Intelligent Design:has the proof been staring us in the face

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 11:41 am » by Electrobadgr


Recently i have been focusing my efforts on attempting to understand the origins of life on planet Earth, i admit i am not a scientist, nor was i particularly good at physics or chemistry at school and scraped a grade 3 pass in both, however you don't need to be a scientist to understand science and you certainly don't need scientific credentials to explore and discuss lifes meaning. With that in mind i would like to explore the theory of intelligent design. Despite the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence most scientists are fundamentally opposed to the idea that intelligence could have played a part in the creation of life and focus their efforts on proving that everything has occured through random chemical chance, whilst this has worked pretty well for them so far and as a result we understand how life has developed since its initial appearance the explanations as to how life emerged are flimsy at best. How can one truly explore all possibilities when one huge possibility is ruled out before it has been explored in any kind of meaningful way?

Anyway, A group of scientists from various highly regarded educational establishments got together in a beach house in 1993 and began discussing the origins of life on the planet and came to some very interesting conclusions, this has been the subject of a documentary which i will post later in this thread and i advise you all watch. The basic premise of their studies revolved around the flaggellum motor, the propulsion system for single cells. The Flaggellum motor is unanimously descibed as the most efficient machine in the known universe
Image

The flagellum consists of 40 seperate part, if any one of these parts is missing then the whole machine would fail to function. Theses scientists regard the flagellum as evidence of "Irreducable complexity" i.e. stating the above that the removal of any one part would cause the whole machine to fail so therefore proves that this machine could not have been formed through the processes of natural selection as that would suggest that the individual components existed in some other form elsewhere. Arguments against the flagellum being evidence of irreducable complexity are based on the fact that certain bacteria use a similar propulsion system using only half the working parts, supposedly proving that the motor evolved like any other living machine. Personally, all this shows to me is that this is a completely different machine, we could regard the flagellum as the 6litre V12 whilst the other bacterial propulsion mechanism as a 1.3litre diesel.
Image

The existence of this bacterial propulsion machine is the main proponent against the intelligent design theory, coupled with the reality that just because science cannot explain the formation of the flaggellum yet doesn't mean they won't in the future, however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.

Whatever way you choose to look at it, the Flaggellum is fucking incredible and although the debate rages on whether or not it proves Irreducable complexity/intelligent design one must not lose perspective of just how incredible this machine is, scientists have a way of making the incredible sound mundane and dull, surely if evolution was in charge or everything than all life would have evolved with a flaggelum motor instead of legs, fins etc since it had a perfect starting point with the flaggelum at a cellular level? Anyway, here is the video mentioned earlier, i will also post the link to an excellent article attempting to "debunk" this theory, which to be fair relys on teh relatively flimsy arguments mentioned above. Form your own conclusions, i would love this thread to form the basis of an intelligent discussion on the origins of life, Evolution answers a lot of questions but for me just not the most important one.....How did it all begin?....


Upload to Disclose.tv



http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:21 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 12:12 pm » by Nihilgeist


:headscratch: :headscratch:

electrobadgr wrote:The existence of this bacterial propulsion machine is the main proponent against the intelligent design theory, coupled with the reality that just because science cannot explain the formation of the flaggellum yet doesn't mean they won't in the future, however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.


Hmm, last time I checked, the future is here, and has been here, since the IE vs Evolution court case...


Upload to Disclose.tv




Upload to Disclose.tv

Five Finger Death Punch
"I'd rather you hate me, for everything I am than ever love me, for something that I'm not."

Lowsix wrote:Seriously dude..you're trash.
Always have been.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 12:23 pm » by Electrobadgr


nihilgeist wrote::headscratch: :headscratch:

electrobadgr wrote:The existence of this bacterial propulsion machine is the main proponent against the intelligent design theory, coupled with the reality that just because science cannot explain the formation of the flaggellum yet doesn't mean they won't in the future, however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.


Hmm, last time I checked, the future is here, and has been here, since the IE vs Evolution court case...


Upload to Disclose.tv




Upload to Disclose.tv



Just watched the first vid and about to watch the second one, this argument is addressed by Behe in the video i posted, sure 10 - 15 parts form a function on their own but the guy had to take away 40 parts of the flaggellum for his argument to work, take away those parts one at a time and see what happens. Its like if you were building a motor and you removed the propellor, the motor is still going to run, it just won't power anything. Good video though, this is what i am talking about, lets debate this mother.... :cheers:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 12:30 pm » by Electrobadgr


nihilgeist wrote::headscratch: :headscratch:

electrobadgr wrote:The existence of this bacterial propulsion machine is the main proponent against the intelligent design theory, coupled with the reality that just because science cannot explain the formation of the flaggellum yet doesn't mean they won't in the future, however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.


Hmm, last time I checked, the future is here, and has been here, since the IE vs Evolution court case...


Upload to Disclose.tv




Upload to Disclose.tv




Ok, i am not a scientist so i dont really understand a lot of the second video, sure it looks like it makes sense but if you can't explain your theory in laymans terms then you are only confusing the situation further, again this is not proof, just a counter theory and should also be discussed with the same merit. I just think that scientists really struggle to prove ID theory wrong, hence court cases etc. I am not trying to prove evolution wrong nor intelligent design correct, i believe that these theories can exist in unity. ID explains the origins of life, Evolution explains its devlopment, kind of like the Big Bang meets Expansion. Both are valid. :flop:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:21 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 12:45 pm » by Nihilgeist


electrobadgr wrote: however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.


It's only a matter of time...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/tracing-evolution-of-proteins-back-billions-of-years-.html#more

Researchers at Spain's Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) have demonstrated evidence in support of the common ancestry of life using a new computational approach to study protein evolution.

The research takes its inspiration from the astronomer Edwin Hubble and uses his approach to study protein evolution. The extrapolation of Hubble's approach to proteins shows that proteins that share a common ancestor billions of years ago continue to diverge in their molecular composition.


The study reveals that protein evolution has not reached its limit and it is still continuing. At the same time, it provides us new information on why this evolution is so slow and conservative, showing that protein structures are more evolutionary plastic than previously thought.

Almost 100 years ago Edwin Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from Earth faster than those that are closer. This relationship between distance and velocity is widely cited as evidence of the origin of the Universe from a Big Bang. Researchers at the Centre for Genomic Regulation used his approach to investigate the divergence between protein sequences.

"We wanted to know if the divergent evolution between proteins was still proceeding. Today, we can find proteins that are still similar after almost 3,5 billion years of evolution. Our study showed that their divergence continues with these proteins becoming more and more different despite their incredible level of conservation," said Fyodor Kondrashov, principal investigator of the project and leader of the Evolutionary Genomics group at the CRG.

The work done by Kondrashov and Inna Povolotskaya goes beyond similarity studies and discusses the evolution of proteins from the view of evolutionary dynamics, offering a new perspective on how protein structures are maintained in evolution. "In the same way that Hubble's observations led to an understanding of the past and the future of our universe, using his approach at a molecular level we get a similar overview that gives us the ability to analyze evolutionary dynamics and get a broad prediction of the possible changes to the proteins in the future," says Povolotskaya.

Proteins are formed through combinations of amino acids, with only 20 types of amino acids are available to form a particular protein. To obtain the data for their study, the CRG researchers have compared proteins sequences from different species that were available in GenBank, a public database of genetic information. Comparing these sequences the authors measured the distance of proteins from each other and devised a method for measuring how fast the proteins are accumulating different changes. Thus, they could replicate Hubble's approach by correlating the distance between the proteins with the rate of their divergence. The result indicates that even the most distantly-related proteins are still accumulating differences.

Most changes in a protein are deleterious because they somehow disrupt its structure or function. The authors observation that even very conservative proteins are still diverging challenges this view, because it implies that most amino acids in a protein can be changes without any ill effects. Their explanation is that amino acid changes that are deleterious in one combination can be benign when occurring in a different one. "Thanks to our study we now have a better understanding of protein structure dynamics," says Kondrashov. It may provide a new perspective to groups working on protein structure to find new targets for design drugs, etc.

The Povolotskaya and Kondrashov study also provides new information on how different interactions between different amino acids in the structure of proteins slows down but does not completely prevent evolution.

The genome of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of living organisms on Earth is thought to have 300 genes that included at minimum 140 superfamilies of protein domains. Each protein domain is optimized for a specific molecular function (e.g., protein-protein interaction, protein-DNA interaction, catalysis of specific reactions, unwinding of DNA, and others).

The evolution of proteins is the latest chapter in the process of the origin of life. It was preceded by the RNA-world where many catalytic functions were performed by nucleic acids . The RNA world was preceded by the coenzyme world where heredity was carried by isolated coenzyme-like molecules that combined autocatalysis (self-copying) with support of some specific functions of a larger system . Because the initial steps of biological evolution were extremely slow, the coenzyme world may have lasted for 1 billion years, followed by 1-2 billion years of the RNA-world.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Commentary203.html

Adapted from materials provided by Centre for Genomic Regulation.


...the magic hand of an "unexplainable" unseen force...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/image-of-the-day-did-life-begin-in-a-bubble-nebula.html#more

Did DNA-Based Life Begin in Nebula & Interstellar Clouds?

Stellar debris, nebulae such as the Bubble (image above) and Orion Nebula, and interstellar clouds contain hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorus, water vapour, methanol, ethanol, cyanide, ammonia, formaldehyde, and complex organic molecules. A spectral line survey of Orion nebular clouds has identified 40 different molecular species, including several organic compounds such as methyl cyanide, methanol, and dimethyl ether. An examination of a nebular cloud within 3 astronomical units of AA Tauri revealed the presence of an abundance of simple organic molecules (HCN, C2H2, and CO2), water vapor, and OH. Water was particularly abundant throughout the inner disk which is a strong indication of active organic chemistry.

There is an abundance of organic molecules, water, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons within interstellar clouds, which indicates either the presence of life, and serve as important ingredients for creating life.

Based on results from the European Space Agency's infrared space observatory, the Spitzer and other space telescopes, the chemical synthesis of complex organic molecules occurs rapidly in different stellar environments. A comparative analysis of infrared spectra, indicates that small organic molecules can evolve into complex organic molecules. This includes inducing chiral asymmetry in interstellar organic molecules leading, possibly to an excess of L-amino acids. Amino acids appear to be generated and synthesized in these stellar environments. Sixty amino acids have been detected, including eight of the twenty amino acids necessary for life. In fact, the UV irradiation of interstellar ice analogs is known to lead to the formation and synthesis of organic compounds (Troop and Baily 2009) such as amino acids and what may be nucleobases.

A wide-field and deep near-infrared study of the Orion nebula, revealed a high circular polarization region is patially extended around the massive star-forming region, the BN/KL nebula, and which is being irradiated by polarized radiation inducing a asymmetric photochemistry and thus what appears to be homochirality, i.e. the production of left handed amino acids . Amino acids lead to proteins and DNA.

Interstellar molecular clouds appear to serve as stellar nurseries for building complex molecules, producing sugars, alcohols, ethers and quinons which also absorb UV and other types of radiation which would be destructive to amino acids. However, at the same time, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen and phosphorus are continually irradiated by ions, and which could generate complex organic molecules, carbon grains, oxides, and even proteins

Within a nebular cloud, complex organic molecules can be provided all the ingredients necessary for building more complex molecular structures, including amino acids and proteins which can be combined to create additional life-related structures, including DNA. Even energy is supplied.

The combination of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, cyanide and several other elements, could possibly create adenine, which is a DNA base, whereas oxygen and phosphorus could ladder DNA base pairs together. Therefore, the building blocks for DNA may have also been generated within interstellar clouds.

Thus, DNA would become part of this molecular-protein-amino acid complex.

Further, these combinations would be buffeted by cosmic shock waves from additional supernova which in turn could provide these coalescing organic molecules and strands of DNA with heat and additional sources of energy. This energize DNA-molecular-protein complex could then begin to function as a proto-organism with all its needs provided by the nebular environment. The next step would be: microbial life.

Therefore, interstellar environments may have served as nuclear wombs of life (Joseph and Schild 2010). Thus, after several billion years within nebular environments which are constantly being resupplied with energy and all the necessary ingredients for life, self-replicating proto-cellular organisms, equipped with DNA, would likely be fashioned, giving rise to life. Therefore, it can be predicted that the generation of life may be an ongoing phenomenon in the oldest of nebular clouds.

