Atlantis Online
June 17, 2019, 06:28:50 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Alternative to Darwinian Evolution

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Alternative to Darwinian Evolution  (Read 1407 times)
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« on: February 22, 2007, 09:42:52 am »

**  --  THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE --  **
As many of you from Atlantis Rising and Alternative Archaeology know, I am very much opposed to the ideas of Creation and Evolution.  Both theories for the same (general reasons) just do not "pass muster" with me.  Now, before anyone goes into a spinning backflip (with a twist) tantrum - I would like to clarify my point.

I do believe that Evolution, as a basic precept, does occur - that much is certain.  In fact, my thinking on the subject is simply a broader version of the exsiting concept of evolution - with one major addition.  Panspermia.  Plus - I offer resources and developing evidence (recent) that this may very well be accurate.

As for Creationism, from a holistic point of view, I'm beyond skeptical.  But that is not to say that I rule out the potential for the existence of a vastly superior intelligent life form - or the potenital that it may "plant gardens" as they see fit.  I still view the "Beginning" from an evolutionary point of view, with no credibility given to the deity aspect.

Alright - so, moving right along now.  Let's look at some recent evidence brought to us from The Carnegie Institution of Washington and the comet WILD 2.  I have emphasized certain passages with color, bolding and italics - all emphasis was added by me:  http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_2006_1214.html

Unlocking the frozen secrets of comet Wild 2

December 14, 2006

Washington, D.C. – Eleven months ago, NASA’s Stardust mission touched down in the Utah desert with the first solid comet samples ever retrieved from space. Since then, nearly 200 scientists from around the globe have studied the minuscule grains, looking for clues to the physical and chemical history of our solar system. Although years of work remain to fully decipher the secrets of comet Wild 2, researchers are sure that it contains some of the most primitive and exotic chemical structures ever studied in a laboratory.

Preliminary results appear in a special section of the December 15 issue of Science. Overall, research efforts have focused on answering “big-picture” questions regarding the nature of the comet samples that were returned, including determining mineral structures, chemical composition, and the chemistry of the organic, or carbon-containing, compounds they carry. Carnegie researchers made key contributions to the latter effort. Out of seven papers in total, four involved Carnegie scientists from the Geophysical Laboratory (GL) and the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism (DTM).

“Carnegie enjoys a unique concentration of instrumentation and expertise to be able to engage in cutting-edge questions such as those posed by the Stardust mission,” said GL’s Andrew Steele.

Scientists have believed that comets formed long ago in the cool outer reaches of the solar system and thus largely consist of material that formed at cold temperatures and escaped alteration in the blast furnace of the inner solar nebula—the cloud of hot gases that condensed to form the Sun and terrestrial planets some 4.5 billion years ago.

According to the record contained in the Stardust grains, it appears that this hypothesis is about 90% right. Evidence from the ratios of certain isotopes—variants of atoms that have the same chemical properties, yet differ in weight—suggest that as much as 10% of the comet’s material formed in the hot inner solar nebula and was transported to the cold outer reaches where the comet came together as the Sun formed. Chief among these tell-tale isotopes are those of oxygen, for which the ratios resemble those seen in meteorites known to have formed in the inner solar system.

Yet, isotopic measurements of hydrogen and nitrogen made at DTM and elsewhere tell a different picture. “The presence of excesses of heavier isotopes—deuterium and nitrogen 15, to be specific—is a strong indication that some of the comet dust was around before the Sun formed,” said DTM’s Larry Nittler. “It’s really quite striking.”

The structures of the comet’s organic molecules tell a similar tale. “This comet’s organic material is really quite unusual compared to other extraterrestrial sources we have studied, such as meteorites and interstellar dust particles,” said GL’s George Cody. “Yet there are some important similarities that tell that us we are not dealing with matter that is totally foreign to our solar system.”

The samples contain very few of the stable ringed, or aromatic, carbon structures that are common on Earth and in meteorites. Instead, they have many fragile carbon structures that would most likely not have survived the harsh conditions in the solar nebula. These molecules also contain considerably more oxygen and nitrogen than even the most primordial examples retrieved from meteorites and exist in forms that are new to meteorite studies.

“These forms of carbon don’t look like what we find in meteorites, which is something like compacted soot from your chimney. The carbon compounds from this comet are a much more complicated mix of compounds,” commented GL’s Marc Fries. “It will be an exciting challenge to explain how these compounds formed and wound up in the comet.”

“This leads us to our next big question,” Cody remarked. “How could such fragile material have survived capture at 6 km/sec collision velocity?”

“At this point, every question we answer raises several more questions,” Nittler said. “But that is precisely what makes exploration so exciting and makes sample return so important. We now have the samples to study for many years to come.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Essentially what they are saying is that there are objects in this solar system that are either hold-overs from the previous system that existed here, or, some of these visiting objects have come in contact with debris from other systems.  Either way, we are seeing "MACRO-EVOLUTION" as I would like to re-define it.  I'll be posting more information as the day goes on.  Feel free to weigh in at any time.



« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 08:22:35 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.

Boreas
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 07:56:23 pm »


Prof Questions Darwinian Dogma

In a new paper that challenges the Darwinian model of evolution, University of Pittsburgh professor, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, contends that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Schwartz's paper, "Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics," appears in the latest issue of the journal Biological Theory.

What Schwartz dubs "Molecular Assumption" (MA) entered evolutionary lore when, in 1962, biochemists Emil Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling demonstrated species similarity through utilizing immunological activity between the blood's serum and a constructed antiserum. Upon observing the intensity of the serum and antiserum reactivity between human, gorilla, horse, chicken, and fish blood, they deduced "special relatedness" - that is, the more intense the reaction, the more closely related the species were supposed to be.



