An Alternative to Darwinian Evolution

[Boreas]

Cathodoluminescence image of the oldest known material from the Earth, a single crystal of zircon from the Jack Hills metaconglomerate, Western Australia. Concentric, magmatic growth zoning is shown about the crystal core. The crystallization age of 4.40Ga (4004+-4Ma) was determined from the circled area by ion microprobe. The arrow points to an inclusion of quartz. The high oxygen isotope ratio from this sample suggests that low temperature surficial processes including liquid water were important for the formation of protoliths to this magma."

[Boreas]

Earlier Water on Earth? Oldest Rock Suggests Hospitable Young Planet

Geological evidence suggests that Earth may have had surface water --and thus conditions to support life -- millions of years earlier than previously thought. Scientists reconstructed the portrait of early Earth by reading the telltale chemical composition of the oldest known terrestrial rock. The 4.4-billion-year-old mineral sample suggests that early Earth was not a roiling ocean of magma, but instead was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could have supported life. The age of the sample may also undermine accepted current views on how and when the moon was formed. The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is published in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

"This appears to be evidence of the earliest existence of liquid water on our planet," says Margaret Leinen, assistant director of NSF for geosciences. "If water occurred this early in the evolution of earth, it is possible that primitive life, too, occurred at this time."

By probing a tiny grain of zircon, a mineral commonly used to determine the geological age of rocks, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Colgate University, Curtin University in Australia and the University of Edinburgh in Scotland have found evidence that 4.4 billion years ago, temperatures had cooled to the 100-degree Centigrade range, a discovery that suggests an early Earth far different from the one previously imagined.

"This is an astounding thing to find for 4.4 billion years ago," says John Valley, a geologist at UW-Madison. "At that time, the Earth's surface should have been a magma ocean. Conventional wisdom would not have predicted a low-temperature environment. These results may indicate that the Earth cooled faster than anyone thought." Previously, the oldest evidence for liquid water on Earth, a precondition and catalyst for life, was from a rock estimated to be 3.8 billion years old.

The accepted view on an infant Earth is that shortly after it first formed 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago, the planet became little more than a swirling ball of molten metal and rock. Scientists believed it took a long time, perhaps 700 million years, for the Earth to cool to the point that oceans could condense from a thick, Venus-like atmosphere. For 500 million to 600 million years after the Earth was formed, the young planet was pummeled by intense meteorite bombardment. About 4.45 billion years ago, a Mars-size object is believed to have slammed into the Earth, creating the moon by blasting pieces of the infant planet into space.
"This appears to be evidence of the earliest existence of liquid water on our planet,"
The new picture of the earliest Earth is based on a single, tiny grain of zircon from western Australia found and dated by Simon Wilde, of the School of Applied Geology at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia. Valley worked with William Peck, a geologist at Colgate University, to analyze oxygen isotope ratios, measure rare earth elements, and determine element composition in a grain of zircon that measured little more than the diameter of two human hairs. Colin Graham's laboratory analyzed the zircon to obtain the oxygen isotope ratios. Graham is a contributor to the paper and geochemist at the University of Edinburgh.

"What the oxygen isotopes and rare earth analysis show us is a high oxygen isotope ratio that is not common in other such minerals from the first half of the Earth's history," Peck says. In other words, the chemistry of the mineral and the rock in which it developed could only have formed from material in a low-temperature environment at Earth's surface.

"This is the first evidence of crust as old as 4.4 billion years, and indicates the development of continental-type crust during intense meteorite bombardment of the early Earth," Valley says. "It is possible that the water-rock interaction (as represented in the ancient zircon sample) could have occurred during this bombardment, but between cataclysmic events."

Scientists have been searching diligently to find samples of the Earth's oldest rocks. Valley and Peck say such ancient samples are extremely rare because rock is constantly recycled or sinks to the hot mantle of the Earth. Over the great spans of geologic time, there is little surface material that has not been recycled and reprocessed in this way.

The tiny grain of zirconium silicate or zircon found by Wilde in western Australia was embedded in a larger sample containing fragments of material from many different rocks, Valley says. Zircons dated at 4.3 billion years were reported from the same site a decade ago, but the new-found zircon grain is more than 100 million years older than any other known sample, giving scientists a rare window to the earliest period of the Earth.

"This early age restricts theories for the formation of the moon," Valley says. "Perhaps the moon formed earlier than we thought, or by a different process." Another intriguing question is whether or not life may have arisen at that early time. Low temperatures and water are preconditions for life. The earliest known biochemical evidence for life and for a hydrosphere is estimated at 3.85 billion years ago, and the oldest microfossils are 3.5 billion years old.

"It may have been that life evolved and was completely extinguished several times" in catastrophic, meteorite-triggered extinction events well before that, Valley says. The research conducted by Valley, Peck, Graham and Wilde was also supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and a Dean Morgridge Wisconsin Distinguished Graduate Fellowship.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/01/pr0102.htm

[Boreas]

Geomagnetic field strength 3.2 billion years ago recorded by single silicate crystals

<sub>John A. Tarduno1,2, Rory D. Cottrell1, Michael K. Watkeys3 & Dorothy Bauch1

   1. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
   2. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
   3. School of Geological Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa</sub>


The strength of the Earth's early geomagnetic field is of importance for understanding the evolution of the Earth's deep interior, surface environment and atmosphere. Palaeomagnetic and palaeointensity data from rocks formed near the boundary of the Proterozoic and Archaean eons, some 2.5 Gyr ago, show many hallmarks of the more recent geomagnetic field. Reversals are recorded1, palaeosecular variation data2 indicate a dipole-dominated morphology and available palaeointensity values are similar to those from younger rocks.

 The picture before 2.8 Gyr ago is much less clear. Rocks of the Archaean Kaapvaal craton (South Africa) are among the best-preserved, but even they have experienced low-grade metamorphism. The variable acquisition of later magnetizations by these rocks is therefore expected, precluding use of conventional palaeointensity methods. Silicate crystals from igneous rocks, however, can contain minute magnetic inclusions capable of preserving Archaean-age magnetizations.

Here we use a CO2 laser heating approach and direct-current SQUID magnetometer measurements to obtain palaeodirections and intensities from single silicate crystals that host magnetite inclusions. We find 3.2-Gyr-old field strengths that are within 50 per cent of the present-day value, indicating that a viable magnetosphere sheltered the early Earth's atmosphere from solar wind erosion.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05667.html

[Boreas]

A light-activated chloride pump that occurs naturally in bacteria can be transfected into neurons, thereby permitting inhibition of neural activity on a millisecond timescale. This complements an existing tool for activating neurons through a photoactivatable algal channel.


Multimodal fast optical interrogation of neural circuitry

<sub>Feng Zhang1, Li-Ping Wang1, Martin Brauner2, Jana F. Liewald2, Kenneth Kay1, Natalie Watzke4, Phillip G. Wood4, Ernst Bamberg3,4, Georg Nagel4,5, Alexander Gottschalk2 & Karl Deisseroth1

   1. Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
   2. Institute of Biochemistry, and,
   3. Institute of Biophysical Chemistry, Department of Biochemistry, Chemistry and Pharmacy, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt Biocenter N220, Max-von-Laue Strabetae 9, D-60438 Frankfurt, Germany
   4. Max-Planck-Institute of Biophysics, Max-von-Laue-Strabetae 3, D-60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
   5. University Wuerzburg, Botanik I, Julius-von-Sachs-Platz 2, D-97082 Wuerzburg, Germany</sub>

Abstract

Our understanding of the cellular implementation of systems-level neural processes like action, thought and emotion has been limited by the availability of tools to interrogate specific classes of neural cells within intact, living brain tissue.

Here we identify and develop an archaeal light-driven chloride pump (NpHR) from Natronomonas pharaonis for temporally precise optical inhibition of neural activity. NpHR allows either knockout of single action potentials, or sustained blockade of spiking.

NpHR is compatible with ChR2, the previous optical excitation technology we have described, in that the two opposing probes operate at similar light powers but with well-separated action spectra. NpHR, like ChR2, functions in mammals without exogenous cofactors, and the two probes can be integrated with calcium imaging in mammalian brain tissue for bidirectional optical modulation and readout of neural activity.

Likewise, NpHR and ChR2 can be targeted together to Caenorhabditis elegans muscle and cholinergic motor neurons to control locomotion bidirectionally. NpHR and ChR2 form a complete system for multimodal, high-speed, genetically targeted, all-optical interrogation of living neural circuits.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05744.html





http://science.orf.at/science/news/147795

[Boreas]

Doushantuo embryos preserved inside diapause egg cysts

<sup>Leiming Yin1, Maoyan Zhu1, Andrew H. Knoll2, Xunlai Yuan1, Junming Zhang1 & Jie Hu1

   1. State Key Laboratory of Paleobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
   2. Botanical Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA</sup>


Phosphatized microfossils in the Ediacaran (635–542 Myr ago) Doushantuo Formation, south China, have been interpreted as the embryos of early animals

 Despite experimental demonstration that embryos can be preserved5, microstructural evidence that the Doushantuo remains are embryonic6 and an unambiguous record of fossil embryos in Lower Cambrian rocks, questions about the phylogenetic relationships of these fossils remain. Most recently, some researchers have proposed8 that Doushantuo microfossils may be giant sulphur-oxidizing bacteria comparable to extant Thiomargarita sp.

