Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New fossils push back the indisputable origin of life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    50%, for one event. For the combination of events, though, it's much less.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    To be honest, I'm surprised you got that right.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    But what if after flipping nine of them and having them come up heads, would the odds be of that tenth coin also being heads?
    50%, for one event. For the combination of events, though, it's much less.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But these events (occurrence and fixation I'm treating as one event) are independent, so the probability of the combined events is their multiplied probability. Statistical independence is all that's required.


    No, the events can occur simultaneously.


    That's a good point, but you can still speak of the probability of an event over the lifetime of a species.


    No, I'm not assuming anything about the order of events, they can occur in any order.

    Lay out ten coins on a table, flip them in any order, the probability of them all coming up heads is the same.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    But what if after flipping nine of them and having them come up heads, would the odds be of that tenth coin also being heads?

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    If, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event.
    But these events (occurrence and fixation I'm treating as one event) are independent, so the probability of the combined events is their multiplied probability. Statistical independence is all that's required.

    Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).
    No, the events can occur simultaneously.

    Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.
    That's a good point, but you can still speak of the probability of an event over the lifetime of a species.

    Originally posted by rogue06
    Assuming mutations must take sequentially.
    No, I'm not assuming anything about the order of events, they can occur in any order.

    Lay out ten coins on a table, flip them in any order, the probability of them all coming up heads is the same.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    My apologies, i phrased that wrong.

    If, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event. Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).

    Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.
    Assuming mutations must take sequentially.

    How many times has it been now.?

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Multiplying probabilities is how you compute independent probabilities, though.
    My apologies, i phrased that wrong.

    If, once a 90% probability event happens, if it goes to fixation, then every single ensuing event will necessarily occur on a backdrop where the first event happened. In other words, fixation takes any probability, and effectively converts it to a certainty for every subsequent event. Evolution also works in parallel, so many of those probabilities can be explored simultaneously, rather than in series (which your calculations assume).

    Finally, the basic approach is biologically nonsensical, in that there is never a finite probability for an event, since there's not a finite set of generations. You need to talk in terms of probability per generation.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Put differently, your math is done assuming absolutely none of those probabilities is independent. Fixation assures that they are independent.
    Multiplying probabilities is how you compute independent probabilities, though.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But I'm assuming they occur and get fixed, each with a 90% probability.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Again ENRON probabilities. See The Lurch's post

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But I'm assuming they occur and get fixed, each with a 90% probability.
    Your math indicates you're not assuming that. So if you don't have a conceptual problem - and you're claiming here you don't - then you have a problem translating those conceptions to math.

    Put differently, your math is done assuming absolutely none of those probabilities is independent. Fixation assures that they are independent.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    That's only the case if absolutely none of the intervening steps gets fixed. Which is exactly the opposite of what evolution proposes.
    But I'm assuming they occur and get fixed, each with a 90% probability.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, if each step is 90% probable, then 2000 steps is about 1 in 1091...
    Once again, despite this coming up multiple times, Lee abuses multiple probabilities.

    That's only the case if absolutely none of the intervening steps gets fixed. Which is exactly the opposite of what evolution proposes.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    So, several considerations: First, finding early life does not explain how life began.
    Not specifically the subject of the thread, Your failing to respond, and resorting to repeated 'arguing from ignorance,' reflects your appalling lack of knowledge and religious agenda, which 'The Lurch' has repeatedly demonstrated.

    The references documented the evidence for the earliest life forms, and conditions at the time.


    Also, this does not explain the water paradox, where water is both needed and hostile to life's elements. And then ocean water would dilute any of life's molecules, making it difficult for life to get started.
    Your speculating concerning the nature of the water involved, without addressing the last post and reference. Playing dodgeball. The so called water paradox has been addressed by'The Lurch' many times, and like all other of your attempts at 'arguing from ignorance' issues you choose to ignore The Lurch.'

    The reference demonstrates that the simple earliest life was found in caverns in the oceans, which is documenting the water as friendly to the earliest life.

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    This article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments.
    So, several considerations: First, finding early life does not explain how life began. Also, this does not explain the water paradox, where water is both needed and hostile to life's elements. And then ocean water would dilute any of life's molecules, making it difficult for life to get started.

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • lee_merrill
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If Mojzsis is correct we're looking at a space of over 700 million years. Let's say he seriously miscalculated and was off by 200 million years. That's still 500 million or half of a billion years.
    But according to the article, this is "explaining why life began to form almost 4 billion years ago," so that leaves 300 million years to the stromatolites.

    While a number of phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or earlier, most of the phylum-level body plans first appear in the fossil record much later on.

    This flies in the face of the oft repeated claim made by creationists that, as Jonathan Wells (Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute) puts it, "Most animal forms appear in the form they currently have in the present." Nope. Not even remotely close.
    Yet the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, then statis (per The Beak of the Finch).

    Secondly, the type of photosynthesis that first arose was likely very different than what we think of now. For instance, from a decade and a half ago, but I don't think it is obsolete, the abstract from Photosynthesis in the Archean Era
    That's fine, but is that simpler? And I would think that photosynthesis of any sort would be complex.

    Look at for instance what conservative estimates are for how long it would take eyes to have evolved
    Well, if each step is 90% probable, then 2000 steps is about 1 in 1091...

    Blessings,
    Lee

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    This article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments. This discovery and research documents how and when life began. Thank you Lee Merrill for opening this thread.

    Source: https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/46751/20210716/3-42-billion-year-old-microfossil-microfossils-life.htm



    New Discovery: 3.4-Billion-Year-Old Microfossils Found Could Help Explain How Life Started

    By Miguel Brown Jul 16, 2021 07:40 PM EDT

    A microfossil as old as 3.4 billion years old was found to have explained how life started both on Earth and in celestial bodies above. This ancient evidence of 'methane-cycling microbe life' which may have originated from underneath the seafloor could give insights on how or where life began how and where life first began during the Paleoarchean era, 3.2-3.6 billion years ago.

    These life forms found in rich liquid made of cooler seawater from above its floor and warmer hydrothermal fluids from the below, mixed together might even tell us whether they were around long enough or much earlier than Earth's history.
    Scientist were able to find samples of the oldest microbes from sub-surface habitats, or ecosystems heated by volcanic activity that were likely to have hosted the Earth's earliest microbes.

    "We found exceptionally well-preserved evidence of fossilized microbes that appear to have flourished along the walls of cavities created by warm water from hydrothermal systems a few meters below the seafloor," said paleontologist Barbara Cavalazzi from the University of Bologna.

    In a place where most of the oldest and well-preserved sedimentary rocks on the entire planet can be found, holds the fossils collected by the scientists. This restricted location of Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa also carries evidence of diversity among Earth's earliest record of life. A few studies had found that sedimentary rocks in the region have escaped regional high-grade metamorphism and penetrative deformation.

    After analyzing the sediments retrieved from the place, the scientist found a carbon-rich outer covering around the 'chemically and structurally-distinct core' of the microfossil, which implies that a wall or membrane covers its cells.

    To verify if the microfossils collected were actually microbes on their past life, investigations had found that the samples contained most of the major chemical elements needed to live, including other supporting evidence like the concentrations of nickel similar what modern-day archaea prokaryotes have, and use of methane rather than oxygen, as what their distant ancestors did.

    "Although we know that archaea prokaryotes can be fossilized, we have extremely limited direct examples," Cavalazzi explained. She also added that the "findings extend the record of archaea fossils for the first time into the era when life first emerged on Earth."

    The Order of Life


    Do humans really possess the wisdom and ability to foretell the origin and order of life on Earth? On outer space? We would never know unless insights from billion-years-old lightning strikes, or blasts from hydrothermal vents are thoroughly analyzed.
    While investigating earthly events a billion years back might be a lot of work, the recent research of ancient microbes confirms the previous hypothesis that subsurface hydrothermal systems could be as important in the creation of life as other factors. Opening up the mind to a lot of possibilities of how life started could mean better understanding of conditions required to be able to say, life did exist. These parameters are not just useful for earthly matters, but for life on other planets as well.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
3 responses
30 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
0 responses
11 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
56 responses
301 views
1 like
Last Post lee_merrill  
Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
37 responses
199 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 09-28-2021, 08:23 AM
1 response
21 views
1 like
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X