where life began

[mkirkpatrick]

The missing link is a consequence of randomness of the vacuum fluctuations.

There always seems to be a missing link in our equations for fusion.

regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

I'm not understanding which equations of fusion you are referring to? But the nuclear reaction of cold fusion I'm referring to is the deuteron fusion reaction. This is just one of the many possible reactions found by Bethe in his Nobel Prize's discovery of the Carbon Cycle of all stellar systems.

[mkirkpatrick]

I'm not understanding which equations of fusion you are referring to? But the nuclear reaction of cold fusion I'm referring to is the deuteron fusion reaction. This is just one of the many possible reactions found by Bethe in his Nobel Prize's discovery of the Carbon Cycle of all stellar systems.

Yes I understand that,I was referring to the "missing ingrediant" that will make it happen.

regards mmichael.

[Graybeard]

Does a bacterium evolve from a virus or a virus evolve from a bacterium? If you can find this evolutionary link then you can eliminate all diseases and life can go on forever without sickness and death.

Maybe ...... but you are diverting from your original assertion. As well, sickness and death are part of the system that allows Life to go on forever. Eliminating them would prevent adaptation which is absolutely necessary in a dynamic environment. So your statement above shows an incomplete understanding of how the system works. The old giving way to the new (sickness and death) is a prerequisite for survival.

Sickness and death are not a problem of Life, but only of individuals. For Life, it is just a means of shedding its old skin for the new. You are still looking for a link that does not exist.

This was your original statement .......

there is no proof that animals can ever evolve from plants or vice versa plants evolved from animals. These two-way missing links remain a mystery of biology.

Unfortunately, the internal constitution of animals is unable to produce either protein or sugar, while plants can produce them abundantly. Human beings being at the top of the food chain depend on lower animals and edible plants for food.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Dear Drift .... Your post, which was not related to a Science based discussion on 'Where did life begin' has been moved to a more appropriate thread.

You will find it here ... CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

[AntonioLao]

Greg, I gathered you are discussing the principle for a survival of the fittest once any form life began. What I'm trying to understand is the link between various forms of life assuming a smooth evolutionary process. Since obviously there are gaps between the distinct forms, the process is not smooth by gradual change thru mutation, for example, a fish loses its gills and become a land breather instead of a sea breather. But the process of breathing is simply to take in oxygen. A function shared by all animals and by all plants. But the uniqueness between plants and animals is that plants can produce sugar and protein while animals cannot. Moreover, plants can use carbon dioxide while animals only use oxygen.

[Meem]

[Graybeard]

Greg, I gathered you are discussing the principle for a survival of the fittest once any form life began.

I understand why you think that, but in fact I am not.

What I'm trying to understand is the link between various forms of life assuming a smooth evolutionary process. Since obviously there are gaps between the distinct forms, the process is not smooth by gradual change thru mutation, for example, a fish loses its gills and become a land breather instead of a sea breather. But the process of breathing is simply to take in oxygen. A function shared by all animals and by all plants. But the uniqueness between plants and animals is that plants can produce sugar and protein while animals cannot. Moreover, plants can use carbon dioxide while animals only use oxygen.

The differences you mention here are 'surface' differences and not true differences. A fish losing its gills and replacing them with a different mechanism is only due, and in response to, a new environment. If you observe a fish and then a land mammal then there is a large difference in mechanical operation. And it appears that there is no link. But in evolutionary terms your classifications are incorrect ie: fish, mammal.

What has happened is that a single form of life has mastered two different environments. It has mastered them by the use of the energy resource available in those environments. It has done so by millions. perhaps billions, of elemental changes (mutations) adopting only those that work and discarding those that don't. By only making minor adaptions it (life) does not risk everything on a single throw of the dice. An all or nothing throw, fish to animal for example. In life there is no such classification as a fish or a mammal but just millions of atomic, molecular, elemental changes where each one is unique but beyond the 'classifications' of our own methods of perception. Which one of these adaptations is a 'fish' and which one is a 'mammal' and why do those two alone deserve their titles ?

In evolutionary terms life is an 'entropic boundary' that maintains itself by solving its energy needs in the short term. Many short terms result in long term but require constant adaptation to battle the rise in entropy. Life is an energy sieve that momentarily checks the rise in entropy.

However, although plants and animals share the same genetic bases, there is no proof that animals can ever evolve from plants or vice versa plants evolved from animals. These two-way missing links remain a mystery of biology.

I will provide two proofs where you say there is none.

Proof 1. The mathematical odds are trillions to one against of sharing the same genetic base and not sharing a common ancestor. They are so high as to be considered not possible in the life span of a Universe. Ergo: they are related ... this is as proven as something can be proven in our Universe. If you share the same genetic base, then you must share a common ancestor ..... otherwise nothing in this universe is proven, no law of physics can be proven so conclusively with such overwhelming odds.

Proof 2. If we accept that life emerged from the sea and colonised the land then that life had two basic choices in order to obtain energy to maintain its entropic boundary. That life was multicellular and so it needed a transport system to provide energy to each individual cell within itself.

The means most commonly used for this internal transport system is blood.

It adapted firstly to use 'green blood' because red blood requires animation and mobility to obtain the iron necessary for red blood, but green blood does not require such mobility.

When life emerged from the sea it found that the land had rich stores of magnesium and iron. But the iron was clustered in deposits and there was no way for that life to travel from deposit to deposit. Alternatively magnesium was also common throughout the land and was relatively evenly spread, that is, it was everywhere, thinly spread, and not in clusters.

So life's only choice at this point was to utilise magnesium ... and it did so ... it took root and became flora. It took root because this was a very efficient means for obtaining magnesium which is thinly spread. it needed magnesium for chlorophyll.

Chlorophyll = MgN4C55H72O5 ... This is a Rubiks cube of a molecule. It is at the heart of the energy transport system of ALL flora.

And yet it is no different to blood. The only difference between this vast molecule of Chlorophyll and Hemoglobin (red blood) is that red blood has ONE atom of IRON, while Chlorophyll has ONE atom of MAGNESIUM. Otherwise they are identical.

Surely this is proof of the similarity of flora and fauna. The replacement, as I see it, of magnesium with iron occurred when life started to cannibalise flora as an energy source, thus gaining mobility and consequently, the access to the clustered iron deposits.

But the uniqueness between plants and animals is that plants can produce sugar and protein while animals cannot.

The simple answer to this is that animals have no need to ... they can get their needs by eating plants. Therefore the ability to produce sugar and protein in fauna is selected against. Both Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen are simply the different mechanical 'fits' into these two molecules .... Chlorophyll and Hemoglobin.

Dear Antonio .... these are my two proofs, and I have also explained their sequential evolution driven by necessity and chance. The next time you lay your hand on the rough bark of an Ironbark tree you may say to yourself, 'We be of one blood, brother, thou and I'


cool bananas .... greggy

[AntonioLao]

Each occasion that I chop down a tree I'm practically disconnecting myself from my own ancestral tree.

[mkirkpatrick]

Each occasion that I chop down a tree I'm practically disconnecting myself from my own ancestral tree.

That's very poetic Antonio,thanks.


regards michael.