Here we report new observations that provide a test of the bacterial hypothesis. The discovery of embryo-like Doushantuo fossils inside large, highly ornamented organic vesicles (acritarchs) indicates that these organisms were eukaryotic, and most probably early cleavage stage embryos preserved within diapause egg cysts. Large acanthomorphic microfossils of the type observed to contain fossil embryos first appear in rocks just above a 632.5 plusminus 0.5-Myr-old ash bed9, suggesting that at least stem-group animals6 inhabited shallow seas in the immediate aftermath of global Neoproterozoic glaciation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05682.html

http://213.56.101.242/pubs/workshops/workshop10.pdf

[19Merlin69]

It's funny that you presented this information Boreas.  I've been updating the geological information at Wikipedia to reflect exactly what you are referring to here - for the past month.  I'm in a battle with some nit-wit there who keeps changing the edits around, but ultimately, I think I'm going to successfully prevail.  The evidence is mounting that our *current* early Earth theory is way off, and I'm fascinated by it.  Great posts - keep it up!

[Boreas]

Tx, Merl.
Good that we have this "waterhole" to get along and get on with the discussion that arrives as the fundamentalism of creationism and darwinism eventually decay in their respective ditches. I was recently  through a rather tough discussions over here, to defend the view that emeritus Franklin M. Harold exposed in his book "The Way of the Cell - Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life" (2001):

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of Darwinism but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

The refutation of the quoted view was that it has been "misused" by "known creationists" as Dr. Behe. Ain't that cute way of upholding "true science"?

---

I wouldn't mind to much about Wiki at the moment. They need to reorganize their policies of editing and re-editing if they are going to avoid stalkers and such in the future. It's going to be a huge problem off course, since they do not have any academical board to rely on. What have been their strength uptil now is fast becomming their primary weakness - if they dont solve the problem with the nit-wits. Just like computer-virus didn't happen in the early years of PC and internet - when it picked up it was soon "all over the place". So some kind of filter is required also at wiki. Otherwise the truely genuine contributors are gonna get fed-up and leave - and the reliability sink drastically.

At the moment the wiki is - most regrettably - loosing its standings in an honest part of the scientic press over here. And, unfortunately, I do understand the growing criticisms that are aired and printed at the time being. 

If you have a direct line to the general managers of the cyclo you may drop this note along. Because the precautions have to come from the top - and pretty soon, I think.

Best regards for the remaining easter!

[19Merlin69]

Tx, Merl.
Good that we have this "waterhole" to get along and get on with the discussion that arrives as the fundamentalism of creationism and darwinism eventually decay in their respective ditches. I was recently  through a rather tough discussions over here, to defend the view that emeritus Franklin M. Harold exposed in his book "The Way of the Cell - Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life" (2001):

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of Darwinism but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

The refutation of the quoted view was that it has been "misused" by "known creationists" as Dr. Behe. Ain't that cute way of upholding "true science"?

You and I are in heated agreement on this - IN MANY WAYS.  Also, I agree, it is nice to have a place to discuss without the concern of people sniping from the sidelines.  This thread (so far) has to be one of the calmest public threads I have had the pleasure of being a part of.  Having said that, I have probably jinxed it - Bring in the clowns!

I wouldn't mind to much about Wiki at the moment. They need to reorganize their policies of editing and re-editing if they are going to avoid stalkers and such in the future. It's going to be a huge problem off course, since they do not have any academical board to rely on. What have been their strength uptil now is fast becomming their primary weakness - if they dont solve the problem with the nit-wits. Just like computer-virus didn't happen in the early years of PC and internet - when it picked up it was soon "all over the place". So some kind of filter is required also at wiki. Otherwise the truely genuine contributors are gonna get fed-up and leave - and the reliability sink drastically.

Most regrettably, WIKIPEDIA becomes a labor of love for me and it's due entirely to my obsessive compulsive disorder.  It's like walking past a piece of trash on the ground for me; it cannot be done.  I have no desire (there at the Wiki) to spread my views, but I simply cannot click past obviously wrong or incorrect information.  And that site, much more than many others, is like walking down 5th avenue after a ticker-tape parade:  A real nightmare for me.  Luckily my wife, my research assistant, my kids and my friends are around to limit my time spent at that site, correcting its foibles; otherwise I'd be there too much.

At the moment the wiki is - most regrettably - loosing its standings in an honest part of the scientic press over here. And, unfortunately, I do understand the growing criticisms that are aired and printed at the time being. 

I think I said this in this forum, but I may have said it in the other as well - WIKI is not approved for use in at least 25 collegiate institutions that I am aware of.  Citations or references to anything at that site are automatically a cause for a reduction in score on any paper or project.  The world of academic studies (from my perspective) appreciates what the site is an attempt to do, however, they realize what it has become.  Furthermore, aside from a passing interest or good graphics, I doubt that any research fellow would use it anyway.  Not only is it wrong in most cases, it typically represents the actions of people who possess a paradigm and are doing their very best to maintain it.  "Unbiased" is not a term that could be applied there - but - it could be worse; it could be "Conservapedia".  That's an example of just how bad thing could really be.

If you have a direct line to the general managers of the cyclo you may drop this note along. Because the precautions have to come from the top - and pretty soon, I think. 

I couldn't pick the leaders of the 'Pedia out of a line-up.  To them, I'm just some dumb shlub trying (in vain) to keep their crap together.  Think:  Boy with finger in dike.


Have a great day - I'll be back later with some new stuff.

[rockessence]

WIKI is not approved for use in at least 25 collegiate institutions that I am aware of.  Citations or references to anything at that site are automatically a cause for a reduction in score on any paper or project. 

I am so glad to read your views about this Merl.

Wiki is so full of crap, it is shocking how many people still reference it.  I am so saddened by the BS on the file for Ior Bock.   

Oh PS  There is a Rock-Medicine treatment for OCD.

[19Merlin69]

WIKI is not approved for use in at least 25 collegiate institutions that I am aware of.  Citations or references to anything at that site are automatically a cause for a reduction in score on any paper or project. 

I am so glad to read your views about this Merl.

Wiki is so full of crap, it is shocking how many people still reference it.  I am so saddened by the BS on the file for Ior Bock.   

Change it.  Honestly - if it bothers you, fix it and make it right.  That's what I do, and until some numb-skull comes along and adds, "I can see Uranus from my bedroom window ", I'm pretty satisfied...  Then - you begin again. 

[Aphrodite]

WIKI is not approved for use in at least 25 collegiate institutions that I am aware of.  Citations or references to anything at that site are automatically a cause for a reduction in score on any paper or project. 

I am so glad to read your views about this Merl.

Wiki is so full of crap, it is shocking how many people still reference it.  I am so saddened by the BS on the file for Ior Bock.   

Oh PS  There is a Rock-Medicine treatment for OCD.

Hello Rockessence, the reason why so many people reference Wiki here is simple, we asked them to, mainly because the information is copyright free, for the most part accurate, and they have great pictures and graphics, etc.

I do have a suggestion for you concerning the lor Bock entry, though.  You're a very good writer in your own right and are obviously more well-versed on the Bock Saga then the person who wrote that.  Why don't you either re-write or edit that entry?  It could use your touch.

Wiki is also missing it's own Bock Saga entry, by the way.

[rockessence]

Hi Aphro,

I don't seem to ever have the time or inclination to wage that battle.  Hopefully someone with more knowledge about it and with a scrappier nature will decide to take it up.

[19Merlin69]

Oh PS  There is a Rock-Medicine treatment for OCD.

I missed the P.S. the first time around - sorry about that.  Tell us more.

[19Merlin69]

I'm pretty lucky with this disorder - it's not full-blown.  I do not have a lot of the "Habits" as they say, although I have very many of the "hangups".  I can walk on cracks and leave rooms without flipping the lightswitch, but I do maintain many (many, many) routines in order to avoid focusing on missing something.  In other words, I have the exact opposite of ADD (ADHD). 

Let's have this discussion - but let's do it away from this thread.  Let me know where you like to have it.

[19Merlin69]

Hello Rockessence, the reason why so many people reference Wiki here is simple, we asked them to, mainly because the information is copyright free, for the most part accurate, and they have great pictures and graphics, etc.

I have to respectfully disagree with one part, on two grounds:  "for the most part accurate"

First, I find very little (so far) at Wiki that is actually accurate from an encyclopedic point of view; it's very biased to the mainstream.  Second, your statement of its accuracy is a bit subjective.  Ultimately, "for the most part" is difficult to measure.  In science, accuracy is KING, and 'mostly accurate' is the same as saying "WRONG".  I can appreciate the copyright free issue and I too like the graphics, however, the abject lack of accuracy and obvious bias toward whatever is 'popular' makes it mostly worthless as a scientific reference resource.  In the physics thread I started I have asked that people refrain from using WIKI; aside from graphics.  If the physics section would have been open before I began this thread, I would have made the request here too.  I wonder if I can move this thread to the science section???  Oh well, I was just commenting out loud.  Welcome to the discussion.