that have so far been discovered. It could be false but it does not appear to be. That's simply how inheritance works.
ughaibu wrote:
halucigenia wrote:once a heritable system is in place it is only that heritable system that could participate in HGT as other systems would simply be incompatible.
If the matter is framed in a way that rules out HGT by definition, then the question has been trivialised. It has not been answered.
Who is ruling out HGT? If HGT is to be possible at all the gene must come from a compatible heritable system. The transferred gene also has to be inherited so common descent still holds.
I like to think of HGT simply as another way in which mutations can arise in a lineage. It certainly appears to blur the boundaries between lineages somewhat but the concept of common descent and common ancestry are in no way refuted by it.
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#37  Postby ughaibu » Mar 19, 2011 5:42 pm

halucigenia wrote:It could be false but it does not appear to be.
I know this is what you believe but I'm still waiting for your reasons.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#38  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 20, 2011 5:36 am

At the very dawn of evolution, when chemical replicators became biological replicators, there were far fewer "barriers'" to entry into the game of life. But as numbers of life forms grew, there would have been competition. We presume that competition [or perhaps misfortune as some life forms could have arose in local and specific conditions] eliminated any competition present. Suppose there were two life forms: one using DNA/RNA and another using "Widget nucleic acid". Due to better replication speeds or a faster ability to evolve and adapt, the Widget form went extinct. and left no trace, because any Widget "DNA" would have been used to produce DNA [well actually it would be the RNA of nucleic acid in those times, as DNA came later].
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#39  Postby Rumraket » Mar 20, 2011 6:04 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:At the very dawn of evolution, when chemical replicators became biological replicators, there were far fewer "barriers'" to entry into the game of life. But as numbers of life forms grew, there would have been competition. We presume that competition [or perhaps misfortune as some life forms could have arose in local and specific conditions] eliminated any competition present. Suppose there were two life forms: one using DNA/RNA and another using "Widget nucleic acid". Due to better replication speeds or a faster ability to evolve and adapt, the Widget form went extinct. and left no trace, because any Widget "DNA" would have been used to produce DNA [well actually it would be the RNA of nucleic acid in those times, as DNA came later].

I would add that even if it did not go extinct, and had hitherto undetected descendants living deep in the earth's crust today, HGT would still not be possible, since the likelyhood that a "WNA" genetic system is capable of being "read" in an RNA/DNA-based one is probably close to zero.
In order for HGT to be possible, the recieving organism has to be in posession of translating/transcribing machinery capable of reading the donated genetic material.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: "Craig Venter denies common descent - Dawkins reacts"

#40  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Mar 20, 2011 7:18 am

Rumraket wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:At the very dawn of evolution, when chemical replicators became biological replicators, there were far fewer "barriers'" to entry into the game of life. But as numbers of life forms grew, there would have been competition. We presume that competition [or perhaps misfortune as some life forms could have arose in local and specific conditions] eliminated any competition present. Suppose there were two life forms: one using DNA/RNA and another using "Widget nucleic acid". Due to better replication speeds or a faster ability to evolve and adapt, the Widget form went extinct. and left no trace, because any Widget "DNA" would have been used to produce DNA [well actually it would be the RNA of nucleic acid in those times, as DNA came later].

I would add that even if it did not go extinct, and had hitherto undetected descendants living deep in the earth's crust today, HGT would still not be possible, since the likelyhood that a "WNA" genetic system is capable of being "read" in an RNA/DNA-based one is probably close to zero.
In order for HGT to be possible, the recieving organism has to be in posession of translating/transcribing machinery capable of reading the donated genetic material.

Exactly! :thumbup: :clap: :clap:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest