Did Life Originate Underwater? 707
TuringTest writes "Sciencedaily reports a highly controversial new theory about the origins of life from Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow. The theory briefly states that inorganic cells where first, then living systems evolved inside these incubators which allowed an enough rich micro-environment. The small compartments would have been formed in iron sulphide rocks near hot, hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, not in the atmosphere. Wow, that would answer the chicken-egg problem."
That's not important (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's not important (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's not important (Score:3, Interesting)
These bacteria operate on a wholly different metabolic process from the bacteria we see at the surface.
How different are they? Must the share a common origin with you and me?
Could they have evolved around these vents?
Does their evolving around these vents preclude other organisms having evolved at the surface?
DNA (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they have chromosomes, and use the same 4 genetic molecules, there is almost no possibility that they are not related to the rest of life on Earth. What are the scientific chances of two lifeforms forming and evolving, with identical genetic processes?
Re:DNA (Score:2, Funny)
Seems to happen all the time on Star Trek. Unless, of course, nose ridges are the result of weird alien DNA.
Re:DNA (Score:2, Interesting)
Not exactly the same, but there are definately examples of two species developing to the same body and muscle structure with no contact between the two species. Take for instance the Tasmanian Tiger [tas.gov.au], a marsupial that evolved to the essentially the same form as the northern hemispheres wolf.
I have my doubts that the origin of life originated from only one source, there appear to be as many possibilities about the initial starting blocks required as there are theories about it. The fact that they should evolve to essentially the same DNA structure, without nessecarily having completely distinct DNA , whilst coming from different starting points, for me seems as likely as our extinct tiger.
Re:That's not important (Score:2)
Re:That's not important (Score:5, Insightful)
This one is really, really hard to prove unless you can find the original life-bearing world from which the first cell originated.
Even if you manage that, you're still stuck back with the question of how life started on that world instead of this one. You might as well work on mechanisms for the origin of life on earth, since it remains the only world on which we are sure life has ever existed.
Re:That's not important (Score:2)
Re:That's not important (Score:3, Insightful)
Right! All we need to do is find fossils that are four billion years old, containing intact genetic material. Oh yes--they have to be from other worlds. No problem there.
Panspermia doesn't bother me as a theory; it is definintely a plausible explanation, particularly for the transfer of life from one world to another within the Solar System. But it is by no means the only reasonable solution, as you would imply. And proving it is much more difficult, practically speaking, than you think.
Irrelavent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: It would be Highly Relevant (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - We would know it's a waste of time to try to figure out how life began in the universe in general by looking at the evidence available here on Earth.
2 - We would know life on other worlds must exist, or at the very least, must have existed in the past.
Re:Irrelavent. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's not important (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's not important (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a very good question.
If life was seeded from space, where did it come from? It had to come from somewhere. It doesn't just come "from space".
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:2, Insightful)
That was the most nonsensical rant I've ever heard. Creationist beleifs have ablsolutely nothing to do with ethics. In fact, no religious construct does. Ethics is a science based on reason, not blind faith.
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Insightful)
Science stops being science when it gets past what can be tested and proven
Small correction from a practicing scientist: science stops being science when it gets past what can be tested and disproven. You can't prove a theory in a strictly scientific sense; you can only show that theories are not supported by the data (are disproven) or are currently (this being the key word) not ruled out.
Of course, you may have meant proven in the colloquial sense, in which case I don't necessarily disagree.
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. A theory must explain the evidence, make testable predictions, and be falsifiable. "God exists" fails on the last two. Therefore, it is not a theory.
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Insightful)
The nose on anyone's face (well, apart from Michael Jackson) can be rather easily demonstrated to the satisfaction of most anyone. How can you do the same for the existence of a 'god'?
Of course, 'nose' itself has a pretty common accepted definition. I can ask several different people to define 'god' and I will likely receive several different (and sometimes contradictory) answers, so you'd better start with a concrete definition of what you mean by 'god'.
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:2)
As for absolute ethics, you are pretty much out of luck whether we evolved or not. Absolute ethics is based upon a rather stupid and completely unverified premise--that a Creator must be good. Never mind that it is something that doesn't seem to hold particularly true among human creators, or that even the Bible provides very little evidence for the goodness of it's self-styled "Creator."
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:2)
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:4, Insightful)
Im really fond of the last ditch efforts by judeo-christians to make Sense of Creationsism with the "Intelligent Design" drivel.
A baseless nonsequitor argument made to reinforce an irrational idea... absolutely fabulous. When this effort fails, maybe they will say that Aliens, guided by G-O-D (in my best booming -heavens voice) are responsible for life on earth.
The fact is, the judeo-christian mythology has lasted far far to long. When Presented with evidence of wrongs in the bible -- like the existence of dinosaurs for instance -- people try and explain away the problem. Let me tell you, if the bible is incorrect (wrong) because it omits mention of a realistic history of the planet (beyond all the poof-7-days-stuff) what else could be wrong? Judeo-christian mythology -- the basis for so much immorality and idiocy in history -- needs to fall the way of greek or roman mythology.
The romans put thousands of people on the cross who claimed to be gods-on-earth... why do you suppose one existed at all?
Let me tell you know then -- Im the son of the one true god. (you have as much reason to believe this random statment on
If nothing else makes my stomach wrench about the ill fate of humanity its religion.. every last damn one of them.
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Insightful)
With all the intelligence we can see and appreciate in our design and the intelligence that we can hopefully recognize in ourselves, you expect me to believe that all this intelligence came from hot water and random circumstances? When we presuppose God wasn't the creator and instead have hot water and inorganic material to thank, absolute ethics are all wet and we may find ourselves in hot water after we die. Well, maybe we will wish for water.
An omniscent, omnipotent, and ultimately ethical God would use a mechanism for creation that was consistent with the vessel he had made for that creation. Why set the Laws of Nature in place if he had no intention of using them to His own ends?
An omniscent, omnipotent, and ultimately ethical God would not have created evidence suggesting a natural (i.e., non-miraculous) origin to life if there were none; to do so would be to create a lie, and would not be ultimately ethical.
No matter how you slice it, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and ultimately ethical Creator you will have to deal with the theodicy problem: why are things not as they should be? If it is because God should only be judged by his results, in Heaven, why shouldn't we be judged only by our actions' results in Heaven? Why should we be judged by the sufferring we cause one another on Earth?
If one judges the universe by the same moral standards one judges other people - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - the universe fails our moral test. Thus we are forced to accept the fact that there is no direct intervention in the universe on the part of its creator, and so no reason to exclude the possibility of natural (i.e., non-miraculous) creation; either that, or we are forced to conclude that the Deity is malicious.
A malicious Deity, or one who uses the Laws of Nature as his mechanism, his instrument. Which would you prefer to accept?
Re:Design, Intelligence, Absolute Ethics & Hot (Score:3, Insightful)
---When we presuppose God wasn't the creator and instead have hot water and inorganic material to thank, absolute ethics are all wet and we may find ourselves in hot water after we die.---
Unfortunately, having a God doesn't do squat for helping us justify absolute ethics. If ethics were truly absolute, then even a God would be subject to them, in which case their "rightness" is irrelevant to the nature or existence of a God.
Chicken-egg problem? (Score:3, Funny)
No Problem.
Life underwater (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life underwater (Score:2, Funny)
problems (Score:3, Funny)
No, it reduces the Q to "what was first : the fish or the egg ?"
It does offcourse open endless possibilities
Why did the fish cross the road ??????
Re:problems (Score:4, Funny)
A. It was stapled to the chicken.
Re:problems (Score:5, Insightful)
to get to the other tide?
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg.
(answer) hydrothermal vents. Ok, but a bit evasive.
Actually, I just wanted to say in general that if you believe in evolution, clearly the egg came first, as it was present in the chickens ancestors before the chicken evolved.
Actually, I think that's true even if you don't believe in evolution, since not believing in evolution doesn't make it less true.
Re:problems (Score:2)
Right. And not believing in the tiny pink dragon that lives on my left shoulder doesn't make it less true. (Did I mention it's invisible and keeps me up to date on current events among the star-dwelling plasma beings on Arcturus?)
Go study your epistemology and your metaphysics and THEN you can talk to me about what's true.
Re:problems (Score:2)
If its not true, not believing in it doesn't make it any less true either!
So his statement was factually correct, it doesn't matter how you belief, the truth isn't going to change just for you.
Re:here we go.. watch my karma drop to nill (Score:4, Informative)
No logic doesn't. Especially not once understands how DNA binding actually works and takes a glimpse into all the things that can change that process. Did anyone at your debate mention HSPs? Virus mutations that get auto-corrected? Those that don't? How the location of a string isn't nearly as important as the coding sequence? How much damage a sequence can take and still be effective?
You are creating a logical fallicy and then using that to argue your points. I realize that you are probably trolling but really, please go out and read up on DNA some and not just the often purposefully incorrect information on it passed around by "creation scientists".
Wait up a second (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this article news?
Same principal as... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait up a second (Score:2)
Besides, I remember seeing almost exactly what was presented in the article on a show on the Discovery channel a couple of years ago.
Wow, (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow, (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, if you're really lucky, your story will get on the front page again in about 3 days!
Re:Wow, (Score:2)
Chicken & the egg (Score:2, Interesting)
Big deal -- this is the Primordial Soup theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me when we find the answer.
Re:Big deal -- this is the Primordial Soup theory (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting article, if a bit short on details. A little bit more info is available here [royalsoc.ac.uk].
Re:Big deal -- this is the Primordial Soup theory (Score:5, Informative)
(*)Hall, D.O., Cammack, R. & Rao, K.K. (1974) The iron-sulphur proteins: evolution of a ubiquitous protein from model systems to higher organisms. _Origins_of_Life_, 5, 363-86.
Re:Big deal -- this is the Primordial Soup theory (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAB (a biologist, not, I am), but I guess it's pretty controversial. I believe the first idea is that life would be impossible at such extremes but every inche of these vents is occupied by life (life that would freeze to death just a few feet away!) creating a bit of a reaction to think the opposite, maybe we are looking at the way life started. So a bit different.
It's hotter than soup, like the primordial tea kettle.
Re:Big deal -- this is the Primordial Soup theory (Score:5, Informative)
***
For more information on Miller and prebiotic Earth, here is a quotation from an Angew. Chem. review article by Kay Severin called Hot Stones or Cold Soup? New Investigations on the Endogenous Origin of Organic Compounds on Earth (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2000, 39, No. 20). It pretty much sums up the Miller reactions, why they're wrong, and what people think now:
"The most famous experiment
"But the possibility that earth once had a reducing atmosphere is questioned. A well known argument against it is the high photolability of methane and ammonia. Because a shielding layer of ozone was missing a high concentration of these gases is believed to be unlikely. Furthermore, several other results point to a neutral atmosphere of CO2 and N2. Given the fact that the atmosphere was based on an unproductive mixture of CO2 and N2 the nutritional value of the primordial ocean drops significantly.
"An alternative scenario has been propagated for several years by [Gunter] Wachterhauser. Instead of a primordial soup he favors hot minerals as the place where organic molecules were initially built as life subsequently emerged. Especially sulfur-containing minerals like pyrite are proposed to have acted as an energy source and catalyst both under the extreme conditions found in hydrothermal or volcanic vents."
Basically, primordial soup syntheses (like Miller's reactions) are out and hot rock syntheses are in. These hot rock procedures have much much much lower yields, but people are slowly figuring out how to build amino acids through them. For instance, people, headed by Wachterhauser, have figured out how to carbon fixate (condense) carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into organic building blocks for amino acids. For instance, in early 2000, Chen and Bahnemann were able to convert CO2 and water to small organics (acetaldehyde, ethanol, acetic acid) at high pressures and temperatures. Similarly, people have figured out how to take amino acids and convert them into peptides under high temperature and pressure situations.
However, to date no one has been able to actually make an amino acid through these techniques. As a result, the proof that amino acids were delivered by comets or meteorites (true fact, this is not an x-file) and now space dust, becomes much more appealing. Once the building blocks arrived on Earth, these hot rock syntheses could have taken over.
I could swear... (Score:2)
Life is likely? (Score:2, Funny)
So... Now we're all only "likely" alive?
Life on our planet? (Score:2)
Great, just what we needed!! (Score:2, Funny)
Smarts, namely mine (Score:2)
reveal their theory that the more first names you have the smarter you are.
Billy Ray Bob Cameron-James
Was there enough water? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I am wrong, please correct me.
Re:Was there enough water? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Was there enough water? (Score:2)
There would have been oceans for sure, perhaps not large oceans like we think of them today but certanly oceans or at least an ocean (singular). The land masses we have today were pushed to the surface by volcanic activity which in and of itself would have taken billions of years (think K2 and the Himilayas).
Re:Was there enough water? (Score:4, Informative)
Sceintific definition of life? (Score:2)
1 - A cell which is called "organic".
and
2 - A cell which is called "inorganic".
From a purely scientific (philosophically materialist) standpoint, what is the difference between a small self contained replicating machine and a small self contained replicating organism?
Absolutely (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Funny)
I have a friend who can't watch the Wizard of Oz for the same reason...
Ummm.... (Score:2)
Is this right? The accepted theories for the origin of cells are based on life first, then cells? WTF does that mean? Without cells, how do you define "life"?
Headline is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Underwater, UV was blocked, but longer wavelengths could penetrate to permit photosynthesis. Once photosynthesis liberated enough molecular oxygen to produce an ozone layer, life was able to move onto dry land.
What's novel about the theory in the article is that it proposes that living cells were preceded by nonliving inorganic cells.
The guy is an idiot. More diversity in pools above (Score:2, Interesting)
many protein-rich soups create single walled "bacterium-like" objects of uniform size, but without two walls, there is no way to protect a lifeform object.
Extremophiles are kooks. Its FAR MORE LIKELY that unfavorable living conditions were populated by life LAST not first. Expecially because sunlight is so far away from these environments, and OCCAMS razor indicates that extreme conditions were probably populated last not first.
prions and virii are not life by many peoples definitions, but I wonder how many prion-like entities would form in goddamned ocean water by chance.... not likely... you need tiday pools and amonia and ultraviolet light and electricity.
He just want big-budget funding money because studying deep sea life is expensive and easy to syphon off tons of money.
If I was a biologist I would do the same to justify a huge budget for research. Even NASA is doing it (extreme life studies).
Re:The guy is an idiot. More diversity in pools ab (Score:2)
The concept of extreme conditions makes little sense when you do not know the structure of the life form. Sulphur based life forms would find a sunny day on a Disney cruise line extremely hostile.
Come to think of it maybe you do have a point ;-)
Re:The guy is an idiot. More diversity in pools ab (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, not all phylogenetic analyses support the thermophile-early hypothesis. That's because different genes may have different histories due to horizontal transfer. Further work on whole genome phylogeny will be useful for clarifying the issue.
neither new nor revolutionary (Score:2)
Sea Monkeys! (Score:2)
this is old (Score:2)
"Although changes in DNA generate biological diversity, genes are a product of evolution, not its driving force. In fact, geodesic forms similar to those found in viruses, enzymes and cells existed in the inorganic world of crystals and minerals long before DNA ever came into existence. Even water molecules are structured geodesically."
http://time.arts.ucla.edu/Talks/Barcelona/Arch_
new.. in 1977 (Score:2)
Water at the Holiday Inn (Score:2)
Re:Water at the Holiday Inn (Score:2)
Religion among the educated.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In speaking with the different people around the lab I have found that the -vast majority- of master degree holding scientists are Agnostic.
(which is a very fitting stance...as an Agnostic needs -proof- to trust in something's actuality, just as a scientist does when doing research)
Next in numbers are Atheists (comprised mainly of Theoretical Physicists, Biologists and/or Russians. go figure
And finally, the Administration, Utilities, Facilities people, whom I've found to be
predominately Judeo-Christian. (pictures of Jesus in their cube/always out to recruit)
From what I've seen, people with little education are almost predisposed to believe in a god.
(Insecurities? A feeling of helplessness? or just "tradition"...IDK, anybody?)
FYI : These are my observations, I'm not trying to say that belief in a god can be "taught-away"
as there are a few Jesus-fish toting scientists.
There are always deviants among -any- flock....
I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice this, as I've encountered this in many different areas on the country that I've worked...
but never has the education level been this cleanly divided!
funny (Score:2)
Unscientifc speculation (Score:2)
Anyway, great interesting theory, but the only truly scientific theories are ones that are falsifiable, and this one is not. It'll join all the other RNA-world/early-evolution hypotheses as interesting and plausible speculation. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a mite more interesting to investigate falsifiable hypotheses, otherwise one might as well be talking to Creationists.
Theories of Life Origin (Score:3, Insightful)
The first says that life formed in shallow pools, which would help shield harmful UV radiation.
The second is that it was carried to Earth from an extraterrestrial collision with something like a comet; this theory was supported but not proven by the pass-by of comet Hale-Bopp, i believe, due to the fact that spectrometry revealed that it had some organic substances (IIRC, our book has no mention of it).
The final theory (before the advent of this theory) is that life originated from volcanism at eep-sea vents. This would be supported by the life at deep-sea vents like tube worms and the like.
This is NOT to be confused with the 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller where he syntheized amino acids using lightning-like electricity and a proto-Earth atmosphere of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and other gases. Amino acids are NOT life forms!
I think the title is a little misleading. This theory of life really means that life originated in porous underwater rocks, which is either an extension of the first theory or a completely new theory depending on how you view it.
Useful link for creationists and the rest alike (Score:3, Informative)
I think a lot of your questions about how evolution, cosmology, and the rest of science attempt to explain all sorts of phenomena (without resorting to a default "because of God") can be answered by visiting the Talk.Origins Archive [talkorgins.org].
If they can't be answered, there are some very helpful admins who answer most of the mail they receive with not only answers, but links to the source of the answers.
It's better than wading through the
What's New About This (Score:4, Informative)
A bit after the beginning, there were some self-replicating molecules. Some of them might have been proteins, and some of them might have been nucleic acids, and I suppose some of the might have been something we haven't thought of. The molecules that were really good at self-replication did it quite a bit, and there got to be more of them, especially when they had access to the necessary raw materials.
One day, or more likely on a large number of different days, a bunch of these self-replicating molecules all found themselves trapped together inside a sphere made of phospholipids floating in a puddle and started interacting in a synergistic kind of way.
The new story:
A somewhat shorter bit after the beginning, some basic molecules got spewed out of an ocean vent and all found themselves trapped together inside a sphere of rock at the bottom of the ocean. These basic molecules interacted a bit (thanks to their proximity) and formed some self-replicating molecules, which were of course trapped, too. The molecules that were really good at self-replication did it quite a bit, and there got to be more of them, which was easy because they had access to the raw materials they needed to self replicate (because said materials were, as we have said, trapped).
One day, or more likely on a large number of different days, a bunch of these self-replicating molecules all found themselves trapped together inside the same sphere of rock and started interacting in a synergistic kind of way. At some point they must have made their collective way into a phospholipid sphere, I suppose, or else our cell membranes would be made out of rock.
Re:were != where (Score:2, Informative)
When you quote someone from the written word, it is up to the author to keep the original spelling intact.
You may, however, point out typos and spelling errors with a (sic), but it's not necessary. The important thing is that you convey the message as the original author wrote it.