Because fish blood was most dissimilar, it was assumed that the fish line diverged long before the other species. Human and gorilla blood were the most similar, meaning both species had the least amount of time to diverge. Ultimately, the Darwinian model of constant evolutionary change was imposed upon the static observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling.

Since then, the scientific community has accepted the MA as a scientific truth, but Schwartz has a different view. "That always struck me as being a very odd thing - that this model of constant change was never challenged." Schwartz has his own theories regarding evolution, which are backed by recent developments in molecular biology and prominent gaps in the fossil record.

Schwartz's argument centers on how the structure of the genome does not keep changing based on the presence of stress proteins, also known as heat shock proteins. These proteins are located in each cell, and their main function is to eliminate the potential for cellular error and change via maintaining normal cellular form through protein folding.



This regular cellular maintenance is what Schwartz points to in his refutation of constant cellular change. "The biology of the cell seems to run contrary to the model people have in their heads," says Schwartz. He contends that if our molecules were constantly changing, it would threaten proper survival, and strange animals would be constantly emerging all over the world. Consequentially, Schwartz argues that molecular change is brought about only by significant environmental stressors, such as rapid temperature change, severe dietary change, or even physical crowding.

If an organism's stress proteins are unable to cope with a significant change, the genomic structure can be modified. However, Schwartz notes, a mutation also can be recessive in an organism for many generations before it is displayed in its offspring. Whether or not the offspring survives is another matter. If it does in fact live, the presence of this genetically modified organism is not the product of gradual molecular change but a sudden display of the genetic mutation, which may have occurred myriad years prior.

Schwartz is intrigued by the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "We cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," he said in conclusion.


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070111220451data_trunc_sys.shtml

Note related articles:
- Evolution Appears To Be A Start-Stop Affair
- A Revolution In Evolution
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 08:00:18 pm by Boreas » Report Spam   Logged

Gens Una Sumus
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 08:30:55 pm »

Boreas,
nice to see you and Schwartz finally getting with the program.   The Urantia papers have been stating this fact for over 70 years now.

PAPER 58 - LIFE ESTABLISHMENT ON URANTIA, Oct 19 2000

*   line 103:           From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.

********
*********

2. THE DAWN MAMMALS

A little more than one million years ago the Mesopotamian dawn mammals, the direct descendants of the North American lemur type of placental mammal,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 704
------------------------------------------------------------------------
suddenly appeared. They were active little creatures, almost three feet tall; and while they did not habitually walk on their hind legs, they could easily stand erect. They were hairy and agile and chattered in monkeylike fashion, but unlike the simian tribes, they were flesh eaters. They had a primitive opposable thumb as well as a highly useful grasping big toe. From this point onward the prehuman species successively developed the opposable thumb while they progressively lost the grasping power of the great toe. The later ape tribes retained the grasping big toe but never developed the human type of thumb.

*********
*********
And now, after almost nine hundred generations of development, covering about twenty-one thousand years from the origin of the dawn mammals, the Primates suddenly gave birth to two remarkable creatures, the first true human beings.

Thus it was that the dawn mammals, springing from the North American lemur type, gave origin to the mid-mammals, and these mid-mammals in turn produced the superior Primates, who became the immediate ancestors of the primitive human race. The Primates tribes were the last vital link in the evolution of man, but in less than five thousand years not a single individual of these extraordinary tribes was left.
***********
***********
The higher protozoan type of animal life soon appeared, and appeared suddenly. And from these far-distant times the ameba, the typical single-celled animal organism, has come on down but little modified. He disports himself today much as he did when he was the last and greatest achievement in life evolution. This minute creature and his protozoan cousins are to the animal creation what bacteria are to the plant kingdom; they represent the survival of the first early evolutionary steps in life differentiation together with failure of subsequent development.
*********
*********
It was from an agile little reptilian dinosaur of carnivorous habits but having a comparatively large brain that the placental mammals suddenly sprang. These mammals developed rapidly and in many different ways, not only giving rise to the common modern varieties but also evolving into marine types, such as whales and seals, and into air navigators like the bat family.
*********
*********
140,000,000 years ago, suddenly and with only the hint of the two prereptilian ancestors that developed in Africa during the preceding epoch, the reptiles appeared in full-fledged form. They developed rapidly, soon yielding crocodiles, scaled reptiles, and eventually both sea serpents and flying reptiles. Their transition ancestors speedily disappeared.
********
********
90,000,000 years ago the angiosperms emerged from these early Cretaceous seas and soon overran the continents. These land plants suddenly appeared along with fig trees, magnolias, and tulip trees. Soon after this time fig trees, breadfruit trees, and palms overspread Europe and the western plains of North America. No new land animals appeared.
**********
*********
Page 691
------------------------------------------------------------------------
beech, birch, oak, walnut, sycamore, maple, and modern palms. Fruits, grasses, and cereals were abundant, and these seed-bearing grasses and trees were to the plant world what the ancestors of man were to the animal world--they were second in evolutionary importance only to the appearance of man himself. Suddenly and without previous gradation, the great family of flowering plants mutated. And this new flora soon overspread the entire world.
*********
**********






Prof Questions Darwinian Dogma

In a new paper that challenges the Darwinian model of evolution, University of Pittsburgh professor, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, contends that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Schwartz's paper, "Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics," appears in the latest issue of the journal Biological Theory.

snip......

Since then, the scientific community has accepted the MA as a scientific truth, but Schwartz has a different view. "That always struck me as being a very odd thing - that this model of constant change was never challenged." Schwartz has his own theories regarding evolution, which are backed by recent developments in molecular biology and prominent gaps in the fossil record.

