Possible key human evolution genes identified

[Phenomanul]

Correct.

The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.

IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.

If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.

Except you are talking about this universe... and the simple calcs I posted were in reference to life in this universe.

Wanting to use mathematical factors from a multiverse model (which is by no means a law) is a stretch.

BTW your reasoning behind having billions upon billions of molecules bumping up against each as a motive for increasing the odds is also a stretch. Once the sequence starts --- say part 10 out of 200 --- the other 190 molecules need to converge on that one location (reaction site). You can't increase those odds simply because the world's oceans contain a 'seemingly' infinite sea of molecules.

[Phenomanul]

Which further beckons the question whether the first self replicating proteins were prions. Something simpler and more likely to be randomly thrown together in a tidal pool?

You say prions are so complicated that they couldn't be randomly generated. Ok.

I am no bio-chemist, but how complicated does a protein, or whatever, need to be in order for self-replication?

The NASA article you posted earlier referenced an 'inorganic' replication process that happened to use organic molecules. Unfortunately, said process would be the unlikely precursor of genetically relevant material. For one, the amino acids used were all the same. Not one single protein is made from a -amino-acid sequence. At least 4 different amino acids are required to twist the chain sufficiently to the point where the protein can subsist without wanting to revert (or be chemically attacked) into smaller cons uent molecules. To the article's defense, the process was very unique and still highly significant.

Remember the 200 base system I calculated earlier. Said sequence can code for a polypeptide chain that is comprised by a total of 66 amino-acids (the building blocks of proteins). The simplest proteins are roughly that small. And so if you consider the fact that the replicative process of DNA/RNA requires about 190 different proteins to complete a replicative cycle, everyone should be amazed at exactly how much 'code' is required just to enable DNA/RNA replication. DNA/RNA is both the means and the causality of replication. This means that certain highly specialized proteins, like transcriptase, various nucleases, polymerase, helicase, ligase etc... would already have to exist before any significally relevant DNA strand could even replicate. So if one says... "well then those proteins likely formed first" your odds of having created them would be much lower because using amino-acid based odds (1 out of 20) instead of DNA-base odds (1 out of 4) would further decrease an already infintessimally small number.

[Extra Stout]

Correct.

The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.

IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.

If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.

On the question of biology and abiogenesis, if there are an infinite number of universes, and if events progress chaotically in each one independent of the others, then any event with a nonzero probability is certain to occur in at least one of them.

Then there remains the cosmological evidence, and to discount that, you have to assume 1) multiple universes, 2) random chaotic timelines, and 3) random properties of matter and energy and so forth.

And so what if hegamboa's numbers are off by an order of magnitude or two, or twenty? Are you saying that if there is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that God exists you would be convinced, but not if there is only a 99.99% chance?

[RandomGuy]

Except you are talking about this universe... and the simple calcs I posted were in reference to life in this universe. Wanting to use mathematical factors from a multiverse model (which is by no means a law) is a stretch.

You can’t consider one universe apart from the multiverse. The isolation defies logic and science.

If you play enough poker, a royal flush, although unlikely, is a statistical certainty based on the number of poker hands played since the beginning of time. It is more likely that you will come up with a royal flush at least once rather than never.

Isolating one result from all the others ignores simple statistical science. How can you say that this isn't the one(or "a") time where a (or “the”) universe drew a “royal flush” and came up with some form of self-replicating molecule?

BTW your reasoning behind having billions upon billions of molecules bumping up against each as a motive for increasing the odds is also a stretch. Once the sequence starts --- say part 10 out of 200 --- the other 190 molecules need to converge on that one location (reaction site). You can't increase those odds simply because the world's oceans contain a 'seemingly' infinite sea of molecules.

It is not a stretch. It addresses your probability concerns exactly.

You say the “odds of this happening once is X”. This has the same logical structure as “the odds of getting a royal flush are one in (whatever)” and holding out that probability as effectively impossible.

It is far from “impossible” if you play enough poker.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

On the question of biology and abiogenesis, if there are an infinite number of universes, and if events progress chaotically in each one independent of the others, then any event with a nonzero probability is certain to occur in at least one of them.

Then there remains the cosmological evidence, and to discount that, you have to assume 1) multiple universes, 2) random chaotic timelines, and 3) random properties of matter and energy and so forth.

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.

(reference the "walk across the street and end up on mars" bit from an earlier post.)

And so what if hegamboa's numbers are off by an order of magnitude or two, or twenty? Are you saying that if there is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that God exists you would be convinced, but not if there is only a 99.99% chance?

Not at all. I am saying that life is possible without the active participation of God.

[boutons_]

I get the impression that boa and creationist/ID fellow-travellers, the "good", assume that if someone doesn't believe in the 6-day Genesis cosmology and/or believes in evolution, then those persons are the "bad" who don't believe in God at all and/or that God doesn't exist. A very "ugly" black-white simplification.

[sabar]

RandomGuy is on the right track here. While the chances of this "replicator" occuring are very small, it is still very much possible, and we are living proof. We arethe royal flush. There could have been 800 trillion universes that created NO life before this current one, assuming this universe collpases and starts all over.

And stop thinking is such literal terms people.

The first replicator was obviously not DNA. Nor was it some protein that looks like this. It was something very simple. It only takes two amino acids to create a chain, you don't need 1200 of them linked into a super complex structure for the very first self-replicating thing.

There is the possibility that is wrong too. The first human being could have very well spontaneously formed in the air when a lightning bolt hit a swamp, by sheer chance of the molecules being rearranged. Haven't you ever heard?

A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare by sheer chance.

It then follows:

An infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare instantly.

Think about it.

[Extra Stout]

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.

1) Why do you take determinism for granted?
2) Why do you take decoherence for granted?

There are at least half a dozen popular interpretations of QM out there. You are jumping upon one of them and speaking as if it were the only one. QM is scientific. The interpretations are not, because their predictions are not observable. MWI by definition is not scientific, since decoherence prevents observation of all other wavefunction solutions.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

You are all missing the point entirely. There is a SERIOUS AND IMMEDIATE reson why

"Possible key human evolution genes identified"

should cause anxiety in all of us and the reason for that anxiety is worse than an encroachment on our religious beliefs. The reason should strike mortal fear in all of you, fear for your rights as an individual, a citizen, a sovereign human being, a Child of God, etc,etc.....................










Every time a scientific research corp. "discovers" a new gene, said corporation can PATENT that gene, effectively giving it exclusive legal OWNERSHIP of that gene and all the rights over that gene that come with private property (for example:buying and selling, manipulating/changing, marketing, killing, just to name a very few) . More and more of the human genome is becoming branded and owned by government chartered corporations which have practically ZERO accountability for they use their private property.

Some facts about patented Human Genes:

A study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents.

Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.

The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based DRUG COMPANY whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

--Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 13, 2005 --


If an ins ution owns all the rights to one or more genes, it could work to introduce a new product for profit, and it may also BLOCK OTHER USES, including research.

[Phenomanul]

You can’t consider one universe apart from the multiverse. The isolation defies logic and science.

If you play enough poker, a royal flush, although unlikely, is a statistical certainty based on the number of poker hands played since the beginning of time. It is more likely that you will come up with a royal flush at least once rather than never.

Isolating one result from all the others ignores simple statistical science. How can you say that this isn't the one(or "a") time where a (or “the”) universe drew a “royal flush” and came up with some form of self-replicating molecule?



It is not a stretch. It addresses your probability concerns exactly.

You say the “odds of this happening once is X”. This has the same logical structure as “the odds of getting a royal flush are one in (whatever)” and holding out that probability as effectively impossible.

It is far from “impossible” if you play enough poker.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no?

Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

[Phenomanul]

I get the impression that boa and creationist/ID fellow-travellers, the "good", assume that if someone doesn't believe in the 6-day Genesis cosmology and/or believes in evolution, then those persons are the "bad" who don't believe in God at all and/or that God doesn't exist. A very "ugly" black-white simplification.

Exhibit A: read your own comment and then assess yourself.

[Phenomanul]

RandomGuy is on the right track here. While the chances of this "replicator" occuring are very small, it is still very much possible, and we are living proof. We arethe royal flush. There could have been 800 trillion universes that created NO life before this current one, assuming this universe collpases and starts all over.

And stop thinking is such literal terms people.

The first replicator was obviously not DNA. Nor was it some protein that looks like this. It was something very simple. It only takes two amino acids to create a chain, you don't need 1200 of them linked into a super complex structure for the very first self-replicating thing.

There is the possibility that is wrong too. The first human being could have very well spontaneously formed in the air when a lightning bolt hit a swamp, by sheer chance of the molecules being rearranged. Haven't you ever heard?

A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare by sheer chance.

It then follows:

An infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare instantly.

Think about it.

Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

[Phenomanul]

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.

(reference the "walk across the street and end up on mars" bit from an earlier post.)



Not at all. I am saying that life is possible without the active participation of God.

DNA was GOD's fingerprint on life. He was there from the beginning.

Also consider the fact that DNA alone does not cons ute the essence of life - it is merely information... otherwise all corpses would have a chance of coming back to life. There is an esoteric metaphysical aspect of 'life', 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' that cannot be empirically described by our current scientific methods.

[Phenomanul]

You are all missing the point entirely. There is a SERIOUS AND IMMEDIATE reson why

"Possible key human evolution genes identified"

should cause anxiety in all of us and the reason for that anxiety is worse than an encroachment on our religious beliefs. The reason should strike mortal fear in all of you, fear for your rights as an individual, a citizen, a sovereign human being, a Child of God, etc,etc.....................










Every time a scientific research corp. "discovers" a new gene, said corporation can PATENT that gene, effectively giving it exclusive legal OWNERSHIP of that gene and all the rights over that gene that come with private property (for example:buying and selling, manipulating/changing, marketing, killing, just to name a very few) . More and more of the human genome is becoming branded and owned by government chartered corporations which have practically ZERO accountability for they use their private property.

Some facts about patented Human Genes:

A study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents.

Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.

The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based DRUG COMPANY whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

--Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 13, 2005 --


If an ins ution owns all the rights to one or more genes, it could work to introduce a new product for profit, and it may also BLOCK OTHER USES, including research.

This will be fought in the courts when the time is right.

[sabar]

Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

It doesn't need to be a multiverse. If our universe is closed then there have been an (in)finite number of universes preceding this one and there will be an infinite number afterwards.

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't need to be a multiverse. If our universe is closed then there have been an (in)finite number of universes preceding this one and there will be an infinite number afterwards.

OK and in said model do you realize the amount of energy that would have to be contained and released by each of those convergences and subsequent explosions? We're talking trillions upon trillions of degrees of heat, and a fusion of every type of known energy ... atoms as we know them would not exist in such an agglomeration of 'matter' -- any semblance of life would also have to end in each iteration of this closed, cyclical, universe theory.

[sabar]

That is irrelevant. The point is each new universe is another roll of the dice. The fundamental forces and time itself will be recreated with each iteration of the universe. Physical laws are assumed to be universally constant in any model of the big bang. Even if that was random, it would be irrelevant. Anything that is impossible is possible, anything that is possible is likely and anything possible is certain given time.

Of course this is all rather abstract, but true. There is a certain probability corralated to time where mathematicians declare the odds impossible and if it occurs a miracle. Can a lightning bolt kill a man and by pure chance rearrange the molecules around into a perfect clone of the killed man? Yes.

This all reminds me of Contact. Both religion and science take blind faith to believe. Some would argue that one is based in observable fact, and the other myth. Keep up the debates, fun stuff.

[Phenomanul]

That is irrelevant. The point is each new universe is another roll of the dice. The fundamental forces and time itself will be recreated with each iteration of the universe. Physical laws are assumed to be universally constant in any model of the big bang. Even if that was random, it would be irrelevant. Anything that is impossible is possible, anything that is possible is likely and anything possible is certain given time.

Of course this is all rather abstract, but true. There is a certain probability corralated to time where mathematicians declare the odds impossible and if it occurs a miracle. Can a lightning bolt kill a man and by pure chance rearrange the molecules around into a perfect clone of the killed man? Yes.

This all reminds me of Contact. Both religion and science take blind faith to believe. Some would argue that one is based in observable fact, and the other myth. Keep up the debates, fun stuff.

Have it that way then.... I still believe those odds are essentially zero. Not to mention that it is a very bad attempt at trying to 'naturistically' explain the necessary complexity that is required for life to subsist.

[RandomGuy]

1) Why do you take determinism for granted?
2) Why do you take decoherence for granted?

There are at least half a dozen popular interpretations of QM out there. You are jumping upon one of them and speaking as if it were the only one. QM is scientific. The interpretations are not, because their predictions are not observable. MWI by definition is not scientific, since decoherence prevents observation of all other wavefunction solutions.

Capital gains/(losses), other than those arising at the time of couterparty default, on the derivative component of a replication (synthetic asset) transaction that is not a swap of propectively-determined interest rates should be categorized as interest-rate related or credit related and as to sub-component within the Asset Valuation Reserve as if they were gains and losses on the replicated (sythethic) asset(s).

[RandomGuy]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

You did not answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

Not infinitessimally. You use that word too loosely.

By your own admission the number, although very small, was still larger than 1/infinity.

That makes is infinitely larger than infinessimally small.

But that is semantics.

The number is not infinitessimally small, it is greater than zero, making it possible.

Molecular chemistry is very much like poker.
If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?

[RandomGuy]

Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

Not really.

Go back and read what I was saying. I introduced the multiverse concept to simply widen the perspective.

Even within one single universe, the chances are greater than you admit.

[Phenomanul]

Not infinitessimally. You use that word too loosely.

By your own admission the number, although very small, was still larger than 1/infinity.

That makes is infinitely larger than infinessimally small.

But that is semantics.

The number is not infinitessimally small, it is greater than zero, making it possible.

Molecular chemistry is very much like poker.
If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?

Avogadro's number just describes a quan y... it doesn't describe how those molecules interact with each other. You're assuming that just because they brush up against each other that it automatically favors your odds. Reaction kinetics however should not be simplified in that manner.

Many molecules avoid each other and others attract each other. Many molecules need stabilizing mediums to subsist. Some do not require it. Some require an alkaline pH to exist, others an acidic one. And yet the very simple question of how enough amino acids agglomerated together to form appreciable concentrations is not yet answered. If the amino-acids did so on their own, some process had to be adding enough work to the system in order to lower its pH. Only in that medium would amino acids subsist in great concentrations. If you buffered it with ammonia in order to stabilize the molecules only 8 of the 20 amino acids would be able to subsist. And yet most amino-acid creation models require ammonia as a cons uent medium. What gives? How were the other 12 created?

I don't care if the sea contains trillions upon trillions of moles. It doesn't matter where the sequence that began biological complexity started; that's the only place where said 'flush' could be finalized. Be it in a pool of water here or in Japan. You can't claim that a 'King' off the coast of California, a 'Queen' off of the coast of Chile, a 'Jack' off of the coast of Australia and so forth would cons ute a Royal Flush. All of that sequential order would have to be created at one spot only. And it's an uphill battle no matter where it begins. In other words, that King off of the Californian coast would somehow have to be coupled with a Queen, a Jack, a 10 and an Ace... conversely the Queen off of the Chilean coast would have to assemble a King, a Jack, a 10 and an Ace. Those two odds are independent of each other and should not be coupled. True, the location of the 'flush' can be completely random... but not the mechanism to create it.

Rembember the flux limitation for entropy? With molecules that small, how do you transfer that much order to such a small location. What process other than an enzyme catalyzed process is able to do that -- enzymes of course being created by DNA and not before?

That's why the obvious chemistry omission from that NASA article is important... OK so we have a piece of calcite that is selectively binding amino acid molecules. How did enough amino-acids even concentrate in the area to begin with? If ammonia was around it would be selectively interacting with the calcite not the amino-acids. So if no ammonia were around, how then were the amino-acids formed? How was their very presence stabilized?

[Phenomanul]

Not really.

Go back and read what I was saying. I introduced the multiverse concept to simply widen the perspective.

Even within one single universe, the chances are greater than you admit.

You introduced it to broaden the time scale I had given you. There is not enough time even with 30 Billion year old universe model to create the necessary complexity required for life's most basic molecule.

[RandomGuy]

If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?--RG

a long technical avoidance of the above question

That is TWO questions that you have yet to answer.

Let's go back to the other question again, just in case you honestly missed it.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

I am waiting.