If you quote Shakespeare in an essay, you don't update is grammar and spelling. Goofy
Thus, the slashdot editors are right in just cut and pasting the submissions, with no spelling checks.
Spelling and grammar nazis make asses of themselves whenever they point one out. They think they're being clever and +5 insightful, but they're really showing their lack of skill with the written language.
If the editor adds a comment, complete with a spelling faux pas, then you can bitch at 'em.
In short, fuck you and your 4rth grade spelling bee bullshit.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Creation of Life (Score:5, Funny)
Amazing that all those accidents of nature worked out just perfectly, isn't it? I think that is even more unbelievable than Creation.
A while back I heard a joke about how God and a bunch of Evolutionists were discussing the origins of life. The Evolutionists said they could show how to create life. God said to go ahead and show Him. They said "let's take some dirt and water and ..."
God interrupted and said "Wait a minute. That is My dirt and water. Go create your own."
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2)
Exactly! But that's why I didn't reply to that post, sir. I replied to your follow-up, where you mocked logical theories (this particular one not being explcitly proven to be fair) with sarcasm.
Creationism and intelligent design has the burden of proof. Not the theory of evolution. Note that it is denoted a theory but has such overwhelming evidence in favor of it that it has been accepted by general scientific community as fact until rebuffed.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2)
Note that it is denoted a theory but has such overwhelming evidence in favor of it that it has been accepted by general scientific community as fact until rebuffed.
Well keep in mind that at one point the general scientific community thought the earth was flat and that electrons were tiny bits of stuff that ran in discrete rings around a nuclei. As for your overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence of what exactly? That living matter on this planet goes through (and has gone through) an evolutionary process? If so then most creationist would agree with you. Now if you're talking about the absolute origins of life, then thats another thing altogether and one in which the "general scientific community" has a generally accepted theory, but that most are not 100% behind since there is not "overwhelming evidence" of that nature. Just lots of general ideas and theories that are related (such as the one posited in this article).
Re:Creation of Life (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a nagging feeling 'force' would be misconstrued and you would jump over my words instead of ideas.
I consider myself being forced if i'm sitting in the subway or walking down the street minding my own business and some fellow decides to start shouting for me to repent to Jusus or Allah. Or when I find myself ripping a 'believe in Jesus before it's too late' flyer off my car. Maybe not 'force' but I am annoyed with the people who believe in some religion or superstition but can't just be content with feeling better about it without having to tell everyone they meet how great it is and how wrong they are and why they themselves are right.
Well keep in mind that at one point the general scientific community thought the earth was flat
This was an assumption, NOT something that was thought fact because the so-called "scientific community" had proven it throught some sort of experiments or research.
You know eveolution in entirely a plausable outcome (except perhaps the 'original spark' (who knows maybe that was God?!)), but what is more plausable: that beings slowly evolved through minor natural selection and genetic mutations and punctuated evolution (due to local/global cataclysms) OR is it more plausable that and invisible, omnipotent, super-intelligent has existed since the beginning of time and created the trillions of galaxies each with hundreds of millions to trillions of stars,planets,etc and only one of those planets he magically created what we call life and intelligent life? (Occams Razor??)
Now I ask you, honeslty: Which is more plausable?
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2)
Many
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2)
There is at least overwhelming evidenc for evolution, where is there evidence for and invisible, omnipotent being?
Just because you cannot understand something doesn't mean that it is rubbish. This goes for both of us.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2)
"Holy shit! Did you just see that! I poured this WATER into this GLASS and it FIT PERFECTLY! They must have MADE that glass for the water or something! Damn!
WAIT! All those words I just said! Wow! I sure am glad the Anglos MADE English so I could speak it! Praise the prehistoric barbarians of Scandinavia for this glorious gift to ME!"
Re:Creation of Life (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Creation of Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if ... evolution is the answer, it doesn't answer other profound questions. It doesn't answer what was there before space, what is outside of space, and what is outside of time.
The theory of evolution -- that is, the theory of environmental conditions exerting a cumulative, non-random pressure on life-forms to adapt -- does not have anything to do with what was around before the universe or what is outside of space and time. The only question it seeks to answer is: given that life exists on this planet, how did that life come to exist in the present form in which we know it? "Evolution" as a pejorative used by those who argue for intelligent design may seek to answer the aforementioned questions (with, one assumes, an antagonistic assault on the god of the Bible), but that's a theoretical straw man used by those who are constantly sharpening lances and watching for windmills.
Even if you don't believe in the God of Abraham (I happen to), I fail to see how everything can be explained with no high power involved.
If you're looking for a good book to explain very clearly how a series of random events can over time add up to a non-random outcome, I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (ISBN 0-393-31570-3). Although there are some portions of the book which are a bit heavy-handed (I thought Dawkins was a bit harsh on Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuationists, and that he made positive feedback loops sound much more difficult to understand than they are), it is all in all a cogent, literate, and witty (in a very British way) treatise on natural selection.