Schwartz's argument centers on how the structure of the genome does not keep changing based on the presence of stress proteins, also known as heat shock proteins. These proteins are located in each cell, and their main function is to eliminate the potential for cellular error and change via maintaining normal cellular form through protein folding.


snip......

Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," he said in conclusion.


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070111220451data_trunc_sys.shtml





Anyway Boreas,...........you get the idea......LOL.........       Grin Smiley Smiley Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 10:16:36 pm »

Unfortunately Majeston, Urantia may say Sudden, but what it describes is Darwinian evolution.  The real issue with Urantia is just how incorrent it is - so I just simply discount it.  Please tell me that this isn't going to turn into a Cut & Paste Olympics for Urantia...  If so, I'll just stop now and go elsewhere.

Nice posting Boreas - this theory goes hand in hand with what I propose.  There is one thing that the fossil record demonstrates clearly (not evolution), and that is that all eruptions of "new life" are preceeded by mass extinction events.  Otherwise severe depression within the organic system appears to be a precursor to the sudden leaps in evolution that Schwartz alludes to with his phrase, "significant environmental stressors".  I'm in agreement.


Next Article:

Stardust findings override some commonly held astronomy beliefs


Contrary to a popular scientific notion, there was enough mixing in the early solar system to transport material from the sun's sizzling neighborhood and deposit it in icy deep-space comets. It might have been like a gentle eddy in a stream or more like an artillery blast, but evidence from the Stardust mission shows that material from the sun's vicinity traveled to the edge of the solar system, beyond Pluto, as the planets were born.


"Many people imagined that comets formed in total isolation from the rest of the solar system. We have shown that's not true," said Donald Brownlee, the University of Washington astronomer who is principal investigator, or lead scientist, for Stardust.


"As the solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago, material moved from the innermost part to the outermost part. I think of it as the solar system partially turning itself inside out," said Brownlee, the lead author among 183 on the primary paper detailing the first research results from the Stardust mission, published in the Dec. 15 edition of the journal Science.


Brownlee is a coauthor of the other six papers on Stardust results being published in Science, which also are the subject of a news conference and scientific presentations at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.


The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Stardust mission was launched in February 1999 and met comet Wild 2 (pronounced Vilt) beyond the orbit of Mars in January 2004. The comet formed more than 4.5 billion years ago and had remained preserved in the frozen reaches of the outer solar system until 1974 when a close encounter with Jupiter shifted the comet's orbit to a path between Mars and Jupiter. After a 2.88 billion-mile journey, Stardust returned to Earth last January with a payload of thousands of tiny particles from Wild 2.


Among the biggest surprises, Brownlee said, was finding material that formed in the hottest part of the solar system.


"If those materials had gotten any hotter they would have vaporized," he said. "The most extreme particle was the second one we worked on in my lab. These types of particles are among the oldest things in the solar system."


That particle was a calcium-aluminum inclusion, a rare material seen in some meteorites and the very type of matter that scientists used as an argument for flying Stardust to less than 150 miles from Wild 2. At that close range, the fast-moving particles could have seriously damaged the spacecraft, but Brownlee and others felt it was necessary to take that risk if they were to have a chance to determine an upper limit of material that formed near the sun that ended up at the farthest fringes of the solar system.


"Truthfully, we really didn't expect to find anything from the inner solar system. Instead, it showed up in the second particle we looked at," he said. The scientists also found magnesium olivine, a primary component of the green sand found on some Hawaiian beaches and, like a calcium-aluminum inclusion, one of the first things to form in the cooling solar nebula.


Brownlee estimates that as much as 10 percent of the material in comets came from the inner solar system. "That's a real surprise because the common expectation was that comets would be made of interstellar dust and ice."


But interstellar dust has a glassy characteristic, he said, while the particles that formed around stars and are found in comets are partially crystalline. It was suggested previously that interstellar dust had been mildly heated to transform its glassy substance into the crystalline comet contents.


"What we've seen, I believe, is totally incompatible with that interpretation," Brownlee said. "The particles we've seen have been heavily heated. Astronomical interpretations will be affected by that."


Wild 2's characteristics seem to be different from those of comet Tempel 1, which was closely examined in a mission called Deep Impact. In that case, a probe crashed into the comet surface and the properties of the resulting dust were analyzed using the infrared part of the spectrum. But Brownlee notes that while Tempel 1 was examined remotely from a distance, Stardust returned actual samples for scientists to study.


"The comets may be different from each other, or different observations could simply be a result of the different techniques used to examine them. It is a challenge for us to understand how they are different and why," he said.


Besides the UW, other major partners for the $212 million Stardust project are NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, The Boeing Co., Germany's Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, NASA Ames Research Center, the University of Chicago, The Open University in England and NASA's Johnson Space Center.


Brownlee has noted the irony that the tiny specks of comet dust are being examined by some of the largest investigative tools, such as the 2-mile-long Stanford Linear Accelerator. But with more than 150 scientists studying dust from Wild 2, Stardust also is driving the advance of new technology, including development of the world's highest-resolution microscope at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


"We're doing things no one ever imagined we could do, even at the time we launched the mission," Brownlee said. "We've taken a pinch of comet dust and are learning incredible things."

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=28836


I'm building my case - not repeating myself.  Patience is a virtue.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 10:28:39 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Brooke
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 4269



« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 10:50:09 pm »

Quote
As many of you from Atlantis Rising and Alternative Archaeology know, I am very much opposed to the ideas of Creation and Evolution.  Both theories for the same (general reasons) just do not "pass muster" with me.  Now, before anyone goes into a spinning backflip (with a twist) tantrum - I would like to clarify my point.

Hi Merlin!

Glad to have you here! We need more scentists in the forum.

You're entitled to go where the research leads you, of course, but why then do you seemingly favor panspermia over evolution?  I'm interested in panspermia, too, but the fact is, we have less evidence that it was responsible for the origins of human life than evolution was.

Brooke
Report Spam   Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2007, 12:59:06 pm »

Hi Merlin!

Glad to have you here! We need more scentists in the forum.

You're entitled to go where the research leads you, of course, but why then do you seemingly favor panspermia over evolution?  I'm interested in panspermia, too, but the fact is, we have less evidence that it was responsible for the origins of human life than evolution was.

Brooke

Do we really have more evidence?  Considering that the link between the "first life" and the next phase has never been found, nor have the "primordial stew pots" - I disagree that we know very much at all behind the origins.  Beyond that, since we have yet to see an alligator change into a kangaroo, I hold out hope that there is a better explanation for how it happens.  Keep in mind that I agree with evolution as a natural occurance - that much is surely not in dispute.  What I disagree with is the beginning, the transitions, and the impetus & mode for interspecial/extra-special alterations.  In other words, I don't think that evolution (as Darwin's followers offer it) explains how a bird evolved from a dinosaur or a mammal from an amphibian.  Most of my concern is rooted in the limited timeline available for the process to have occurred completely randomly - on this planet.  Anyway - I think there is much growing evidence that the "seeds" emanated from elsewhere.  Keep reading, I'm still building up to a crescendo:

Comets As Toolkits For Jump-Starting Life
December 14, 2006

Just as kits of little plastic bricks can be used to make everything from models of the space shuttle to the statue of liberty, comets are looking more and more like one of nature's toolkits for creating life. These chunks of ice and dust wandering our solar system appear to be filled with organic molecules that are the building blocks of life.

The discovery of two kinds of nitrogen-rich organic molecules in comet Wild 2 is the latest addition to the set of bits and pieces useful to the origin of life that has been found in comets.

These discoveries were made by members of the Stardust Preliminary Examination Team, a group of scientists who have been studying the samples returned from comet Wild 2 by NASA's Stardust spacecraft in January 2006.

"These results show that comets could have delivered nitrogen rich organic compounds to the early Earth where they would have been available for the origin of life," said Scott Sandford of NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

"This discovery shows that the menu of compounds available for the origin of life was richer than had been previously thought," said Jason Dworkin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

"The two molecules we discovered in comet Wild 2, methylamine and ethylamine, provide a source of fixed nitrogen, a commodity which could have been rare on the ancient Earth. Nitrogen fixation is the conversion of the very stable nitrogen (N2) gas in our atmosphere to a biologically usable form, like an amine or nitrate -- the same compounds found in fertilizer. Enzymes that fix nitrogen appear to be ancient, so finding a source of fixed nitrogen would have been an early challenge for life from the time of its origin. We determined that at least one type of comet would have provided significant quantities of stable, fixed nitrogen in the form of methylamine and ethylamine," added Dworkin.

This is the first time these molecules have been detected in comets. As the Stardust spacecraft sped through the comet's tail at nearly 21,000 kilometers per hour (13,000 miles per hour), a set of aerogel tiles mounted on a boom trapped dust and gas from the comet. Often referred to as "frozen smoke," aerogel is the world's lowest density solid. Its low density allows it to slow and capture comet dust particles without vaporizing them.

Although the mission's goal was to return samples of comet dust to Earth, the researchers looked for organic molecules that were embedded in the aerogel itself, rather than trapped in dust grains. "We found that the aerogel acted like a sponge, absorbing organic gases from the comet nucleus," said Daniel Glavin of NASA Goddard.

"And just like squeezing a sponge, we squeezed out all the good stuff -- the water-soluble organics -- by boiling samples of the aerogel in ultra-high purity water," added Glavin. The team analyzed the aerogel water extract with a liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer instrument to identify the organic molecules.

Since Earth is crawling with life, the team had to rule out contamination from our planet before it could say the molecules likely came from the comet. Glavin and Dworkin analyzed dozens of "pre-flight" aerogels that were not flown on Stardust in order to understand the organic background levels within the aerogel.

The team found high levels of both methylamine and ethylamine in aerogel that was exposed to comet Wild 2. While they did find small amounts of methylamine and trace levels of ethylamine in the pre-flight aerogel, the total amount in the unflown aerogel was over 100 times less. Also, the relative amounts of the two molecules were very different from that found in the comet-exposed aerogel. The different total and relative amounts convinced the team that most of the two chemicals in the Stardust sample came from the comet.

However, since Stardust was in space for seven years, the team had to be sure that the two chemicals weren't simply picked up while the spacecraft was cruising toward Wild 2. Since the pressure in space is so low, the spacecraft can release gas or volatile materials acquired during its manufacture on Earth. This is called "outgassing," and it could have contaminated the aerogel as well.

To reveal the levels of contamination from these two sources, the Stardust team included a special piece of aerogel called the "witness tile" on the spacecraft. It's a piece of aerogel located behind a dust shield that protected the spacecraft from high-speed collisions with comet particles. This location kept the witness tile from being exposed to gas and dust from the comet. But the witness aerogel was exposed to everything else Stardust encountered, including the manufacturing processes, shipping, the launch, spacecraft outgassing, and Earth reentry.

