Darwin re-visited

[Moontanman]

Wrong again, snails are Cephlopods.

 

Snails are cephalopods? Do you have any way to confirm that? I'll admit I was unaware of the early fish but I am well acquainted with what a cephalopod is and snails are not cephalopods to my understanding. Octopus, squid, cuttlefish, and nautilus, while mollusks, are not snails. They probably evolved from snails, that doesn't make them snails. But if I read your post correctly you indicated cephalopods developed directly from the Oolitic spheres or tubes. I still raise the point of how does the early fish help your point? It had no hard parts at all, wouldn't the first fishes have calcium carbonate parts if they developed the way I understand you have indicated? I stand by what I said about the earliest traces of complex life being worm burrows. Maybe I am just too stupid to understand your stance, but don't accuse me of being dishonest, I never knowingly lie, never, and I don't give squat about what you will tolerate either. Then again maybe you are supporting a hypothesis that isn't widely known or accepted. No problem, I have done the same thing, but I never claimed they were the last word in whatever field I was talking about.

[Thunderbird]

Snails are cephalopods? Do you have any way to confirm that? I'll admit I was unaware of the early fish but I am well acquainted with what a cephalopod is and snails are not cephalopods to my understanding. Octopus, squid, cuttlefish, and nautilus, while mollusks, are not snails. They probably evolved from snails, that doesn't make them snails. But if I read your post correctly you indicated cephalopods developed directly from the Oolitic spheres or tubes. I still raise the point of how does the early fish help your point? It had no hard parts at all, wouldn't the first fishes have calcium carbonate parts if they developed the way I understand you have indicated? I stand by what I said about the earliest traces of complex life being worm burrows. Maybe I am just too stupid to understand your stance, but don't accuse me of being dishonest, I never knowingly lie, never, and I don't give squat about what you will tolerate either. Then again maybe you are supporting a hypothesis that isn't widely known or accepted. No problem, I have done the same thing, but I never claimed they were thelast word in whatever field I was talking about.

Fair enough. I apologize, Evasive Would have been more appropriate to going around the points, and you are correct snails are I believe gastropods, but I haven't looked that up. The Cephalopods however did not come from snails, they are basically land gastropods that came from sea gastropods which came first.

 

 

As far as the first fish not having hard parts, your correct they probably didn't. If they did starting off it may have been some sort of exterior feature. The oolitic scaffolding would have dissipated completely during formation, leaving behind something resembling the Cambrian fish shown in my earlier post. The other purpose of this component is to chemically boot the cellular system. Calcium be the chief chemical for cellular communications and regulation.

[Moontanman]

Fair enough. I apologize, Evasive Would have been more appropriate to going around the points, and you are correct snails are I believe gastropods, but I haven't looked that up. The Cephalopods however did not come from snails, they are basically land gastropods that came from sea gastropods which came first.

 

 

As far as the first fish not having hard parts, your correct they probably didn't. If they did starting off it may have been some sort of exterior feature. The oolitic scaffolding would have dissipated completely during formation, leaving behind something resembling the Cambrian fish shown in my earlier post. The other purpose of this component is to chemically boot the cellular system. Calcium be the chief chemical for cellular communications and regulation.

 

Ok, I have spent all night researching your stance and I can't find much to support it. I did find that there is reason to believe that as long as one billion years ago there were already many multi cellular animals. None of them were much more than one millimeter long but they were there and probably account for the decline of the stromatolites due to grazing behaviors at that time. About 800 to 600 million years the earth experienced more than one and maybe several glaciation events that completely covered the Earth with ice, the sea froze all the way to the equator.

During this time speciation was prompted by isolation as life retreated to the undersea volcanic vents. Isolation like this prompted speciation and when it was over the stage was set for the advance of complex large animals. The Ediacarans, trace fossils and the small shelly fossils, the trilobite faunas or the Cambrian explosion. At no point have I been able to find your theory in any of the main stream or even the less followed ideas. At the point of the Cambrian explosion several events took place, first either the continents rearranged themselves in a remarkably short period of time, moving all over the globe in just a few million years at most or the Crust of the earth was disengaged from the inner parts of the planet and the crust moved 90 degrees off the original spin axis. This caused much mixing of nutrients into the newly oxygenated seas as well as chemical conditions that allowed for the sudden appearance of shells and other hard parts on animals. No mention of your oolitic spheres at all. Of course what you are saying could a new and not widely recognized theory. If so I would like to hear how these environmental conditions contributed to your version. BTW you need to Google cephalopods, cephalopods have never at any time been land animals.

[Eclogite]

Thunderbird,

can you explain how the phenotype induced in the oolitic milieu is converted to a genotype without Lamarkian methodology?

 

In response to an earlier question would you accept that life is composed of autonomous agents each of which is a self reproducing system able to carry out one or more thermodynamic work cycles?

 

Moontanman,

although life is an emergent property are you steadfastly maintaining that it is only physics and chemistry?

[Moontanman]

Thunderbird,

can you explain how the phenotype induced in the oolitic milieu is converted to a genotype without Lamarkian methodology?

 

In response to an earlier question would you accept that life is composed of autonomous agents each of which is a self reproducing system able to carry out one or more thermodynamic work cycles?

 

Moontanman,

although life is an emergent property are you steadfastly maintaining that it is only physics and chemistry?

 

 

Yes, life is just that, anything more is not required for life. Anything more can be debated forever but at the core of it it's just chemicals that can make copies of themselves responding to the feed back mechanisms of their environment and mistakes in copying. I don't see anything mysterious about life until it begins to think, all the mystery is made up by thinking minds. For me the real mystery is why the thinking mind seems to need the mystery so badly.

[REASON]

I don't see anything mysterious about life until it begins to think, all the mystery is made up by thinking minds. For me the real mystery is why the thinking mind seems to need the mystery so badly.

 

Because the thinking mind has to reconcile the end of it's life.

[Moontanman]

Because the thinking mind has to reconcile the end of it's life.

 

Probably true but I think John Varley said it best in his Titan thrilogy. "The universe is divided neatly into three parts, before I existed, my existence, and after my existence."

[Thunderbird]

BTW you need to Google cephalopods, cephalopods have never at any time been land animals.

 

I know, why do think that I said that, We need to work on our communication skills. I said Gastropods.

[Moontanman]

I know, why do think that I said that, We need to work on our communication skills. I said Gastropods.

 

Ok, sorry, I misread the syntax in your sentence. I thought you meant cephalopods when you said "they". Oh course sin tax is alwasy the worst kind of tax!

[Thunderbird]

Thunderbird,

can you explain how the phenotype induced in the oolitic milieu is converted to a genotype without Lamarkian methodology?

 

 

 

 

Great questions, not all that easy to answer in the short time I have, I will take my chances here and give you from the gut responses. This model is more from what I know is in more the Lamarck modeling than the Darwinian, this does not take away the fact that Darwinian mode of evolution did not start once the sexual reproduction process started. Closer to the Mark than Lamarck however is Stuart Kaufmanns

autocatalytic loops caught within Prigogine’s “dissipative system” or if you prefer...Ok I'm going to have to look some stuff up, so much for shooting from the hip.

 

Here we go....

 

Dynamical Symmetries: Autopoietic Architecture

The Areas of Mathematical Synthesis Between Complexity, (edge of) Chaos Theory , Fractal Geometry and the Golden Mean: leading to an argument for an Autocatalytic Architectural approach based on emergent Self-Organized Criticality

 

 

This geometric evidence defines Phi then, as the optimum oscillating operator that mediates between ordered, equilibrium systems and disordered, non-equilibrium ones. It allows an oscillating orbit to access the infinitely fecund chance morphologies of Chaos, recapitulate them back into its super-stable causal orbit: and therefore permit system growth and morphogenesis. It is the paradigm for systems evolution:Nigel Reading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above scenario represents the Macro environmental conditions. As dual logarithmic recursive vortex’s bound in an oscillating Architecture. If I where a math genius I would put it in mathematical formulae, but alas I leave that to CraigD if he wants to take a crack at it. Below represents the middle ground of the oolitic Spheres that will connect the Micro environment with the macro as they shrink, or dissipates during the dynamical and chemical processes. the oolites substrate spread throughout the microbial layers will engineer an architecture by pulling together the following patterns .

 

 

 

 

 

The turbining, tensionally-interlaced joints of the Tensegrity Geodesic spheroids also decrease the star-like vertexial interference patterns, the explanations of which are as follows:

When a photostat is made of a plurality of lines crossing through approximately one point, it is seen that there is a blurring or running together of the lines near the point, causing a web-like shadow between the converging lines even though the lines had been cleanly drawn. This is caused by a refractive, light-wave bending. When the masses of the physically consisted lines converge to critical proximity, the relative impedance of light-wave passage in the neighborhood of the point increases as of the second power of the relative proximities as multiplied by a factor of the relative-mass density. The Tensegrity Geodesic spherical structures eliminate the heavy sections of compression members in direct contact at their terminals, ergo keep the heavy mass of respective compressions beyond critical proximities. As the vertexial connections are entirely tensional, the section mass is reduced to a minimum, and frequency increase provides a cube-root rate of reduction of section in respect to each doubling frequency. Thus very large or small Tensegrity Geodesic spheroids may be designed with approximate elimination of all microwave interferences--without in any way impairing their structural dimensional stability.

It is thus patent that Geodesic Tensegrity spheroids may be put in space, earthbound or earth atmosphere positions to provide important local environment controls effectively favorable to internal biological or instrumental functionings and at obviously highest efficiency of fundamental structural capability per units of weight, time and energy therein invested. Courtesy, Buckminster Fuller Institute, Santa Barbara.

 

 

This is all I have time for right now I have to earn I livening But keep these kind of questions comming they are the best.

[Moontanman]

Great questions, not all that easy to answer in the short time I have, I will take my chances here and give you from the gut responses. This model is more from what I know is in more the Lamarck modeling than the Darwinian, this does not take away the fact that Darwinian mode of evolution did not start once the sexual reproduction process started. Closer to the Mark than Lamarck however is Stuart Kaufmanns

autocatalytic loops caught within Prigogine’s “dissipative system” or if you prefer...Ok I'm going to have to look some stuff up, so much for shooting from the hip.

 

Here we go....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above scenario represents the Macro environmental conditions. As dual logarithmic recursive vortex’s bound in an oscillating Architecture. If I where a math genius I would put it in mathematical formulae, but alas I leave that to CraigD if he wants to take a crack at it. Below represents the middle ground of the oolitic Spheres that will connect the Micro environment with the macro as they shrink, or dissipates during the dynamical and chemical processes. the oolites substrate spread throughout the microbial layers will engineer an architecture by pulling together the following patterns .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all I have time for right now I have to earn I livening But keep these kind of questions comming they are the best.

 

I understand some of what you are saying, I still can't see how it applies to life or evolution. At what point is this stuff important to life? Are talking about the beginning some where around 4 billion years ago, the first eukaryotes at 2.5 billion or the first muticellular life at 1.2 billion or the first animal life at around .7 billion or the first really large complex animals at around 550 million years ago? Are you talking about assemblages of bacteria, eukaryotic cells, protists, or multicellular animals? Do acritarchs figure in somewhere? I am begining to feel very simple here, please explain as simply and clearly as you can.

[Thunderbird]

I understand some of what you are saying, I still can't see how it applies to life or evolution. At what point is this stuff important to life? Are talking about the beginning some where around 4 billion years ago, the first eukaryotes at 2.5 billion or the first muticellular life at 1.2 billion or the first animal life at around .7 billion or the first really large complex animals at around 550 million years ago? Are you talking about assemblages of bacteria, eukaryotic cells, protists, or multicellular animals? Do acritarchs figure in somewhere? I am begining to feel very simple here, please explain as simply and clearly as you can.

Did you read post 251? this is about a possible senerio on the emergance of multi-cellular metazoan of the Cambrian explosion.

[Thunderbird]

I had given up on the model for a wile because I could not prove the oolites could be generated within a microbial community, even though the micro-fossil structure seemed to suggest this. The origins' of the oolite was still at that time in debate. I just resently ran across the following article that was given my model new life.

 

 

Abstract

The in vitro production of ooid-like structures as possible precursors of oolites has been observed in laboratory cultures of spherical microbial communities isolated from the Wadden Sea (North Sea). The microbial spherulites consist of aggregated benthic diatoms (Navicula perminuta) enveloped by layers of filamentous cyanobacteria of the genus Phormidium and a halo-like biofilm of heterotrophic bacteria. The development of the structures takes several months and these configurations appear to be stable, before they calcify. The precipitation starts on the surface of the spheres as clouds of small scattered crystals, which later increase in size and aggregate to form hollow spheres around the microbial assemblage. Here we report for the first time carbonate precipitation in defined spherical microbial communities.

http://http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2004_L03/index.html

 

 

Introduction; Precipitation of calcium carbonate is widespread in microbial communities forming biofilms and microbial mats. The laminated structure of these communities consists of layers of carbonate which outlast the microbial colony that produced them. Fossilized remains of these communities in which particles of other sediment are also included are known as stromatolites. They have a long fossil record since early Proterozoic and still flourish in particular in the reefs of the Bahamas and Australia (e.g. Visscher et alii, l "visscher").

The typical stromatolitic structure is laminated. Each lamina represents a horizon of former microbial biofilm or mat (Kalkowsky, l "kalkowsky"). Associated mineral particles (precipitates and detrital grains) are overgrown and sometimes entirely coated by microbial assemblages (Riding and Awramik, l "riding"). Small (mm size), spherical to oval concentrically laminated carbonate bodies or aggregates, which form in shallow tropical seas are called ooids and are known to become consolidated into rocks called oolitic limestones (oolith, Rogenstein; Kalkowsky, l "kalkowsky"). The genesis of ooid grains is still enigmatic. The alternative explanations are confronted along the lines of predominantly abiotic vs. biogenic origin of ooid grains and the associated carbonate precipitates.

The principal biochemical processes that have been recognized to affect the degree of carbonate saturation and therefore may cause carbonate precipitation include:

· environmental carbon depletion by autotrophs during photosynthesis (and possibly chemolithotrophy),

· deamination of amino acids in the course of bacterial proteolysis,

· anaerobic bacterial dissimilatory sulfate reduction. All result in an increase in pH and/or alkalinity, which promote carbonate precipitation (Browne et alii, l "browne").

In this study we show the microbially induced formation of ooids in the laboratory.

[Moontanman]

I had given up on the model for a wile because I could not prove the oolites could be generated within a microbial community, even though the micro-fossil structure seemed to suggest this. The origins' of the oolite was still at that time in debate. I just resently ran across the following article that was given my model new life.

 

That made it much clearer but those communities were of prokaryotes not eukaryotes. Do you not ascribe to the idea that complex life developed from eukaryotic cells not prokaryotic cells?

[Thunderbird]

That made it much clearer but those communities were of prokaryotes not eukaryotes. Do you not ascribe to the idea that complex life developed from eukaryotic cells not prokaryotic cells?

 

This was a diverse community of prokaryotic cells and Eukaryotic cells. The microfossil is aprox 500-550 million yrs old the chemistry and microbial community is impossible to know exactly. What I am proposing is that the eukaryotic cells had enough genetic variations to manifest several autopoietic functions or niches within the system. What the difficult part for anyone to accept, is that an animal stem cell arrived before the actual animals themselves, but I know of no way to disprove this hypothesis either. The ole chicken and the egg scenario, ether scenario is just as probable from what we know and what we have assumed. it’s just counter intuitive because we have always thought of orginims in a gradual step by step process, even though it is difficult to understand how these wide variations manifested seemingly off the bat. In looking at these theoretical chaotic attractor models they seem to fit the actual fossil record, but needed the missing peices of actural structure components and dynamics to fit the mathematical equations. With my model from a Micro-fossil combined with the lab work that was been completed with the diverse microbial community and oolites this scenario could be proven or disproven by introducing a fish or gastropod stem cells and recreating the waves and subsequent recursive contained dissipative structures. Than we could see if an autopoeitic system would actually emerge non-linearly. It would be a hell of a breakthrough.

[Pyrotex]

Hey, guys.

I've been "out" with illness for two weeks so I haven't read the last posts. But one I did read got me to thinking. Stop me if you guys have already discussed this. :hihi:

 

Just before the Cambrian explosion, something seemed to be different about DNA then than now. The DNA transcription process seemed to be cruder, simpler, and far less rigidly accurate (at repetition) than it is now.

 

At one point there were the antecendents of worms. These AOWs consisted of a single segment containing various imperfections on its surface. Evolution had turned a few of these imperfections into sensors or cilia or just "stickums" for defense.

 

Then something happened. A gene appeared that apparently controlled how many times the main DNA would activate during replication. AOWs with TWO segments appeared. This didn't seem to hurt its survival, so lots of 2-seg critters floated around. The "head" segment seemed to have some advantage, and so the "tail" segment was along for the ride and evolved differently. Surface imperfections were free to change into whatever aided survival.

 

The trigger gene went wild again. Sometimes it produced AOWs with three segments, five, eight, twenty, a hundred and eleven! Now we had REAL worms. Worms with an evolved head segment, a gut that linked to the gut of the next segment, and the next and all the rest. One could argue this made food ingestion more efficient. And things began to evolve on the other segments. Things like spines, jointed spines, flexible spines, the prototypes of legs. Now the critter didn't just have one segment with oxygen extractors (gills) but had many segments with them. A new form of locomotion was possible. Walking.

 

All the current body plans exploded into existence almost over-night. (over-millenium?) Because the basic singlemost important difference in body plans was just a number. How many segments? And this was ruled somewhat carelessly by a single sloppy gene. How many segments do I feel like making today?

 

Natural selection would have quickly weeded out the body plans that were just a bit too weird, bottom-heavy, tail-heavy, inefficient, over-powered. Leaving us with critters that are predominantly 3-segmented, 4-segmented, a few higher single-digit numbers, and quite a few critters with dozens of segments, like modern worms and centipedes and millipedes.

 

The centipede: a simple critter constructed of just one basic module, replicated up to a hundred times. The first module keeps its status as "head" because that's where the gut begins. The "tail" is where the gut ends. The sensors on the leading module got better and better because that was the direction of travel. (Doesn't do much good to have eyes that can only tell you what is already eating you!) Each of the central modules is damn near identical, and their control is totally distributed. Their apparent coordinated movement is an illusion as each segment just does the same "leg-twitch" as its neighbors, but slightly out of phase.

 

All this controlled by just one sloppy gene. A whole world of different body plans triggered by uncontrolled replication of segments.

[Thunderbird]

A full copy of the post above was removed by Tormod.

 

We haven't discussed this scenario as yet.. and it is quite possible.. but I would think there would be fossils to back this up. Current genome research on simple animals seems to suggest a shared complexity of genes from thebeginning . See cone jellyfish in the news section of this forum.