I honestly don't understand what atheists believe in this area. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what is outside of space and time.
Again, there's a straw man present here. "Atheists" are a diverse bunch, just as diverse a group as "religious believers." If I were to say, "Religious believers believe that a god named Yahweh or Elohim exists omnipotently, omnisciently, and omnipresently beyond all physical restrictions, and that this god came to earth in the incarnation of a man named Yeshua," I'd be doing every group but Christians a disservice. There's really no way to know what any given atheist thinks exists beyond the boundaries of reality (or even if there is anything beyond them) without asking him.
On further reflection, it seems to me that your original premise is a bit tautological. You believe in a god as described in the Bible or the Torah, so you can not explain existence without using Yahweh as a reference point. The very statements "before space," "outside of space," and "outside of time" beg the question: is there anything there? You assume that there is (an eternal, mystical being), but there's a problem there:
To answer your final question, this particular atheist believes that nothing's out there beyond the borders, as it were. Even if there were, it's irrelevant because there's no way to observe or prove its existence.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure that you can say this. Even some scientists who don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve have posited the existence of a single mother to all currently living humans, through the tracing of mitochondrial DNA (which inherit genetic infomation only through the mother.)
From a numerical standpoint, though, it is entirely possible. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the human race began from two genetically distinct humans, one male and one female.
Each parent contributes a single chromosome from each of 23 pairs; they each therefore can produce 2^23 distinct gametes. Therefore such a couple is capable of producing 2^46---or over 70 trillion---genetically distinct offspring.
Assuming no genetic mutations, subsequent generations of offspring would recombine the chromosomes in ways not possible for the first generation. With 23 pairs of chromosomes to select, and 4 choices to choose from in each pair, there is the potential for (4!/2!2!)^23 = 6^23---or almost 800 quadrillion---genetically distinct individuals.
That is of course assuming no mutation occurs; with mutation, these numbers can only increase. These numbers might decrease if the first man and woman were not fully genetically distinct, but I think we have some headroom to spare.
Re:Creation of Life (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're a little confused as to what they mean by this. "Mitochondrial Eve" was not, in her lifetime, significant in any way. She's only so in retrospect: in the hindsight that all other lineages from her generation eventually happened to die out. As other lines perhaps die out, a new "Mitochondrial Eve" could be, conceptually, crowned. That there must be such an individual at any given time is a mathematical certainty (you can reason it strickly from logic alone), but its not always the same individual, and it isn't the case that this individual's children only bred with each other. Not at all! It's simply that only lineages that include this particular female in them at some point, survive. The exact same thing is true for a "Y chromosome Adam." But again, you're thinking about it the wrong way if you think that he has anything to do with "Mitochondrial Eve," especially timewise. And, like ME, the designation could change to a different, more recent individual if certain lineages happen to die out.
I'm a... (Score:3, Interesting)
Confusing?
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
Ok...So we had the Big Bang, everything cooled down a bit, stars were born, and this little dustball of a planet was compacted by gravity into a nice ball of molten rock. Thanks to the parallel axis theorem, the spin of all the dust in the solar system gave us angular momentum, so we now have a day and a night.
At some point, God created life in his image. OK, so now we have biological functions.
Unless you can read Hebrew, all you have to go on is other peoples' interpretations of the original text into a different langauge.
Even the concept Man was created first depends on the translation of that specific word. And did you know Hebrew wasn't spoken natively (again) until the 1900s? Plenty of time for humanity to lose touch with the language.
Re:Creation of Life (bwahahahaa) (Score:2)
The difference is, "science" (I'll use it as a generic term for use of the scientific method), sets out to TEST theories in order to prove them to a certain degree of probability. Believing a book, with no chance of proving it one way or the other, doesn't follow the scientific method. If you want hard evidence, do you try to get some, or simply believe what you have been told to believe?
Besides, the two address the same event from two different perspectives. Genesis isn't explaining 'creation' in scientific terms nor is scientific theory explaining God. They're mutually exlusive no matter how hard one tries to use one to prove/disprove the other.
Pardon? Have you followed the news where backwards-thinking schools have fought to teach Creation in science class? I agree with you, it belongs in religion class. What is disgraceful is when people try to give their theories credibility by leeching on the hard work of scientists - hence the invention of "creation science". There is nothing scientific about it. If you want to believe in something like that, you have the right, but don't try to pass it off as science.
Re:Creation of Life (bwahahahaa) (Score:4, Insightful)
What we can do is collect evidence and conjecture theories about what caused the evidence.
Ultimately that is what atheistic cosmologists and Christian cosmologists do - collect data, and have a theory about what caused the data.
You may argue that Christian cosmologists have a bias. I would submit to you that scientists with an a priori commitment to materialism have a bias as well.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:Interesting read. (Score:2, Funny)
Hm. Freudian slip, I'd say. Presumably we're talking about hydrophilic compounds--ones that 'like' to intermingle with water, and not...um, something else in water...