"When we analyzed a sample of the witness tile, we did not detect methylamine or ethylamine, so we don't think Stardust was contaminated with these two chemicals on the way to Wild 2," said Glavin.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Stardust mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Dr. Peter Tsou of JPL is deputy principal investigator and is a co-author on seven papers about the mission's initial findings appearing in the Dec. 15 issue of Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
TomB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2007, 01:40:03 pm »

I'd just like to point out that, while perhaps not widely accepted, exogenesis and panspermia are fairly respectable hypothesis for the origin of life within the scientific community.  While not as widely accepted as the various abiogenesis hypotheses, neither is it dismissed out of hand.  Many well respected scientists favor hypotheses along this line.

Also, panspermia or exogenesis are not really alternatives to evolution but to abiogenesis

Similarly, excepting literal interpretations of scripture, creation is also an alternative to abiogenesis rather than evolution.  There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says there cannot be a supreme "creator" being.  There is simply no empirical evidence to this effect.

On the other hand, there is some solid evidence that suggests the possibility of some sort of exogenesis.  While I haven't thouroughly read Merlin's article yet, I believe what he is citing is taken seriously within the scientific community.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2007, 03:50:50 pm »

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the support on that; it's good to know that some people don't think I'm out of my mind.  Wink  I can attest (to a limited degree) to the theory's interest within specific sectors of the scientific community, as I am currently one of that crowd in addition to performing  research and analysis for an ever broader section of them.  From purely statistical, factual and logical perspectives - the existing theory has a number of gaps that Panspermia closes quite nicely.

You commented that, "... panspermia or exogenesis are not really alternatives to evolution but to abiogenesis..."  I partially concur.  I realize that you did not read the entirety of my postings, you said that quite clearly, but I would like to point out that I am not trying to replace Evolution.  I am a part of a group that would like to revise it.  I am attempting to fill in the gaps that the skeptics like to use as evidence for evolution's invalidity.  All-in-all, as you should know by now, I am an evolutionary proponent - just not as offered currently as a holisitc approach.  Moving right along...

Thanks for bringing a new term to the discussion; abiogenesis.  It isn't one that I am particularly fond of - due mostly to the negative stigmatism of it's historic usage, but I welcome the assistance of another scientist, and your willingness to fix the specifics.  Even in retreat of the terminology, I suppose that I'll have to soldier on now that the "cat is out of the bag".  Coined by Huxley in 1870 and "re-defined" later to mean spontaneous generation, the term abiogenesis has been discredited or refuted by almost every biology book since the beginning of modern science.  In plain English, the term is often explained as "the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."  It has also been referred to as autogenesis.  In reality - panspermia is not limited to only the confines of autogenesis; it too can explain the mechanisms and impetuses.  Thus far, I have offered articles of a "lefthanded version" of it, but I intend to continue further on the subject to the point that I contend that "actual life" not just "mechanisms of potential " are contained within materials streaming into our atmosphere.

The presence of molecules completely unexpected, methylamine and ethylamine, were a serious boon to our theory, and as my postings will progress - there are even more exciting events to report.  Being able to isolate or even indicate a potential source for fixing nitrogen is startling enough, but the fact that these molecules appear to have been born prior to our solar system's creation is incredible.  This takes history back to an unprecedented level if you think about it.  No longer are we considering the birth and evolution of the solar system, now we are talking about the death of the star prior to ours that created the nebulae which seeded our existing solar system.  From this point, we apply pure logic to the theory, and we realize that, "if it can happen once, the chances are it happened more than once."  The idea that life (in some form) survived the devastion of a nova in the previous solar generation engages us to contemplate that - that life may have been born of the solar generation prior to it!

"What does this mean," you ask?  Suddenly, the timeline for evolution is not the 2.5-3.1 BY for this planet (and its solar system), it becomes 8 BY at a minimum - 15 BY by statistical potential.  There's not a statistician in the world that would balk at the potential for "life" to have erupted through random advancement in a period of 8-15 BY.  Anyway - I'm getting ahead of myself.  Let's continue along the path we were paving.  I was feeling a little giddy for a moment there and moved tangentially...  Thanks for enjoining us with your expertise Tom, you are very welcome here.   Cheesy

Here's an interesting article for the audience to contemplate:

Tarlike macro-molecules detected in 'stardust'


PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, April 26, 2000
Source: Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics
 


The first in-situ chemical analysis of interstellar dust particles produces a puzzling result: These cosmic particles consist mostly of 3-dimensionally cross-linked organic macro-molecules, so-called polymeric-heterocyclic-aromates. "They rather resemble tar-like substances than minerals" say Dr. Franz R. Krueger (contractor) and Dr.Jochen Kissel, Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (for extraterrestrial Physics), Garching near Munich, Germany, in the latest issue of 'Sterne und Weltraum' a monthly, German language Astronomy magazine in Heidelberg, Germany.

So far, 5 interstellar dust particles (dust between the stars) have hit the Garching built dust impact mass spectrometer CIDA (Cometary and Interstellar Dust Analyzer) onboard the NASA spacecraft STARDUST. Launched on Feb 7th 1999 STARDUST will visit comet Wild-2 (pronounce Vild-2) in 2004.

To reach the comet, STARDUST has to perform three orbits about the sun. At the close fly-by (miss-distance 500 km/300 miles) another instrument will collect cometary dust and return it, well packed, to earth in January of 2006. During its 7 year mission, STARDUST will face the stream of interstellar dust several times. This dust is part of the local environment in the Milky Way which the solar system currently passes through at high speed. It has recently be seen by dust instruments of the Heidelberg based Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (for Nuclear Physics) on both NASA's Galileo and ESA's Ulysses spacecrafts. The first measuring campaign for CIDA from February through December 1999 has produced the new results.

During this time STARDUST was at a distance of about 240 million Kilometers (150 Million miles) from the earth when the first impact occurred. Just before the campaign the spacecraft pointed the instrument into the direction of the interstellar dust, so that it would not measure the more frequent interplanetary dust particles, which are parts of our solar system.

At an impact speed of about 30 kilometers/second (18 miles/second) these interstellar dust particles are vaporized immediately and broken up into molecular fragments. A fraction of those carries a positive or negative electronic charge. By its electric field in front of the target CIDA pulls the positive ions into the instrument to the detector. Depending on their mass it takes the ions different times to travel the 1.5 meters (5 feet) distance (heavier ions travel longer). This way they are detected mass after mass with in some 200 millionth of a second, and a mass spectrum is generated.

"It is the size of these molecular fragments with nuclear masses of up to 2000 (water e.g. has 18 such units) which surprised us as much as the seemingly absence of any mineral constituents", explains Dr. Kissel of the Garching based Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik. "Only organic molecules can reach those sizes". The largest molecules found in space so far are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) which reach masses of a few hundred mass units.

The details of the mass spectra measured with CIDA show that the molecules of the interstellar dust must have about 10% of Nitrogen and/or Oxygen in addition to hydrogen and Carbon. This means that these cannot be pure PAHs, which are planar, but are especially due to the nitrogen extend into all three spacial directions.

Such three dimensional molecules can form links to their neighbours and reach a thermal stability necessary to survive the trip into the inner solar system with 300 to 350 Kelvin (70 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit). "The organic material analyzed with CIDA in the interstellar dust particles is another type of reactive molecules which we found in the dust of comet Halley 14 years ago" says Dr. Kissel. "When they got in contact with liquid water on the young earth, they could have triggered the type of chemical reactions which are a prerequisite for the origin of life."




Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2007, 07:44:03 pm »

Meteorite may have seeded life


Published December 3rd, 2006 in Hot News!



EDMONTON—A meteorite stored at the University of Alberta may contain important clues about how life began on Earth. NASA researchers say the Tagish Lake meteorite has been found to contain organic compounds that formed in the distant reaches of space as the solar system was being born. The findings were revealed in a paper published by the researchers in the journal Science. The scientists say compounds such as those found in the meteorite may have been responsible for seeding the earth with the building blocks of life. While such compounds have been found in space debris before, scientists thought they had been picked up after the meteorite entered the atmosphere. But powerful nanotechnology instruments at the Johnson Space Center in Texas helped prove the compounds in the Tagish Lake material had formed in space. The meteorite is particularly important because it was collected almost immediately after it fell on the Yukon in January 2000 and has been preserved in its frozen state in Edmonton ever since.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I thought that you all would find it interesting to know that it isn't just cometary debris in space that has garnering the attention of the Panspermia crowd...

Anyway, I am posting a link to a Science Magazine article regarding the analysis of the comet Wild 2 samples.  I know that the material is copyrighted, and I know that it is very tightly controlled - however, I have seen it in the public domain; albeit at controlled websites (such as universities).  I take copyright issues very seriously, so hopefully I'm not breaking the law here. 

As a disclaimer:

I offer to remove this link immediately in the event the authors or publishers request it.  I post this material only to further the discussion, not to profit from it in any way or to decrease the revenue potential of those that legitimately authored and published the research.


I will post all of the research journal information at my site eventually for this discussion so as to shield the operator of this fourm from any potential Copyright issues, but for now, I'll do it piece-meal.  This journal article is long and complex so take your time.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2007, 08:25:28 pm »

I altered the name of the thread slightly to accommodate Tom's point.  As a point of fact, the title did say "Alternative to evolution and creation" and that really wasn't my intention.  The new title truly reflects the view I was trying to convey.  In the future I will endeavor to be more accurate.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2007, 09:25:02 pm »

Merl,

While I'm gathering my thoughts to reply to your posts I thought you might find this interesting if you weren't aware of it.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php

and

http://www.physorg.com

and

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/string_theory.shtml


.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 09:33:56 pm by Majeston » Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2007, 09:48:16 pm »

Merl,

While I'm gathering my thoughts to reply to your posts I thought you might find this interesting if you weren't aware of it.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php

and

http://www.physorg.com

and

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/string_theory.shtml


.

Thanks.  I'm already a member at Physorg, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.  Scienceagogo isn't really my "speed".
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2007, 04:07:22 am »

SORRY MERL,

I HAD TO DO THis.   Not diminishing your exceptional rarely equaled brilliance,  ,,,,,,but sometimes you can be so dense.    Smiley




That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to (Earth). (Earth) life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; ........





During the earlier times of universe materialization the space regions are interspersed with vast hydrogen clouds, just such astronomic dust clusters as now characterize many regions throughout remote space. Much of the organized matter which the blazing suns break down and disperse as radiant energy was originally built up in these early appearing hydrogen clouds of space. Under certain unusual conditions atom disruption also occurs at the nucleus of the larger hydrogen masses. And all of these phenomena of atom building and atom dissolution, as in the highly heated nebulae, are attended by the emergence of flood tides of short space rays of radiant energy. Accompanying these diverse radiations is a form of space-energy unknown on Urantia.



          This short-ray energy charge of universe space is four hundred times greater than all other forms of radiant energy existing in the organized space domains. The output of short space rays, whether coming from the blazing nebulae, tense electric fields, outer space, or the vast hydrogen dust clouds, is modified qualitatively and quantitatively by fluctuations of, and sudden tension changes in, temperature, gravity, and electronic pressures.

