Theory Of Life: We're Programmed

[dudels]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50

 

What I posted on the Origins Poll.

 

I would quite like to discuss some of these ideas, so I created this thread as I think it was better off in here.

 

 

Any comments or questions on the above theory? Please don't flame me for being uncultured and undereducated

[fafalone]

Some organisms (bacteria) use rhodospin pigments to perform photosynthesis.

[fafalone]

And if something is advantage for a particular environment (we can take this as Earth as a whole), then we'll see something called convergent evolution, where organisms of completely different species will adapt the same features for the environment, for example dolphins and and sharks don't look all that different, but one's a fish and one's a mammal.

[dudels]

Polymorphism in a sense.

 

Whilst I agree that my theory is far from perfect, what theory is?

 

 

Whilst sharks and dolphins do look somewhat alike, they both do draw charecteristics from their parent class; ie, dolphins can not 'breathe' the water, whereas sharks can.

[aman]

At the same time dolphins and sharks were evolving there were countless other organisms filling every other niche of energy availability and using it to build more of itself or better.

The key is energy availability and enviromental stability.

Faf pointed out that there are differences in organisms abilities to capture light, one small way of capturing and using available energy. Our niche is to eat everything we want and break it down for energy useful to us.

It seems at least for some reason here on Earth that if life can evolve and energy is available, life will evolve.

Just aman

[dudels]

What about when all energy is used (been converted to non-useful energy)? The universe is a closed system, so does this mean that we will just suddenly stop evolving?

[blike]

convergant evolution is a joke

 

Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford and author of The Blind Watchmaker is a supporter of convergent evolution. He says that "Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability."

 

The Pax-6 gene group is a key regulator in the development of eyes in all vertebrates. Its analog (a very similar gene) has been found to control development of the visual systems of moluscs, insects, flatworms, and nemerteans. These are five of the six phyla that have visual systems. The paired domain of the gene contains 130 amino acids. THe match of these amino acids between insects and humans is 94%. Between a zebra fish and a human the match is 97%.

 

So, could five genetically separate phyla have evolved these similar genes by chance? There are twentry different amino acids available to fill each of the 130 spaces on the gene. These means there are 20^130 possible combinations. There are one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion ways the amino acids could arrange themselves in those 130 slots on the gene. That number FAR exceeds the number of particles in the entire universe.

 

Any combination is possible at one time. Getting the same or even similar combinations a second time is a statisical problem. The likelihood that random mutations would produce the same combination five times is (20^130)^5. There is no way this same gene could evolve independantly in all five phyla, it must have been present in an ancestor below the Cambrian level. That could mean either Ediacarans or protozoa, but neither of these has eyes.

 

Researches in the journal Science have even reported that, "The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined." (R. Quiring et al., "Homology of the Eyeglass Gene in Drosophila to the Small Eye Gene in Mice and Aniridia in Humans," Science 265:785, 1994)

[blike]

Dudels, you might also want to check out this thread.

[fafalone]

Uh oh, someone is being ignorant :/

 

Common ancestors also plays a role. This accounts for eyes and many other traits, but the fossil record proves convergence.

 

And we wouldn't even be talking about this if a 1-in-50 tredecillion mutation in the FOXP2 gene hadn't just happened to give us control of our vocal chords to develop language.

[Guest Syntax]

I'm pretty retarded when it comes to this stuff. What makes our voices unique? Is there any way to copy the voice of someone else? If so, how?

[blike]

Uh, none of the common ancestors had eyes.

 

The fossil record can support it, but that doesn't resolve whether or not it was programmed into lower levels that didn't have eyes.

[dudels]

I've lost track of things here. Who is using what argument against who for backing of which theory?

 

 

I'm lost :s

[aman]

I've got to do some research since I don't know the DNA of the sulfer based life forms by the black smokers. I imagine their eyes would develop in the infrared ranges. Gotta check.

Just aman

[blike]

I'm with you dudels

 

I was arguing with you and against convergent evolution.

[dudels]

Excellant stuff

 

 

I'll go look into some convergent evolution theory so I know what my thoery is similar to.

[aman]

I'm for convergent evolution. I think there is a pressure in the microcosom that pushes life to evolve throughout the universe and on earth in just about any way possible. Just my opinion.

Just aman

[dudels]

The term 'convergent evolution' is used in a way which implies that there are other forms of evolution too.

 

 

What others are there that I could look up information on?

[fafalone]

divergent evolution, speciation, directional selection, genetic drift, founder effect, bottleneck effect, etc.

[aman]

I think ugly women evolved due to the bottleneck effect. If you raise enough bottlenecks to your mouth in a dark room you might take one home and procreate.

Faf described a bunch of approaches at explaining evolution and until we find a real different life form it will be hard to argue against them or for them. ET has DNA?

Just aman

[fafalone]

I think extreme thermophiles and halophiles are different enough than anything else; and they don't actually go against any proposed mechanisms of evolution.

[aman]

I read a little on the hyperthermophiles and they developed as chemoautotrophs which make their ATP directly from the chemicals and energy of the black smokers. It seems they jumped quiet a few steps of evolution.

Just aman

[fafalone]

Not many steps before chemoautotrophs.

[aman]

The Thermophiles have protein enzymes similiar to those in plant life for reproduction, but I don't know how the hyperthermophiles reproduce. If they have a different process then they are even farther from us as a life form and may be independant.

Just aman

[fafalone]

They just use enzymes that don't denature, such as L-Isoaspartyl Methyltransferase.