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:2)
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:2)
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:5, Informative)
+5 interesting? Dammit, where's my moderator points for (-2, debunked pseudoscience)?
The Aquatic Ape theory has been been debunked so many times it's weird to see someone tossing it back out, even on /.. A nice, easy refutation is over at the Straigh t Dope [straightdope.com].
Couple of quick points:
Go now forth, free of muddleheaded thinking.
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:2)
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:5, Informative)
-------------
Claim: Human hairlessness is explained by an aquatic past
Fact: Humans' relative hairlessness is unlike aquatic mammals, because A) most aquatic mammals aren't hairless; and B) those few that are have skin that's radically different from humans (there's a link for this in the seal skin and sweat section below).
---
Claim: The pattern of human hair alignment is strikingly different from apes and indicates streamlining for swimming.
Fact: The pattern of human hair alignment is only very slightly different from apes. Also, in order for this pattern to indicate streamlining for swimming we would have to be swimming with the crown of the head facing straight forward and your arms held at your sides. Just take a look. This is so easy to see, you've got to wonder how AATers can make the claim, or why it's swallowed so uncritically. There's also the problem that humans are not even close to being fast swimmers to whom streamlining therefore might help (more info in the "hairlessness" link above).
---
Claim: The human body responds the same to the act of standing up as it does to surgery or massive hemorrhage but this reaction doesn't occur when standing up in water.
Fact: Ooh, this is a thorny thicket; neither part is true but are misrepresentations of facts twisted about to make a point which isn't true sound true. To see how and why, you'll have to read this link on aldosterone and bipedalism.
---
Claim: Only humans and marine mammals shed salty tears.
Fact: All primates shed salty tears (see tears link below).
---
Claim: Only humans, Indian elephants, and aquatic mammals cry emotional tears.
Fact: Humans are the only mammals proven to cry emotional tears. There are no animals other than humans which have been scientifically proven as having emotional tears. However, there are unproved accounts of many other mammals crying emotional tears, but these are not just aquatic animals; they include dogs and wolves, seal, sea otter, lab rats, cats, cows, pigs, lambs, horse, a kangaroo and a gorilla.
---
Claim: Only marine reptiles and birds have salt glands.
Fact:Salt glands are found in many non-marine reptiles and birds, including ostriches and other birds, and many lizards, including iguanas, chuckwallas, and others.
---
Claim: The human response to salt indicates we evolved in a salt-water environment.
Fact: Human responses to salt are similar to terrestrial mammals, including chimps. Mammals which live in salt-rich environments do not exhibit these responses as humans do. Our salt mechanisms indicate a terrestrial past with a large herbivorous component to our diet, unlike the AAT claims.
---
Claim: Human infants naturally swim while other non-aquatic mammals' infants can't.
Fact: The infant "swimming response" has been found in all mammals tested.
---
Claim: Only humans and aquatic animals exhibit the "diving reflex".
Fact: The "diving reflex" is found in all mammals.
---
Claim: Only humans and aquatic animals can hold their breath.
Fact: Non-human, non-aquatic animals can and do hold their breath (refs in diving reflex link above).
---
Claim: The descended larynx of humans is like that of aquatic mammals, and must have arisen in an aquatic environment. Although it's necessary to make all the complex sounds we use in speech, it cannot have arisen for that purpose, because it wouldn't be useful for that purpose in its initial stages.
Fact: The descended larynx of humans is not particularly similar to those which are found in (only a very few) aquatic mammals (refs and info in diving reflex link above). The evidence from the fossil record also indicates that this feature developed several million years after the purported aquatic period.
---
Claim: Non-human primates have nostrils that point forward, unlike humans.
Fact: What can I say; Old World primates are in fact called Catarrhine primates precisely because their nostrils face down. Morgan likes to try to have this one both ways; while she claims that forward-facing nostrils are detrimental to aquaticism, and that we had a human-like nose several million years before the bones on our ancestors' faces indicate they did, she takes the nose of both male proboscis monkeys (with its downward-facing nostrils) and of female and juvenile proboscis monkeys (which face forward) as aquatic adaptations. (Scientists who study these monkeys' behavior say it's sexual selection, as is true of all sexually dimorphic traits which aren't due to differences in use.) She even has a drawing of a juvenile proboscis monkey swimming in her latest book which, according to her theory, should have water shoved up his forward-facing nostrils. Why, if it's no problem for a monkey, would it be such a big problem for hominids as to force a massive change? Morgan doesn't see the contradiction.
---
Claim: Our ancestors wouldn't have changed from quadrupedalism to bipedalism, because initially bipedalism would be less efficient than quadrupedalism.
Fact: Actual tests of chimpanzees by Taylor and Rowntree in 1973 (Science 176: 186-187) has shown that bipedalism is no less efficient for them than quadrupedalism. It wouldn't be for our ancestors, even if they evolved from knuckle-walking apes such as chimps. Also, the consensus over the last few decades has been that the LCA was far more likely to have been a brachiating (swinging from branches) ape rather than a knuckle-walker, which makes it even less of a problem to be bipedal. In fact, brachiating apes -- such as gibbons -- virtually always walk bipedally when they are on the ground.
---
Claim: Proboscis monkeys use bipedalism more often than other primates and often walk bipedally as "merely an alternative locomotor mode of getting from A to B."
Fact: Morgan bases this claim on several seconds of film taken by Japanese filmmakers, which showed several proboscis monkeys walking bipedally. On this subject, I just (August 9, '01) watched a TV program, "The Secret World of the Proboscis Monkeys", and over the course of the hour, those obnoxious primates simply refused to do any bipedal walking. Perhaps it was because it was French filmmakers this time, or maybe the anthropological conspiracy quashed all the bipedal episodes. Or, just possibly, it's what years of observations by primatologists tell us: Proboscis monkeys don't walk bipedally more often than other primates (all primates use bipedalism occasionally).
---
Claim: It was too dangerous for our ancestors to live on land during the transition from ape ancestor to hominid. The water provided safety from predators.
Fact: The water environment would be far more dangerous than the land environment; the predators there are more numerous and harder to deal with.
---
Claim: Our ancestors couldn't have dealt with predators on land, because the only way to do so is to run away, and we weren't fast enough and there were no trees to climb.
Fact: Not only were there trees in the hominids' environment (see savannah definition if you haven't already), but it is unlikely we would have been limited to running from predators. How we probably would have handled them is how chimpanzees handle predators now (see the predators link just above).
---
Claim: The body temperature of normal, healthy humans is the same as that of whales, rather than our primate relatives or other terrestrial mammals, and it doesn't fluctuate, while that of terrestrial mammals does.
Fact: The body temperature of normal, healthy humans is like that of our primate relatives, it does normally fluctuate, and it's not like that of whales.
---
Claim: Hymens are an aquatic trait.
Fact: Besides humans, hymens are found in lemurs (fellow primates, you'll note), guinea pigs, mole rats, hyenas, horses, llamas, and fin whales. Except for fin whales, none of these mammals are aquatic. Also, AATers suggest that the reason for a hymen in humans was to seal off the female reproductive organs from waterborne parasites and such; but since the hymen is generally absent from the time of first intercourse (and very often before) this protection wouldn't be available for much of the female's lifespan.
---
Claim: Vibrissae (sensory whiskers) are absent only in humans and in aquatic mammals.
Fact: Among aquatic mammals, vibrissae are actually absent only in some types of whales (whales such as blue, fin, and humpback whales have them) and of course they are abundant and very sensitive in most aquatic mammals. They are, however, also absent in other, terrestrial, mammals, such as tree shrews and the monotremes (platypus and echidna). The great apes have few vibrissae compared to other mammals, and their absence in humans seems to be yet another of the "continuation of a trend" features we see in primates (hair and sweat glands are other such features). A few minutes search on the web (using the term "vibrissae" with either "primates", "comparative", or "whales") easily turned up this information. Why do AATers not do even so easy and basic research as this before making their claims?
---
Claim: Human fat quantity and distribution is like that of aquatic mammals; it is adapted for insulation and swimming in an aquatic environment. Humans have subcutaneous fat which is bonded to the skin rather than anchored within the body, unlike non-aquatic mammals.
Fact: Human fat characteristics show no sign of any aquatic adaptation, and are radically different from the aquatic mammals AATers say we resemble. Human fat deposits are anchored to underlying depots, just as those of all mammals are. Human fat deposits are found in the same places, and are anchored the same way, as those of other primates.
---
Claim: Seals sweat through eccrine sweat glands, like humans, because aquatic mammals lose their apocrine sweat glands.
Fact: Seals don't sweat via eccrine sweat glands, and in fact the sweat glands of seals are apocrine glands (refs in "skin" link below).
---
Claim: Human sebaeceous glands waterproof the skin, like the sebaeceous glands of seals (and that "Sebum is an oily fluid whose only known function in mammals is waterproofing the hair and skin.").
Fact: Sebaeceous glands cannot waterproof human skin (which is why your skin wrinkles when wet). This is because human skin is very different than the skin of seals. And that's not the only evidence that human sebaeceous glands are not an aquatic adaptation. The primary function of sebum, the outpout of the sebaeceous glands, is to produce scent (generally as a sexual attractor). This is true of a variety of mammals, including humans. In some seals, sebum can also keep their highly specialized skin pliable as an aid in waterproofing (refs in "skin" link).
---
Claim: Aquatic mammals copulate facing each other, like humans do, while other terrestrial mammals don't.
Fact: This statement is at odds with the facts about mating postures.
Re:The Aquatic Ape (Score:2)
Re:I think it's a cool idea.. (Score:2)
It's called mutation. Perhaps reading darwin would explain it to you.
Re:Aboriginies (Score:2)