          These eventualities in the origin of the space rays are determined by many cosmic occurrences as well as by the orbits of circulating matter, which vary from modified circles to extreme ellipses. Physical conditions may also be greatly altered because the electron spin is sometimes in the opposite direction from that of the grosser matter behavior, even in the same physical zone.

          The vast hydrogen clouds are veritable cosmic chemical laboratories, harboring all phases of evolving energy and metamorphosing matter. Great energy actions also occur in the marginal gases of the great binary stars which so frequently overlap and hence extensively commingle. But none of these tremendous and far-flung energy activities of space exerts the least influence upon the phenomena of organized life--the germ plasm of living things and beings. These energy conditions of space are germane to the essential environment of life establishment, but they are not effective in the subsequent modification of the inheritance factors of the germ plasm as are some of the longer rays of radiant energy. The implanted life of the Life Carriers is fully resistant to all of this amazing flood of the short space rays of universe energy.

          All of these essential cosmic conditions had to evolve to a favorable status before the Life Carriers could actually begin the establishment of life on Urantia.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper58.html


  And yet some of the less imaginative of your mortal mechanists insist on viewing material creation and human evolution as an accident. The Urantia midwayers have assembled over fifty thousand facts of physics and chemistry which they deem to be incompatible with the laws of accidental chance, and which they contend unmistakably demonstrate the presence of intelligent purpose in the material creation. And all of this takes no account of their catalogue of more than one hundred thousand findings outside the domain of physics and chemistry which they maintain prove the presence of mind in the planning, creation, and maintenance of the material cosmos.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Life is both mechanistic and vitalistic--material and spiritual. Ever will Urantia physicists and chemists progress in their understanding of the protoplasmic forms of vegetable and animal life, but never will they be able to produce living organisms. Life is something different from all energy manifestations; even the material life of physical creatures is not inherent in matter.

Things material may enjoy an independent existence, but life springs only from life. Mind can be derived only from pre-existent mind. Spirit takes origin only from spirit ancestors.  The creature may produce the forms of life, but only a creator personality or a creative force can supply the activating living spark.


Life Carriers can organize the material forms, or physical patterns, of living beings, but the Spirit provides the initial spark of life and bestows the endowment of mind. Even the living forms of experimental life which the Life Carriers organize on their Salvington worlds are always devoid of reproductive powers. When the life formulas and the vital patterns are correctly assembled and properly organized, the presence of a Life Carrier is sufficient to initiate life, but all such living organisms are lacking in two essential attributes--mind endowment and reproductive powers. Animal mind and human mind are gifts of the local universe Mother Spirit, functioning through the seven adjutant mind-spirits, while creature ability to reproduce is the specific and personal impartation of the Universe Spirit to the ancestral life plasm inaugurated by the Life Carriers.

  When the Life Carriers have designed the patterns of life, after they have organized the energy systems, there must occur an additional phenomenon; the "breath of life" must be imparted to these lifeless forms. The Sons of God can construct the forms of life, but it is the Spirit of God who really contributes the vital spark.  And when the life thus imparted is spent, then again the remaining material body becomes dead matter. When the bestowed life is exhausted, the body returns to the bosom of the material universe from which it was borrowed by the Life Carriers to serve as a transient vehicle for that life endowment which they conveyed to such a visible association of energy-matter.

The life bestowed upon plants and animals by the Life Carriers does not return to the Life Carriers upon the death of plant or animal. The departing life of such a living thing possesses neither identity nor personality; it does not individually survive death. During its existence and the time of its sojourn in the body of matter, it has undergone a change; it has undergone energy evolution and survives only as a part of the cosmic forces of the universe; it does not survive as individual life. The survival of mortal creatures is wholly predicated on the evolvement of an immortal soul within the mortal mind.

We speak of life as "energy" and as "force," but it is really neither. Force-energy is variously gravity responsive; life is not. Pattern is also nonresponsive to gravity, being a configuration of energies that have already fulfilled all gravity-responsive obligations. Life, as such, constitutes the animation of some pattern-configured or otherwise segregated system of energy--material, mindal, or spiritual.




***********

**************

« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 08:35:27 pm by Majeston » Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Boreas
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 441



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2007, 01:40:17 am »


Eu-karotes and pro-karyotes


Eukaryotes (meaning true kernel, also spelled "eucaryotes") covers all species that have a true nuclei within their cells, containing their DNA, while Pro-karyotes' covers micro-organisms with cell-material where the genetic material is not membrane-bound. Eukaryotes are organisms that have cell nuclei and may be variously unicellular or multicellular and thus termed "plants" or "animals".  The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms. Most pro-karyotes are bacteria, and the two terms are often treated as synonyms.

In 1977, Carl Woese proposed dividing prokaryotes into the Bacteria and Archaea (originally Eubacteria and Archaebacteria) because of the significant genetic differences between the two. This arrangement of Eukaryota (also called "Eukarya"), Bacteria, and Archaea is called the three-domain system replacing the traditional two-empire system.

Evolution of Polycarotes

Prokaryotes are found in nearly all environments on earth. Archaea in particular seem to thrive in harsh conditions, such as high temperatures or salinity. Organisms such as these are referred to as extremophiles. Many prokaryotes live in or on the bodies of other organisms, including humans.

It is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of prokaryote and may have developed out of protobionts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life



Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered, and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today. In contrast the eukaryote only appeared between approximately 1.7 and 2.2 billion years ago.[1] While Earth is the only known place where prokaryotes exist, some have suggested structures within a Martian meteorite should be interpreted as fossil prokaryotes; this is open to considerable debate and skepticism.

