glendbrown

re: StringJunky >It is the changes in allele frequency over time. And how about before there were alleles? The diel theory is first and foremost about chemical evolution. While it does subsume and supersede the modern synthesis, it does not really change it (much, importantly, it does add to the definition of first life as discussed above). Of course it has to be consistent with and continuous with evolution by natural selection. re: Strange >If all you are saying is that circadian cycles are synced to external (light/dark) stimuli, then that hardly seems noteworthy. And I don't really see how it is evidence for (or against) your idea. So you are saying that none of those papers I sent is even relevant to what we are discussing? Do you still claim that first paper does not say what I said it did? Or was I right? I'm sorry, but I want to start to feel like this conversation will go somewhere before I sink more time into your demands for citations. Here's the link to the original article that was removed above (hope it's okay to post now): url removed I am saying that the so-called circadian clock may not even exist. Its a simple timer when present at all. Many, many papers say stuff like "The circadian clock controls thousands of genes," and almost all biologists believe this as far as I know. It's just that there never was really much evidence. Really it's problem with applying the scientific method. Had researchers always kept in mind a null hypothesis like "no clock," we would not have wasted so much time and money trying to find a clock inside of a clock. I'm saying what people had called "circadian biology" before is really just "biology." Is that really just stating the obvious? A key part of the theory is that the chemical complexity was built up in the soup before natural selection came into play. Evolution can be seen more as internalizing what was already there rather than tinkering and coming up with new stuff. Indeed, in terms of chemical complexity, natural selection may be the great simplifier. If that's not new, I'd ask where you have read it before?

re: StringJunky >Critique is not bullshit or insulting. If you put up an idea before scientists expect it it to analysed; inspected and broken down. If it fails in the details it fails as an idea. "Those are not easily confused if you know anything at all about even basic biology...how someone, such as yourself, could latch on to such an idea...down into the substance, well, there doesn't seem to be any. There are no details to this idea and the ones that you have laid out don't make any consistent kind of sense." BS like this, presented as some form of argument, should be kept on reddit. It has no place in a discussion of scientific ideas. Where are the detailed questions in this? I want detailed questions and criticisms, not insults, and not even critiques of my critique of their critique. re: Arete >I'm not sure why you would do this considering that replication error is itself a significant source of mutation. Also, given cancer cells, viruses, prions, organelles etc all evolve, I'm not sure why being "alive" according to an arbitrary definition is relevant to any theory of evolution. Can you please define evolve? Everything evolves. Some things evolve by natural selection, others do not. Note how in that reference I provided, they do use the phrase, but they are careful to define it.When searching for first life, it helps to be able to define terms, but of course you don't want to get caught up in it. Yes, replication gone haywire, that's the standard model. Mutation causes recombination. I think caner is better described as a a cell that has combined replication and recombination functions. It's new so don't expect to believe it right away, certainly be skeptical, but please also consider that maybe I've given it some thought as well. I really do not think cancer evolves in a Darwinian way. Diel theory suggests it might be possible to bury cancer in it's own grave by facilitating even more recombination (might also cause metastasis and/or testicular cancer so it could also be dangerous. I'd try it on advanced stage ovarian patients first). Something as simple as taking Clomid before and between radiation treatments might help. This is probably the way UV kills cancer cells already. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16401344 By the way, because I thought it was important, I contacted some cancer researchers, and explained my ideas. So far they all think it's a good idea worth pursuing. re: Strange I'll take your questions one at a time. When you acknowledge that I've answered the first, I'll move on to the next. >Citation needed. (The one paper you reference does not seem to support this claim.) Diapause studies go back a long way in "circadian" biology. There was hope it would finally be the magic bullet to help explain what the "circadian clock" does. Even though these authors may or may not agree with my interpretation, they do say, "Thus, the assumption that all species with robust diapause have robust circadian clocks may still be wrong, leaving the possibility open that the same weak circadian clock is involved in both processes." "Weak" clock is about the same as a "diel timer", an "hourglass," or "damped clock." Here's a couple papers about evolution of diel timers in bacteria. Metabolism drives the clock, not the other way around. The organism is the clock. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005922 http://jb.asm.org/content/183/8/2439.full re: StringJunky Thanks for the complement, but because I am so new to the field, and theory is not two months old yet, I am looking for expert input. So far I agree this does not seem like the place. re: Ophiolite Can we just drop the sine wave? It has nothing to do with the theory. I just presented it that way to try to get people interested. It's not even mentioned in the original theory. If it matters, I'll say I was absolutely wrong, and you are absolutely right. >However, I see no reason that such diurnal effects would initiate evolution as you suggest. Yes, they would influence evolution, just as many environmental factors do, but that is quite a different matter. So, there must be some other factor you envisage is at work. edit: I am saying that according to my reading of the biology the light-dark cycle played the biggest role. There would have also been diurnal fluctuations in temperature and in the intertidal, drying cycles (not strictly linked to the diurnal cycle). Can you summarize what the other big players would have been? re: Daecon >I do hope this isn't going to end up leading into some slippery slope of Biblical creationism... How about reading the theory and see? Yes, atheists hate my theory because it suggests there might be something positive to "observance." Or, if you are too lazy to read and learn, maybe just stop trolling.