However, only one replicon had to be jumbled together and energized. Once it became functional it would have immediately began replicating and creating variable copies of itself and its DNA.

At some point in the history of life, these replicons and their genomes became increasingly complex and they evolved into single celled organisms; and this evolutionary step may have also taken place in space. In fact it has been repeatedly demonstrated that microbes can survive conditions in space, including ejection from and the crash landing onto a planet, the frigid temperatures and vacuum of an interstellar environment, and the UV rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, and ionizing radiation they would encounter (Burchell et al. 2004; Burchella et al. 2001; Horneck et al. 2001a.b, Horneck et al. 1994; Mastrapaa et al. 2001; Nicholson et al. 2000).

Microbes born on this planet are already pre-adapted for journeying through space, living in space, and not just surviving but flourishing in radioactive environments where they are continually exposed to radiation by ions similar to what might be encountered in a nebular cloud.

In 1958, physicists discovered clouds of bacteria, ranging from two million bacteria per cm3 and over 1 billion per quart, thriving in pools of radioactive waste directly exposed to ionizing radiation and radiation levels millions of times greater than could have ever before been experienced on this planet (Nasim and James, 1978). The world's first artificial nuclear reactor was not even built until 1942. Prior to the 1945, poisonous pools of radioactive waste did not even exist on Earth. And yet, over a dozen different species of microbe have inherited the genes which enable them to survive conditions which for the previous 4.5 billion years could have only been experienced in space. These radiation-loving microbes include Deinococcus radiodurans, D. proteolyticus, D. radiopugnans, D. radiophilus, D. grandis, D. indicus, D. frigens, D. saxicola, D. marmola, D. geothermalis, D. murrayi.

Figure 24. Deinococcus radiodurans.

Microbes from Earth are preadapted to surviving conditions which they have not encountered on this planet. Therefore, they must have inherited the genes which made survival in space possible; and this means these genes were acquired from microbes which had lived in space (Joseph 2009a). It is this adaptation which made them the perfect vehicle for spreading the genetic seeds of life throughout the cosmos.

Proto-life and then microbial life has been forged in nebular clouds. Given the turbulent nature of these nebular clouds, however, it might seem that life would be instantly destroyed unless provided some protection against the life-neutralizing hazards that would be encountered in a free-floating environment constantly exposed to conditions deadly to life. This protection would in fact be provided by the same stellar mechanisms which dispersed those elements necessary for the establishment of life. Not just the seeds of life, but the material for the creation of new stars and planets are dispersed by these powerful supernovas.

Casey Kazan via cosmology/com


...has very little places left to hide...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/origins-of-life-on-earth/
Life on Earth Arose Just Once

One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms.

The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. “But recently there has been some mumbling, especially from microbiologists, that it may not be so cut-and-dried.”

Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.

To determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Theobald put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests. The results, published in the May 13 Nature, come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor.

A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.


No one has previously put this aspect of evolution through such a stringent test, says David Penny, a theoretical biologist and Allan Wilson Centre researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. “In one sense, we are not surprised at the answer, but we are very pleased that the unity of life passed a formal test,” he says. He and Mike Steel of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote a commentary on the study that appears in the same issue of Nature.

For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species — four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life.

Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins.

Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. “The universal common ancestor (models) didn’t just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts,” Theobald says.

A model that had a single common ancestor and allowed for some gene- swapping among species was even better than a simple tree of life. Such a scenario is 103,489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model, Theobald found.

Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today. “It doesn’t tell you where the deep ancestor was,” Penny says. “But what it does say is that there was one common ancestor among all those little beasties.”

Citations: Theobald, D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465 (May 13): 219-223. doi:10.1038/nature09014
Steel, M. and Penny, D. 2010. Common ancestry put to the test. Nature, 465 (May 13): 168-169.

Image: M. Steel and D. Penny/Nature 2010

Tags: Brandies University, David Penny, Douglas Theobald, Massey University, Nature, University of Canterbury
Five Finger Death Punch
"I'd rather you hate me, for everything I am than ever love me, for something that I'm not."

Lowsix wrote:Seriously dude..you're trash.
Always have been.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 1:21 pm » by Electrobadgr


nihilgeist wrote:
electrobadgr wrote: however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.


It's only a matter of time...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/tracing-evolution-of-proteins-back-billions-of-years-.html#more

Researchers at Spain's Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) have demonstrated evidence in support of the common ancestry of life using a new computational approach to study protein evolution.

The research takes its inspiration from the astronomer Edwin Hubble and uses his approach to study protein evolution. The extrapolation of Hubble's approach to proteins shows that proteins that share a common ancestor billions of years ago continue to diverge in their molecular composition.


The study reveals that protein evolution has not reached its limit and it is still continuing. At the same time, it provides us new information on why this evolution is so slow and conservative, showing that protein structures are more evolutionary plastic than previously thought.

Almost 100 years ago Edwin Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from Earth faster than those that are closer. This relationship between distance and velocity is widely cited as evidence of the origin of the Universe from a Big Bang. Researchers at the Centre for Genomic Regulation used his approach to investigate the divergence between protein sequences.

"We wanted to know if the divergent evolution between proteins was still proceeding. Today, we can find proteins that are still similar after almost 3,5 billion years of evolution. Our study showed that their divergence continues with these proteins becoming more and more different despite their incredible level of conservation," said Fyodor Kondrashov, principal investigator of the project and leader of the Evolutionary Genomics group at the CRG.

The work done by Kondrashov and Inna Povolotskaya goes beyond similarity studies and discusses the evolution of proteins from the view of evolutionary dynamics, offering a new perspective on how protein structures are maintained in evolution. "In the same way that Hubble's observations led to an understanding of the past and the future of our universe, using his approach at a molecular level we get a similar overview that gives us the ability to analyze evolutionary dynamics and get a broad prediction of the possible changes to the proteins in the future," says Povolotskaya.

Proteins are formed through combinations of amino acids, with only 20 types of amino acids are available to form a particular protein. To obtain the data for their study, the CRG researchers have compared proteins sequences from different species that were available in GenBank, a public database of genetic information. Comparing these sequences the authors measured the distance of proteins from each other and devised a method for measuring how fast the proteins are accumulating different changes. Thus, they could replicate Hubble's approach by correlating the distance between the proteins with the rate of their divergence. The result indicates that even the most distantly-related proteins are still accumulating differences.

Most changes in a protein are deleterious because they somehow disrupt its structure or function. The authors observation that even very conservative proteins are still diverging challenges this view, because it implies that most amino acids in a protein can be changes without any ill effects. Their explanation is that amino acid changes that are deleterious in one combination can be benign when occurring in a different one. "Thanks to our study we now have a better understanding of protein structure dynamics," says Kondrashov. It may provide a new perspective to groups working on protein structure to find new targets for design drugs, etc.

The Povolotskaya and Kondrashov study also provides new information on how different interactions between different amino acids in the structure of proteins slows down but does not completely prevent evolution.

The genome of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of living organisms on Earth is thought to have 300 genes that included at minimum 140 superfamilies of protein domains. Each protein domain is optimized for a specific molecular function (e.g., protein-protein interaction, protein-DNA interaction, catalysis of specific reactions, unwinding of DNA, and others).

The evolution of proteins is the latest chapter in the process of the origin of life. It was preceded by the RNA-world where many catalytic functions were performed by nucleic acids . The RNA world was preceded by the coenzyme world where heredity was carried by isolated coenzyme-like molecules that combined autocatalysis (self-copying) with support of some specific functions of a larger system . Because the initial steps of biological evolution were extremely slow, the coenzyme world may have lasted for 1 billion years, followed by 1-2 billion years of the RNA-world.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Commentary203.html

Adapted from materials provided by Centre for Genomic Regulation.


...the magic hand of an "unexplainable" unseen force...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/image-of-the-day-did-life-begin-in-a-bubble-nebula.html#more

Did DNA-Based Life Begin in Nebula & Interstellar Clouds?

Stellar debris, nebulae such as the Bubble (image above) and Orion Nebula, and interstellar clouds contain hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorus, water vapour, methanol, ethanol, cyanide, ammonia, formaldehyde, and complex organic molecules. A spectral line survey of Orion nebular clouds has identified 40 different molecular species, including several organic compounds such as methyl cyanide, methanol, and dimethyl ether. An examination of a nebular cloud within 3 astronomical units of AA Tauri revealed the presence of an abundance of simple organic molecules (HCN, C2H2, and CO2), water vapor, and OH. Water was particularly abundant throughout the inner disk which is a strong indication of active organic chemistry.

There is an abundance of organic molecules, water, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons within interstellar clouds, which indicates either the presence of life, and serve as important ingredients for creating life.

Based on results from the European Space Agency's infrared space observatory, the Spitzer and other space telescopes, the chemical synthesis of complex organic molecules occurs rapidly in different stellar environments. A comparative analysis of infrared spectra, indicates that small organic molecules can evolve into complex organic molecules. This includes inducing chiral asymmetry in interstellar organic molecules leading, possibly to an excess of L-amino acids. Amino acids appear to be generated and synthesized in these stellar environments. Sixty amino acids have been detected, including eight of the twenty amino acids necessary for life. In fact, the UV irradiation of interstellar ice analogs is known to lead to the formation and synthesis of organic compounds (Troop and Baily 2009) such as amino acids and what may be nucleobases.

A wide-field and deep near-infrared study of the Orion nebula, revealed a high circular polarization region is patially extended around the massive star-forming region, the BN/KL nebula, and which is being irradiated by polarized radiation inducing a asymmetric photochemistry and thus what appears to be homochirality, i.e. the production of left handed amino acids . Amino acids lead to proteins and DNA.

Interstellar molecular clouds appear to serve as stellar nurseries for building complex molecules, producing sugars, alcohols, ethers and quinons which also absorb UV and other types of radiation which would be destructive to amino acids. However, at the same time, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen and phosphorus are continually irradiated by ions, and which could generate complex organic molecules, carbon grains, oxides, and even proteins

Within a nebular cloud, complex organic molecules can be provided all the ingredients necessary for building more complex molecular structures, including amino acids and proteins which can be combined to create additional life-related structures, including DNA. Even energy is supplied.

The combination of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, cyanide and several other elements, could possibly create adenine, which is a DNA base, whereas oxygen and phosphorus could ladder DNA base pairs together. Therefore, the building blocks for DNA may have also been generated within interstellar clouds.

Thus, DNA would become part of this molecular-protein-amino acid complex.

Further, these combinations would be buffeted by cosmic shock waves from additional supernova which in turn could provide these coalescing organic molecules and strands of DNA with heat and additional sources of energy. This energize DNA-molecular-protein complex could then begin to function as a proto-organism with all its needs provided by the nebular environment. The next step would be: microbial life.

Therefore, interstellar environments may have served as nuclear wombs of life (Joseph and Schild 2010). Thus, after several billion years within nebular environments which are constantly being resupplied with energy and all the necessary ingredients for life, self-replicating proto-cellular organisms, equipped with DNA, would likely be fashioned, giving rise to life. Therefore, it can be predicted that the generation of life may be an ongoing phenomenon in the oldest of nebular clouds.

However, only one replicon had to be jumbled together and energized. Once it became functional it would have immediately began replicating and creating variable copies of itself and its DNA.

At some point in the history of life, these replicons and their genomes became increasingly complex and they evolved into single celled organisms; and this evolutionary step may have also taken place in space. In fact it has been repeatedly demonstrated that microbes can survive conditions in space, including ejection from and the crash landing onto a planet, the frigid temperatures and vacuum of an interstellar environment, and the UV rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, and ionizing radiation they would encounter (Burchell et al. 2004; Burchella et al. 2001; Horneck et al. 2001a.b, Horneck et al. 1994; Mastrapaa et al. 2001; Nicholson et al. 2000).

Microbes born on this planet are already pre-adapted for journeying through space, living in space, and not just surviving but flourishing in radioactive environments where they are continually exposed to radiation by ions similar to what might be encountered in a nebular cloud.

In 1958, physicists discovered clouds of bacteria, ranging from two million bacteria per cm3 and over 1 billion per quart, thriving in pools of radioactive waste directly exposed to ionizing radiation and radiation levels millions of times greater than could have ever before been experienced on this planet (Nasim and James, 1978). The world's first artificial nuclear reactor was not even built until 1942. Prior to the 1945, poisonous pools of radioactive waste did not even exist on Earth. And yet, over a dozen different species of microbe have inherited the genes which enable them to survive conditions which for the previous 4.5 billion years could have only been experienced in space. These radiation-loving microbes include Deinococcus radiodurans, D. proteolyticus, D. radiopugnans, D. radiophilus, D. grandis, D. indicus, D. frigens, D. saxicola, D. marmola, D. geothermalis, D. murrayi.

Figure 24. Deinococcus radiodurans.

Microbes from Earth are preadapted to surviving conditions which they have not encountered on this planet. Therefore, they must have inherited the genes which made survival in space possible; and this means these genes were acquired from microbes which had lived in space (Joseph 2009a). It is this adaptation which made them the perfect vehicle for spreading the genetic seeds of life throughout the cosmos.

Proto-life and then microbial life has been forged in nebular clouds. Given the turbulent nature of these nebular clouds, however, it might seem that life would be instantly destroyed unless provided some protection against the life-neutralizing hazards that would be encountered in a free-floating environment constantly exposed to conditions deadly to life. This protection would in fact be provided by the same stellar mechanisms which dispersed those elements necessary for the establishment of life. Not just the seeds of life, but the material for the creation of new stars and planets are dispersed by these powerful supernovas.

Casey Kazan via cosmology/com


...has very little places left to hide...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/origins-of-life-on-earth/
Life on Earth Arose Just Once

One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms.

The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. “But recently there has been some mumbling, especially from microbiologists, that it may not be so cut-and-dried.”

Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.

To determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Theobald put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests. The results, published in the May 13 Nature, come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor.

A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.


No one has previously put this aspect of evolution through such a stringent test, says David Penny, a theoretical biologist and Allan Wilson Centre researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. “In one sense, we are not surprised at the answer, but we are very pleased that the unity of life passed a formal test,” he says. He and Mike Steel of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote a commentary on the study that appears in the same issue of Nature.

For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species — four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life.

Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins.

Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. “The universal common ancestor (models) didn’t just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts,” Theobald says.

A model that had a single common ancestor and allowed for some gene- swapping among species was even better than a simple tree of life. Such a scenario is 103,489 times more probable than the best multi-ancestor model, Theobald found.

Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today. “It doesn’t tell you where the deep ancestor was,” Penny says. “But what it does say is that there was one common ancestor among all those little beasties.”

Citations: Theobald, D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465 (May 13): 219-223. doi:10.1038/nature09014
Steel, M. and Penny, D. 2010. Common ancestry put to the test. Nature, 465 (May 13): 168-169.

Image: M. Steel and D. Penny/Nature 2010

Tags: Brandies University, David Penny, Douglas Theobald, Massey University, Nature, University of Canterbury


Great read, i have highlighted in red the parts of the second article i have problems with, esspecially when followed the the definitive statement highlighted in blue. You can't use "may have's" and "could have's" and then say that you have proven something.....Again, it is all just theory and so far not one has been any more or less valid than the other. I really like the idea that all life shares a single ancestor, that also does not rule out intelligent design though :cheers:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 4:02 pm » by Electrobadgr


bump :D
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:06 pm

PostSat May 29, 2010 7:10 pm » by Mushroom


This is quite a good site and has some resource links. It deals with both sides of the argument, but is more than slightly biased toward the ID theory.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 9:26 am » by Electrobadgr


psiman wrote:I say absolutely, to the title anyway :flop:


hey psi, what do you think qbout the flagellum? Intelligent design or a miracle of evolution? :cheers:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 9:33 am » by Electrobadgr


It has been pissing me off discussing this theory with friends, it seems that if you question Darwinism you are accused of being a God bothering bible basher. Why is it so difficult to accept that evolution is far from watertight???? Is this really the state of things when people have their views on the universe shaped by the narrow minded conclusions of others, why can't they admit that we know nothing/very little and to decide absolutely that they know that intelligence could not have created life is naive and arrogant!!
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook