RNA synthesised in a lab (2 Viewers)

[Running with scissors]

Wired Science article

Science marches on and the God of the gaps gets a little smaller. This is a pretty big discovery if I'm reading it right.

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients " a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases " ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pon" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone"

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated"”

Sometime it still amazes me how right Darwin got things.

 

[TheFanatic]

Being able to recreate RNA does not necessarily shoot down Creationism. But I'm sure about 14 pages from now this thread will have gotten no where on either front....

 

[dancingbones]

Wow, seems like big news.

Go science!

 

[Running with scissors]

Being able to recreate RNA does not necessarily shoot down Creationism. But I'm sure about 14 pages from now this thread will have gotten no where on either front....

1) Pretty sure 14 pages would be my longest thread ever. Hell, 14 posts...2) It's pretty much impossible to shoot creationism down because it's not based on anything observable, testable or repeatable (see: science). However it removes allows us to debunk one more inane argument from their repertoire of fallacies, quote mines and hand waving.

 

[Maude]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

 

[Gr00vus]

However it removes allows us to debunk one more inane argument from their repertoire of fallacies, quote mines and hand waving.

What's wrong with handwaving?

 

[golfguy]

didn't they do this in the 1950s? oh wait. that turned out that they were wrong.

not science though. science is never wrong. at least what they think at that time or century.

 

[Gr00vus]

didn't they do this in the 1950s? oh wait. that turned out that they were wrong. not science though. science is never wrong. at least what they think at that time or century.

Who did what that turned out wrong?And to people saying "science" is never wrong? Who's science anyway?

 

[Running with scissors]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

Won't believe it unless you produce a link that contains the word "ribonucleotides"

 

[Running with scissors]

didn't they do this in the 1950s? oh wait. that turned out that they were wrong.

not science though. science is never wrong. at least what they think at that time or century.

wat

 

[golfguy]

Who did what that turned out wrong?And link.gif to people saying "science" is never wrong? Who's science anyway?

replicated simple amino acids and the supposed early state of the earth, which was done incorrectly. and just doing a little absolutes are never an answer.

 

[Running with scissors]

Who did what that turned out wrong?And link.gif to people saying "science" is never wrong? Who's science anyway?

replicated simple amino acids and the supposed early state of the earth, which was done incorrectly. and just doing a little absolutes are never an answer.

Miller-Urey? How was it done incorrectly?

 

[Maude]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

Won't believe it unless you produce a link that contains the word "ribonucleotides"

On page 3 nowAnd this is not a novel idea. I believe that Richard Dawkins wrote about how RNA was the first replicator in the primordial soup and how this could be produced in a laboratory. The Selfish Gene was published in the mid 70's.

 

[Running with scissors]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

Won't believe it unless you produce a link that contains the word "ribonucleotides"

On page 3 nowAnd this is not a novel idea. I believe that Richard Dawkins wrote about how RNA was the first replicator in the primordial soup and how this could be produced in a laboratory. The Selfish Gene was published in the mid 70's.

"ribonucleotides" I said.ETA: Not a novel idea at all. Darwin proposed it. However, now it has been produced in a lab.

 

[shining path]

Who did what that turned out wrong?And link.gif to people saying "science" is never wrong? Who's science anyway?

replicated simple amino acids and the supposed early state of the earth, which was done incorrectly. and just doing a little absolutes are never an answer.

Miller-Urey? How was it done incorrectly?

They didn't include any oxygen in their primordial atmosphere. It looks like there was a little oxygen in the primordial atmosphere, though the current thinking is that the O2 level was lower than recently thought.

 

[shining path]

Now 16 posts. Got your back, RWS.

 

[golfguy]

# in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11]

# In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica has affirmed in one article that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories supported by the famous Miller/ Urey experiment.[12] Moreover, many scientists now believe that the earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible in the Miller/Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one.[13] It is also now realized that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. And there are many other specific criticisms of the Miller/Urey experiment as well that show its fundamental assumptions about the primordial atmosphere to be false.[14]

# Despite the accumulating evidence that stacks up against the Miller/Urey experiment, it is nonetheless still used in educational institutes worldwide to support the idea that life was spontaneously produced from non-life.

# The evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald demonstrates this inconsistency very clearly: “Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we [human beings] are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

 

[shining path]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

Won't believe it unless you produce a link that contains the word "ribonucleotides"

On page 3 nowAnd this is not a novel idea. I believe that Richard Dawkins wrote about how RNA was the first replicator in the primordial soup and how this could be produced in a laboratory. The Selfish Gene was published in the mid 70's.

The idea isn't novel, but the simple synthesis of the ribonucleotides that make up RNA had been a hurdle. What these guys did was show how the building blocks could have formed on ancient earth.What they did previously was to show how RNA could replicate itself in a test tube.

 

[Running with scissors]

# in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11]# In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica has affirmed in one article that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories supported by the famous Miller/ Urey experiment.[12] Moreover, many scientists now believe that the earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible in the Miller/Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one.[13] It is also now realized that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. And there are many other specific criticisms of the Miller/Urey experiment as well that show its fundamental assumptions about the primordial atmosphere to be false.[14]# Despite the accumulating evidence that stacks up against the Miller/Urey experiment, it is nonetheless still used in educational institutes worldwide to support the idea that life was spontaneously produced from non-life.# The evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald demonstrates this inconsistency very clearly: “Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we [human beings] are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

Conservopedia?

 

[shining path]

# in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11]

# In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica has affirmed in one article that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories supported by the famous Miller/ Urey experiment.[12] Moreover, many scientists now believe that the earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible in the Miller/Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one.[13] It is also now realized that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. And there are many other specific criticisms of the Miller/Urey experiment as well that show its fundamental assumptions about the primordial atmosphere to be false.[14]

# Despite the accumulating evidence that stacks up against the Miller/Urey experiment, it is nonetheless still used in educational institutes worldwide to support the idea that life was spontaneously produced from non-life.

# The evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald demonstrates this inconsistency very clearly: “Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we [human beings] are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

Miller-Urey gets dissed a lot because it wasn't perfect, but it was groundbreaking at the time because nobody had done anything like it before. Nowadays it's of more historical interest, and in demonstrating the idea of "natural" synthesis of complex organic molecules from simple precursors.In related news, the Wright Brothers invented, by today's standards, a positively crappy airplane.

 

[golfguy]

Miller-Urey gets dissed a lot because it wasn't perfect, but it was groundbreaking at the time because nobody had done anything like it before. Nowadays it's of more historical interest, and in demonstrating the idea of "natural" synthesis of complex organic molecules from simple precursors.In related news, the Wright Brothers invented, by today's standards, a positively crappy airplane.

not really an apples to apples analogy there from miller to the wright brothers by any stretch. and i already like how, it wasn't right (perfect) but it was groundbreaking at the time, because they didn't know any better, and 50 years from now, people will probably see how flawed this is as well. and there is a huge leap from adaptation to evolution as well.

 

[Running with scissors]

and there is a huge leap from adaptation to evolution as well.

Explain please.

 

[golfguy]

Conservopedia?

no, i don't even know what that is. RTSi'm not getting into a debate with you, i'm just playing around mostly. doing a little poking as i said earlier. i just find it amusing when all of these are the new groundbreaking, we finally found it answers.

 

[shining path]

Miller-Urey gets dissed a lot because it wasn't perfect, but it was groundbreaking at the time because nobody had done anything like it before. Nowadays it's of more historical interest, and in demonstrating the idea of "natural" synthesis of complex organic molecules from simple precursors.

In related news, the Wright Brothers invented, by today's standards, a positively crappy airplane.

not really an apples to apples analogy there from miller to the wright brothers by any stretch. and i already like how, it wasn't right (perfect) but it was groundbreaking at the time, because they didn't know any better, and 50 years from now, people will probably see how flawed this is as well.

and there is a huge leap from adaptation to evolution as well.

No analogy is perfect, and I don't understand what you're saying in bold.

 

[golfguy]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

 

[golfguy]

No analogy is perfect, and I don't understand what you're saying in bold.

i'm saying that the excuses already started to flow to try and back up a flawed experiment. even though most scientists believe and/or know now that he was wrong in his theories. was my point.

 

[shining path]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

What happens when you get a lot of the fomer added up on top of itself?

 

[Running with scissors]

Conservopedia?

no, i don't even know what that is. RTS

:shuked: RTS= Real Time Strategy? Russian Trading System? Resistance Training Specialists?

i just find it amusing when all of these are the new groundbreaking, we finally found it answers.

That's what science does. There will be even newer, and more ground breaking experiments and observations in the future. They will be building on the successes (and yes, partial successes and even failures) of what we did before.

 

[golfguy]

What happens when you get a lot of the fomer added up on top of itself?

like where you are trying to go with that. i feel there is only so far a species can/could go. after that bye bye time. i just don't like when people use evolution and adaptation as the same thing, because they aren't.

 

[golfguy]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

 

[CrossEyed]

Keep hoping you can explain away God.

 

[shining path]

What happens when you get a lot of the fomer added up on top of itself?

like where you are trying to go with that. i feel there is only so far a species can/could go. after that bye bye time.

i just don't like when people use evolution and adaptation as the same thing, because they aren't.

Sure they are. Both in the narrow sense that any change in gene frequencies (what you're refering to as adaptation) is technically "evolution", and the broader sense in which you're using the words. Evolution is just a bunch of adaptation accumulated over time.

 

[shining path]

From Wiki. The jury is still out on the exact composition of the ancient earth's atmosphere.

Miller–Urey experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Miller-Urey experiment)

Jump to: navigation, search

The experimentThe Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[1] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[3][4][5]

Published in October 2008[6], a re-analysis of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus.[7]

Contents [hide]

1 Experiment and interpretation

2 Chemistry of experiment

3 Other experiments

4 Earth's early atmosphere

5 Recent related studies

6 See also

7 References

8 External links

[edit] Experiment and interpretation

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[8]

As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

[edit] Chemistry of experiment

It is known that at first step in reaction mixture forms hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formaldehyde [9] [10] and other active intermediate compounds (acetylene, cyanoacetylene, etc.):

CO2 → CO + [O] (atomic oxygen)

CH4 + 2[O] → CH2O + H2O

CO + NH3 → HCN + H2O

CH4 + NH3 → HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

CH2O + HCN + NH3 → NH2-CH2-CN + H2O

NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O → NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

[edit] Other experiments

This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Juan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, which molecules were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[11] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[12] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[13]

There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.

K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 14, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[14] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture [15].

More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[16]

[edit] Earth's early atmosphere

Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear.[17] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[18]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[19]

More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[20] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[21]

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Critics of the Miller–Urey hypothesis point out recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[22] These critics argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller–Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[23]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[22]

Conditions similar to those of the Miller–Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the energy source for chemical reactions. The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, darkening surfaces of these bodies.[24] The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis.

[edit] Recent related studies

In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one.[25]

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. Interestingly, they found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.[6][26]

[edit] See also

Strecker synthesis, amino acid synthesis from aldehydes, ammonia, and HCN.

Butlerov's reaction, formation of various sugars (like ribose) from formaldehyde.

Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

 

[Running with scissors]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

Let's just say for the moment that variation comes through mutations. Some variation is positive, some is negative and much is neutral. Natural selection favors mutations that increase the ability for reproduction and survival. Simply, if a genetic mutation occurs to produce an offspring that has .001 mm longer legs, and that offspring is .001 faster that the next creature, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes (even the mutated ones) to its own offspring.Adaptations are an outcome of natural selection where an organism becomes more suited to its habitat. When a habitat separates or becomes divided, or a part of a population enters a new habitat, all parts of that population continue to mutate, and select (adapt) for their differing habitat. Over (potentially) thousands or millions of generations, the differing parts of the population won't be able to breed anymore. This is speciation.It's all evolution. The little bits that make an an animal more likely to survive than it's cousin, and the big parts over millions and millions of years that create different species. You're not climbing up the cliff side of the mountain. You're taking very small steps over a very, very long period of time up the very, very gentle slope on the other side.

 

[Gr00vus]

Keep hoping you can explain away God's existence.

fixed

 

[Running with scissors]

Keep hoping you can explain away God.

We don't have to explain God away. God is irrelevant to what can be observed, tested for and repeated because you can't do any of those things with God.

 

[Running with scissors]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this thread is now about evolution; Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

 

[Mopap]

Miller-Urey gets dissed a lot because it wasn't perfect, but it was groundbreaking at the time because nobody had done anything like it before. Nowadays it's of more historical interest, and in demonstrating the idea of "natural" synthesis of complex organic molecules from simple precursors.In related news, the Wright Brothers invented, by today's standards, a positively crappy airplane.

not really an apples to apples analogy there from miller to the wright brothers by any stretch. and i already like how, it wasn't right (perfect) but it was groundbreaking at the time, because they didn't know any better, and 50 years from now, people will probably see how flawed this is as well. and there is a huge leap from adaptation to evolution as well.

There is also a huge leap from scribblings on a piece of papyrus made by human hands to "the word of God".5,000 year old laser etched stone tablets, on the other hand, are a different story. Find those and you have something.

 

[Mopap]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

..."Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated"

Funny how when science gets around to answering a question the real answer is usually pretty simple. At least relative to the overly complex explanations that we humans like to come up with. What is also funny to me is how many Christians seem to think that complex and complicated points towards a "greater intelligence". I'd expect it the other way around.

 

[Running with scissors]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

Note how careful I was to not use the word theory in my explanation. However, there is a Theory of Evolution that is a model that describes the fact that organisms evolve, which is testable and falsifiable, on the same level as the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease. It is not the common vernacular of the word theory that the cdesign proponentists like to use to try to lower the scientific theory of evolution to that of a guess, like their guesses as to how the current species came to be here; neither falsifiable or testable.The "problem" with using the English Peppered Moth example is that cdesign proponentists will say "It's still a moth!" In general, they've evolved to accept microevolution, but like our friend golfguy don't accept that micro or macro, it's still just evolution. A better example is the African cichlid fishes or multiple documented plant speciations such as Goatsbeard.

 

[GoFishTN]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

How is this evolution? The white moths were eaten because they were visible. The dark moths that already existed lived and reproduced. The white moths did not change to a dark color.That sounds more like a form of natural selection.

Edit: Perhaps you were using the words interchangeably, as many people do.

 

[Running with scissors]

 

[GoFishTN]

 

[phthalatemagic]

You do not understand.

 

[shining path]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

How is this evolution? The white moths were eaten because they were visible. The dark moths that already existed lived and reproduced. The white moths did not change to a dark color.That sounds more like a form of natural selection.

Edit: Perhaps you were using the words interchangeably, as many people do.

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

 

[Konotay]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

How is this evolution? The white moths were eaten because they were visible. The dark moths that already existed lived and reproduced. The white moths did not change to a dark color.That sounds more like a form of natural selection.

Edit: Perhaps you were using the words interchangeably, as many people do.

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

1. The Peppered Moths do not rest in tree trunks, rather they rest in the leaves. The photos of the pepper moth was staged, the moths were dead and pinned to a tree.2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

The Peppered Moth link

Probably the granddaddy of all the icons of evolution is the peppered moth story. In pre-industrial England, the peppered moth was common in entomologists' collections. By the 1840s a dark or melanic form was increasing in frequency in populations across England. By 1900 the melanic form comprised as much as ninety percent of some populations. In the 1950s experiments by Bernard Kettlewell clearly established that this change in frequency from a peppered variety to a dark variety was due to two factors.

First, the surface of tree trunks had changed from splotchy, lichen-covered patchwork, to a uniform, dark complexion, due to increased levels of pollution. The pollution killed the lichens and covered the tree trunks with soot. Second, the peppered variety was camouflaged from predation by birds on the lichen-covered tree trunks, and the melanic variety was camouflaged on the dark tree trunk. Therefore, the switch from peppered variety to melanic variety was due to natural selection, acting through selective bird predation as the trees changed from lichen-covered bark to soot- covered bark. Then with stricter air quality standards, the lichens are returning and the peppered variety is predictably coming back strong.

The peppered moth story became legendary as a classic example of Darwinian natural selection. But within 20 years of Kettlewell's work, cracks began to appear. It was soon noted that the characteristic switch from the peppered form to the dark form happened in areas where the lichens still grew on tree trunks. In other areas, the dark form began to decrease before the lichens began returning on trees. A similar pattern of a switch from a light form to a dark form was observed in ladybird beetles. Birds don't like ladybird beetles. Therefore, predation is ruled out as the selector. It all began to unravel when it was observed that peppered moths of both varieties never rest on tree trunks!

Essentially all photographs of moths on the trunks of trees were staged using dead or sluggish moths. They are not active during daylight. If that were the case, how could birds find them on tree trunks at all? Kettlewell released his moths in his mark-recapture-predation experiments in daylight hours, when the moths are naturally inactive. They simply found the nearest resting place (tree trunks in their sluggish state), and the birds gobbled up the non-camouflaged moths. We still don't know exactly where moths rest or whether lichens play any significant role in the story. Yet many biologists insist that the traditional story makes a good example of evolution in action. "To communicate the complexities would only confuse students," they say. Once again, flawed, yet cherished, examples persist because they are just too good not to be true!

 

[shining path]

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.

Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

How is this evolution? The white moths were eaten because they were visible. The dark moths that already existed lived and reproduced. The white moths did not change to a dark color.That sounds more like a form of natural selection.

Edit: Perhaps you were using the words interchangeably, as many people do.

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

1. The Peppered Moths do not rest in tree trunks, rather they rest in the leaves. The photos of the pepper moth was staged, the moths were dead and pinned to a tree.2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

The Peppered Moth link

Probably the granddaddy of all the icons of evolution is the peppered moth story. In pre-industrial England, the peppered moth was common in entomologists' collections. By the 1840s a dark or melanic form was increasing in frequency in populations across England. By 1900 the melanic form comprised as much as ninety percent of some populations. In the 1950s experiments by Bernard Kettlewell clearly established that this change in frequency from a peppered variety to a dark variety was due to two factors.

First, the surface of tree trunks had changed from splotchy, lichen-covered patchwork, to a uniform, dark complexion, due to increased levels of pollution. The pollution killed the lichens and covered the tree trunks with soot. Second, the peppered variety was camouflaged from predation by birds on the lichen-covered tree trunks, and the melanic variety was camouflaged on the dark tree trunk. Therefore, the switch from peppered variety to melanic variety was due to natural selection, acting through selective bird predation as the trees changed from lichen-covered bark to soot- covered bark. Then with stricter air quality standards, the lichens are returning and the peppered variety is predictably coming back strong.

The peppered moth story became legendary as a classic example of Darwinian natural selection. But within 20 years of Kettlewell's work, cracks began to appear. It was soon noted that the characteristic switch from the peppered form to the dark form happened in areas where the lichens still grew on tree trunks. In other areas, the dark form began to decrease before the lichens began returning on trees. A similar pattern of a switch from a light form to a dark form was observed in ladybird beetles. Birds don't like ladybird beetles. Therefore, predation is ruled out as the selector. It all began to unravel when it was observed that peppered moths of both varieties never rest on tree trunks!

Essentially all photographs of moths on the trunks of trees were staged using dead or sluggish moths. They are not active during daylight. If that were the case, how could birds find them on tree trunks at all? Kettlewell released his moths in his mark-recapture-predation experiments in daylight hours, when the moths are naturally inactive. They simply found the nearest resting place (tree trunks in their sluggish state), and the birds gobbled up the non-camouflaged moths. We still don't know exactly where moths rest or whether lichens play any significant role in the story. Yet many biologists insist that the traditional story makes a good example of evolution in action. "To communicate the complexities would only confuse students," they say. Once again, flawed, yet cherished, examples persist because they are just too good not to be true!

We could get into it on your Jonathan Wells tract, but what would be the point? The general scientific point - that small changes occur in populations due to selective pressure - isn't even at issue for the most devout creationist.Though maybe you could follow this up and accuse Miller and Urey of fraud.

 

[Konotay]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

Let's just say for the moment that variation comes through mutations. Some variation is positive, some is negative and much is neutral. Natural selection favors mutations that increase the ability for reproduction and survival. Simply, if a genetic mutation occurs to produce an offspring that has .001 mm longer legs, and that offspring is .001 faster that the next creature, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes (even the mutated ones) to its own offspring.Adaptations are an outcome of natural selection where an organism becomes more suited to its habitat. When a habitat separates or becomes divided, or a part of a population enters a new habitat, all parts of that population continue to mutate, and select (adapt) for their differing habitat. Over (potentially) thousands or millions of generations, the differing parts of the population won't be able to breed anymore. This is speciation.

It's all evolution. The little bits that make an an animal more likely to survive than it's cousin, and the big parts over millions and millions of years that create different species.

You're not climbing up the cliff side of the mountain. You're taking very small steps over a very, very long period of time up the very, very gentle slope on the other side.

This is my summary of this bookSo most mutations do not destroy DNA but they do cause attrition.

The assumption that most mutations are either neutral or mildly negative is misleading. Even mildly negative mutations have a deleterious affect. DNA is similar to a computer code, it provides a list of instructions for the mRNA to transcribe and use in building, for example, a protein. Mutations to this code are similar to spelling mistakes. In most cases it isn’t harmful but over time these spelling errors build up and create noise which eventually reduces the fitness with each successive generation. Other problems with mutation as creative force include:

1. There are many more negative mutations: The ratio of to negative/positive mutations is estimated as ~1,000,000 to one. Consequently, the result is genetic entropy caused by overwhelming number of negative mutations.

2. NDET assumes that one negative mutation can be filtered out selectively. In reality, however, it is an entire gene that is selected not individual mutations. This is called “Muller’s Ratchet” (named after another population geneticist). Even if a gene with a beneficial mutation is selected for, it will carry many, many more deleterious mutations. This inevitably causes genetic entropy, not an increase in fitness.

3. The best do not always survive. Sometimes the plant seed, for example, with the greatest fitness lands on rocky soil, or in a deep valley with little sunlight, while the less fit lands on a hill that receives sunlight and water. It isn’t the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the luckiest. Population geneticist Kimura states that heritability due to phenotypic superiority (i.e. fitness) is as low as 0.4%! Hence, even that 1/10,000 (very optimistic) chance of a beneficial mutation has only 1/250 chance of surviving because random environmental factors

4. Most mutations are recessive and it usually takes two similar mutations, one from each sex to become “fixed”. Moreover, it takes many generations to make a genetic trait fixed in a population.

5. Irreducible complexity: Life has systems where individual parts rely on many other parts: One is not any good without the other. You take out one part if effects the other parts. Life is integrated and requires many positive mutations to work in conjunction to create anything useful.

 

[shining path]

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.