RE: Delta1212 How about trying to stick to whatever meat is in your criticisms and avoid the ad hominen stuff? >Who doesn't consider cancer cells to be alive? Edit: I think you are getting cancer mixed up with viruses, which... Those are not easily confused if you know anything at all about even basic biology. I think most evolutionary biologists consider it an open question. Here's a recent paper: "many forces may operate differently in cancers than in organisms" http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-genet-112414-054842?journalCode=genet >Also, what does "the y axis represents everything except time" mean? Everything increases during the day and everything decreases at night? I'm genuinely not sure what it is you are trying to communicate. Nothing like that. Sorry I'm not being clear. The x-axis I am talking about IS time. I dilate time early in history and contract it later by considering each passing of a day-night cycle as one. Early in earth's history the earth was spinning faster. It's a simple recapitulation of that apparent fact. >I mean, I can see a sort of broad overview of an idea in your posts. I can see how the idea seems to have a shape and how someone, such as yourself, could latch on to such an idea. This is not a criticism. Its a judgement. Also ad hominem. >But if you still down into the substance, well, there doesn't seem to be any. There are no details to this idea and the ones that you have laid out don't make any consistent kind of sense. Really bs here. As if you are trying to develop a thesis of some sort, but you just keep hurling insults. Please, ask again anything you do not understand.

RE: Arete >1) Circadian rhythm is a critical adaptation for many organisms - especially those that photosynthesize. Most, if not all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes display daily cyclical patterns of metabolism in relation to circadian cycling. Therefore, daily patterns of environmental cycling - e.g. light, temperature, humidity are critical drivers of adaptation, sure. Diurnal rhythms are present in all organisms, even the ones that have been evolving in the dark for a long, long time. However, it turns out that the endogenous circadian clock has been vastly overstated. Really there is very little evidence for anything more than an overnight timer and morning wake-up call. Here's an example of what I mean (what he calls an hourglass, I call a diel timer): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phen.12165/full The entire organism is the clock. >2) However, to say that circadian rhythms fundamentally CAUSE evolution is well in the "not even wrong" category. Biological evolution is defined as change in allele frequency, in a population, through generations, over time. The only two parameters needed for evolution to occur are A) DNA replication/repair is imperfect, and B) populations are not infinite in size. According to NASA, one way to define life has to do with the emergence of natural selection. Therefore, all pre-organismal evolution should be explained by something other than a change in allele frequnecy since that would be in the "not even wrong" category. Cancer is an example of a cell that replicates and recombines but which is not usually considered alive or at least many hold that view. The diel theory of evolution suggests a slight update to your definition: replication and recombination are always present but also always separated in space and time. Consider meiosis: replication first, then recombination. Fertilization: recombination first followed by replication. Cancer would not be considered alive by this definition. Nothing about population size required, though I suppose we can count on it not being infinite, at least literally speaking. Furthermore, pre-organismal evolution must be contiguous with and explain Darwinian evolution. >3) A direct demonstration of why circadian rhythm does not fundamentally cause evolution is shown by the fact that organisms not exposed to daily cycling e.g. deep sea vent ecosystems, cave organisms, endolithic microbial communities etc. all show adaptive evolution. Although not given up by the hive mind on the internet or a gaggle of senior ool researchers, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis has been discredited both by biologists and chemists. So far this is the only thing I've been allowed to talk about elsewhere on the internet, and would rather not do so here. I do not know if it applies to you, but hydrothermal-vent enthusiasts tend to act like true believers. RE: swansont >I want you to explain your theory. If you claim something is sinusoidal, the y-axis has to represent something. But it doesn't. So that's a nonsensical claim. Nothing grandiose about my "pronouncement". There's no explanatory power here, by your own admission. There's nothing we can fit a sine wave to to see if this claim is correct. Do you really not see how the day-night cycle is kind of a sine wave (with a slowly increasing period, especially on the equator)? Not that it matters. Again, more days past early in earth's history when days may have been as short as 4 or 5 hours. According to this COUNTING SYSTEM FOR THE X AXIS, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A SINE WAVE EVEN THOUGH THE DAY-NIGHT CYCLE CAN BE MODELED THAT WAY. The y-axis represents everything in this case. Everything except time. This suggests more of our evolutionary history took place earlier in time than we ever suspected before. The explanatory powers are vast. Tell me what your favorite ancient metabolic pathway is, and I'll put a diel spin on it for you. Maybe that will motivate you to dig deeper into the theory?

RE: Strange Darwin noted how special the week was in development (based on somebody else's work, will dig up if you want). However, perhaps especially if you are no longer making a living in the intertidal, the developmental cycle will have been under selective pressure since a common ancestor in the intertidal. So you expect them to be kind of vestigial in a way. However, organisms that live in or even near the intertidal do have a tidal rhythm like that of the current lunar week. It's too easy to find examples of stuff that lasts a week, two weeks, etc. However, no matter how many examples I find, I still think it could just be human imposed bias. Thus, I do not really consider this very strong evidence for my theory. I explained the prediction made by the 32 day sweet spot above. More of a predicted convergence of two fields rather than a specific date. I searched and asked and prodded and annoyed for information on the days/synodic month. Here's the very best source I could find: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193886 see the table most of the way down and partially pasted below. Obviously not all these data points seem correct. In general, I think the days/month were increasing early in evolution, and then started decreasing. Where it started, when inflection point(s) happened, and the what the maximum value was are all open questions. It may have started at a very low number, even like 8 days/month or something. To learn a lot more, read Williams, 10.1029/1999RG900016 (DOI). (Also his numbers with errors are well within the possibility of a 32 sweet spot 1.5Bya or so, just not nailed down specifically). Neglecting the evaporating oceans that will happen in 2B years or so, the final data point on this curve is clear: 1 (perhaps about 45 of our days long) in 40B years or so. so perhaps, and I mean perhaps, we went from 8 days/month up to 36 d/m and now we're at 29.5 on our way to 1. Something like that. Mya Month (dys) 0 29.53 60.27 3.82 31.10 620 30.5 1997, Williams, rhythmites 900 32.4 1998, Sohn & Chan, rhythmites 1000 40 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u82507486885p334/ 2000 31 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/26582/1/0000123.pdf 2450 32.1 1989 Williams, banded iron (This one is out of place. Error?) 3000 31 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstr.../1/0000123.pdf 4000 30 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstr.../1/0000123.pdf 4540 I just went to report swansont, but it turns out he's a moderator! I think you want to make grandiose pronouncements without any attempt to try and understand the theory. The hypothesis states that the day-night cycle has played a more pivotal role in evolution than the passage of time. Its a different way to count. Of course there is no y axis if you give it some thought.

RE: Dr.K. No, diel is a word in fairly common usage. It comes up sometimes in the context of "tidal rhythms" (one a few seconds, one just over a day, and another around the lunar month). Dies, meaning day, is the Latin root. Thank you for the spelling help. RE: swansont. Little bit of a grandiose way to try and give criticism no? If you want explanation or predictions, I'm happy to supply both. There are no end to the predictions. A theory of evolution must explain every scrap of reliable data existent. Since it came up already, I'll give you a kind of prediction about "sweet spots" (those times when the lunar week was divided evenly by the solar day. Molecular biologists (the ones I've asked so far) cannot yet seem to tell us when eukaryotic multicellular life arose. (Is that right by the way? I'm open to correction here, would love to dump this part of the theory.) The geologists and astronomers cannot tell us when the 32 day sweet spot occurred. However, both groups promise an answer at some point. I predict they will be the same. Should fail or not in a spectacular way. But something else: The diel theory of evolution is first and foremost a theory of chemical evolution. I think we can all agree that natural selection (Darwinian inheritance) had taken hold by the time of multicellularity and indeed was present well before that, at least before the GOE. The further forward we go in evolution, the less that non-organismal chemical evolution would seem to matter. I assert that, by and large, natural selection simplifies chemical complexity over time (by replacing lots of stuff present in the soup with enzymes). It fits all the data better than the idea of natural selection as the tinkerer (as it undoubtedly was for complex feats of engineering including). As for chemical complexity, light, and especially the light-dark cycle, was the tinkerer. In bacteria, I think this is still true: They accrue enough mutations during the day to reach competence and then have sex. If you look up Lynn Rothschild's work, you can get another perspective on why light might have been the tinkerer before life evolved. Basically, DNA and UV light makes a good, stable, recombination system even without stuff like cell membranes. I'm not seeing any de-novo-evolved chemical reactions popping up in the sequencing literature. Perhaps the some total of all life's chemistry from every species and probably much more was present in the soup. Note that sets a very low bar for falsification, and I would expect such a sweeping statement to be easily falsified, but then, the exceptions may also prove the rule. By rule I mean I can name many universal metabolic reactions that look for all the world as if they were present in the soup before first life. That they are universal may just be the most obvious bit of evidence for this, though that may border on tautology; will have to think about it. Great question about the y-axis. There is none. I was going to say "and described only by it's frequency" but did not want to get too complicated right out of the gate. Diel time (counting days) puts more of our history earlier in evolution, which fits with the chemical complexity data I just mentioned.

"Diel" refers to a day-night cycle (often 24 hours though days were shorter way back when). The Sabbath appears to be a zeitgeiber for the endogenous lunar week (one fourth of a lunar cycle). It may be leftover from a time when the the lunar week was evenly divisible by solar days, which does not happen very often. The lunar month may have been right at 32 days (now 29.5) and the lunar week at 8 days when multicellular eukaryotes caught on in the intertidal.

Sorry for the long delay. I posted in multiple places and got little to no response. Now I see this coming up on google and am hoping for some feedback. Also sorry for not reading rule 2.7, and here's hoping I do not get whisked into an unseen corner of your site. The diel hypothesis says that the day-night cycle played a more important role in evolution than the absolute passage of time. In other words, I model evolution as a kind of sine wave with a slowly increasing period. The most immediate evidence for this hypothesis comes from inheritance studies of ancient biology, which are dominated by light-gathering molecules such as indoles and porphyrins. A key part of the diel theory of evolution has it that the primordial soup itself had a diurnal rhythm. If poly-aromatic hydrocarbons rained from the sky during the Hadean, then there's good reason to think the soup had a day-night rhythm since time immemorial (aromatics collect UV light). Moreover, in the context of energy-generating photosystems that probably self-assembled in the soup, carbon fixation reactions and organismic metabolism does not seem that complex. As any good chemical theory of evolution must do, the diel theory of evolution subsumes and supersedes the modern synthesis. I am now working on the second installment of my theory, to be posted this lunar cycle, AMA.

I'm looking for comments on this: url removed per Rule 2.7 Thanks in advance! Please be brutal!