The diel theory of evolution

[StringJunky]

 

Can you please define evolve?

It is the changes in allele frequency over time.

Edited December 15, 2016 by StringJunky

[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?

[StringJunky]

 

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.

Then, I think, you are talking about abiogenesis; how life started.

[swansont]

Here's the link to the original article that was removed above (hope it's okay to post now):

 

!

Moderator Note

The rule has not changed in the last couple of months. if you want to discuss something, post the information here, rather than directing people to your site. As was indicated last time you posted a link.

[Ophiolite]

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.

Marvelous. I've never been absolutely right before. What a marvelous Christmas present.

 

 

Ophiolite said: "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?

I don't think any biologist, or knowledgeable amateur would deny that the diurnal cycle has had a powerful influence on the selection process in evolution. But are you suggesting it was more important as these major players:

 

1. Extensive presence of liquid water.

2. Or, to put it another way, Goldilocks zone conditions.

3. Salinity, pH, fugacity, etc.

4. Gravitational acceleration

5. Solar spectrum

6. Atmospheric composition

7. Atmospheric motion

8. Ocean currents

9. Etc.

 

And your implication is that the diurnal patterns initiates evolution, that it somehow takes the place of available genetic variability and subsequent mutations. If that is not what you intend you need to be clearer in your exposition.

[arc]

1. Extensive presence of liquid water.

2. Or, to put it another way, Goldilocks zone conditions.

3. Salinity, pH, fugacity, etc.

4. Gravitational acceleration

5. Solar spectrum

6. Atmospheric composition

7. Atmospheric motion

8. Ocean currents

9. Etc.

 

. . . . and Plate Tectonics. Ophiolite, how could you leave this one out?

[Moontanman]

I've read some speculation that tides and the resulting movement of water and stirring of chemicals might have had some significant effect on the genesis of life and had enough effect on the environment to accelerate both abiogenesis and evolution. In fact The Book "Rare Earth" , Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee suggests the tides and therefore the moon might be a critical component of a life bearing planet. Not having the moon and it's influence might have had a negative impact on life on the earth such that complex life might not have evolved at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

From what I've read this line of speculation has lost most supporters in recent years.

[StringJunky]

I've read some speculation that tides and the resulting movement of water and stirring of chemicals might have had some significant effect on the genesis of life and had enough effect on the environment to accelerate both abiogenesis and evolution. In fact The Book "Rare Earth" , Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee suggests the tides and therefore the moon might be a critical component of a life bearing planet. Not having the moon and it's influence might have had a negative impact on life on the earth such that complex life might not have evolved at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

From what I've read this line of speculation has lost most supporters in recent years.

I can envisage that tides allowed evolution to produce land-borne organisms by creating a band of cyclic saturation and drying around a land-mass so that some of them evolved to breathe air directly; tides probably provided a crucial intermediate step.

Edited December 15, 2016 by StringJunky

[Arete]

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.

 

Biological evolution is defined as change in allele frequency, in a population, through generations, over time.

 

 

 

Yes, replication gone haywire, that's the standard model. Mutation causes recombination.

 

a) The causes of mutation are manifold, including replication errors, spontaneous lesions, exposure to mutagens, DNA repair mechanisms, polymerase slippage, etc.

b) Recombination is a FORM of mutation - ironically often introduced by chiasmata during meiosis. Other forms of mutation include point mutations, insertions, deletions and inversions.

 

 

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.

 

a) Cancer is best defined as a cell in which cell division and apoptosis have become unregulated.

b) As cancer cells are somatic they do not sexually recombine - so I'm not sure what the ""recombination function" of a cancer cells refers to.

c) There is an extraordinarily large body of empirical data demonstrating that cancer lines evolve.

 

 

At this stage, your idea is too poorly characterized to even begin to critique meaningfully. Can you describe how it replaces the paradigm of mutation and differential heritability via selective and stochastic processes? For E.g. how would Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium be calculated under your theory?

[Daecon]

As well as the tides, does the gravitational influence of the moon also apply to magma under the crust, which in turn could determine the emergence of hydrothermal vents?

[StringJunky]

As well as the tides, does the gravitational influence of the moon also apply to magma under the crust, which in turn could determine the emergence of hydrothermal vents?

The Moon causes Earth tides.

[Moontanman]

As well as the tides, does the gravitational influence of the moon also apply to magma under the crust, which in turn could determine the emergence of hydrothermal vents?

 

 

Yes, the Moon does affect the crust of the Earth and the crust of the Earth rises under the influence of the Moons gravity.

[substitutematerials]

The hazy glimpse I am getting of this theory reminds me an idea Peter Huber put forth, that day/night thermal cycling was the initial power source for biological self-replication, akin to the the thermal cycling of PCR machines. In PCR a hot stage unzips DNA into 2 halves, and a cold stage allows the 2 halves to reconstitute 2 new full strands in the presence of the right chemical building blocks. Repeat, and you can endlessly multiply the DNA. This is a metabolic theory more than an evolutionary one though I think.

 

Some of the OPs other details, about when lunar days and solar days aligned, sound pretty numerological to me at first blush.

[Strange]

The hazy glimpse I am getting of this theory reminds me an idea Peter Huber put forth, that day/night thermal cycling was the initial power source for biological self-replication, akin to the the thermal cycling of PCR machines.

 

 

Interesting idea. I hadn't heard that before. (Although not relevant if the deep-sea vents hypothesis for abiogenesis is correct.)