Prokaryotes diversified greatly throughout their long existence. The metabolism of prokaryotes is far more varied than that of eukaryotes, leading to many highly distinct types of prokaryotes. For example, in addition to using photosynthesis or organic compounds for energy like eukaryotes do, prokaryotes may obtain energy from inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide.

This has enabled the bacteria to thrive and reproduce. Today, archaebacteria can be found in the cold of Antarctica and in the hot Yellowstone springs.



The sizes of prokaryotes relative to other organisms and biomolecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
Report Spam   Logged

Gens Una Sumus
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2007, 08:09:42 pm »

Boreasi,

I wonder what your purpose was in posting the below quoted Eukarote excerpt from Wikipedia.Huh??


I suggest that the age of the pro-karyotes and Eukarotes is off by over 3 billion years.  Remember,  you heard it here first Smiley
The oldest living organism on Earth cannot be more than 550,000,000 years old.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE


I know this may come as a surprise to you and Merlin and others and might probably even
elicit a long laugh but nevertheless s0-called "science" has made a tremendous blunder
in it's assesment and dating of these early life forms.  I wonder why that is.  I can think of 2
reasons.   
1.  The dating process and technology is in error
2.  The structures wherein the samples were found are not as old as they think they are.

There are several reasons for that error.
1." bacteria, simple vegetable organisms of a very primitive nature, are very little changed from the early dawn of life; they even exhibit a degree of retrogression in their parasitic behavior. Many of the fungi also represent a retrograde movement in evolution, being plants which have lost their chlorophyll-making ability and have become more or less parasitic. The majority of disease-causing bacteria and their auxiliary virus bodies really belong to this group of renegade parasitic fungi. During the intervening ages all of the vast kingdom of plant life has evolved from ancestors from which the bacteria have also descended."

2.    "The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.

          Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences.

          Throughout the oceanic ages, enormous layers of fossil-free stratified stone were deposited on this ancient ocean bottom. (Limestone can form as a result of chemical precipitation; not all of the older limestone was produced by marine-life deposition.) In none of these ancient rock formations will there be found evidences of life; they contain no fossils unless, by some chance, later deposits of the water ages have become mixed with these older prelife layers."

3.     "  In these early ages when much land was near sea level, there occurred many successive submergences and emergences. The earth's crust was just entering upon its later period of comparative stabilization. The undulations, rises and dips, of the earlier continental drift contributed to the frequency of the periodic submergence of the great land masses.

          During these times of primitive marine life, extensive areas of the continental shores sank beneath the seas from a few feet to half a mile. Much of the older sandstone and conglomerates represents the sedimentary accumulations of these ancient shores. The sedimentary rocks belonging to this early stratification rest directly upon those layers which date back far beyond the origin of life, back to the early appearance of the world-wide ocean."
http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper58.html


I think that rather accepting;  parroting;  and taking for granted the mischaracterized age of these early life forms a very careful
analysis of how the age was derived by so-called scientific method will reveal error and supposition taken as fact.  The foundation
for the belief is not credible. Smiley Perhaps Merlin may be able to sort it all out.  Perhaps not;  I know he could if he was inclined to.



Quote
The Precambrian | Back to Top

The Archean Eon encompasses the time from the formation of the earth until 2.5 billion years ago. The rocks formed during this eon are the most ancient rocks known, up to 3.96 billion years old. The nature of this rock inducates that there were/are even older rocks that, if they still exist, have yet to be located and dated. Perhaps the biggest development during the Archean was the first appearance of life. The earliest forms of life were simple prokaryotic cells, in a few cases remarkably similar to living prokaryotic forms (at least in terms of observable cell structure and size). Fossil evidence supports the origins of life on earth earlier than 3.5 billion years ago. Specimens from the North Pole region of Western Australia are of such diversity and apparent complexity that even more primitive cells must have existed earlier. Rocks of the Ishua Super Group in Greenland yield possibly the fossil remains of the earliest cells, 3.8 billion years old. Life appears to have begun soon after the cooling of the Earth and formation of its atmosphere and oceans.

These ancient fossils occur in marine rocks, such as limestones and sandstones, that formed in ancient oceans. The organisms living today that are most similar to ancient life forms are the archaebacteria (the archaea in modern usage). This group is today restricted to marginal environments. Recent discoveries of life at mid-ocean ridges add yet another possible place of origin: at these mid-ocean ridges where heat and molten rock rise to the earth's surface.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookPaleo2.html



Eu-karotes and pro-karyotes


Eukaryotes (meaning true kernel, also spelled "eucaryotes") covers all species that have a true nuclei within their cells, containing their DNA, while Pro-karyotes' covers micro-organisms with cell-material where the genetic material is not membrane-bound. Eukaryotes are organisms that have cell nuclei and may be variously unicellular or multicellular and thus termed "plants" or "animals".  The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms. Most pro-karyotes are bacteria, and the two terms are often treated as synonyms.

In 1977, Carl Woese proposed dividing prokaryotes into the Bacteria and Archaea (originally Eubacteria and Archaebacteria) because of the significant genetic differences between the two. This arrangement of Eukaryota (also called "Eukarya"), Bacteria, and Archaea is called the three-domain system replacing the traditional two-empire system.

Evolution of Polycarotes

........
Fossilized prokaryotes approximately 3.5 billion years old have been discovered, and prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant organism even today. In contrast the eukaryote only appeared between approximately 1.7 and 2.2 billion years ago.[1] While Earth is the only known place where prokaryotes exist, some have suggested structures within a Martian meteorite should be interpreted as fossil prokaryotes; this is open to considerable debate and skepticism........



  550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.
http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper58.html
Smiley
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 09:40:35 pm by Majeston » Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy