Complexity of gene codes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, August 23, 2010, 20:52 (5205 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, August 23, 2010, 21:39


> [...] presuming Archaia haven't changed much, epigenetics was there from the beginning[/i]."
> 
> I find all of this convincing, but the sting is in the tail, which leads me to a whole string of questions. Archaia adapted in order to remain Archaia. Adaptation does not explain innovation. There is therefore an additional problem of origin, quite apart from that of life itself: how do we explain the origin of new organs and indeed of new species? (Natural selection doesn't innovate.) There has to be a mechanism for random, occasionally beneficial, inheritable mutations (which of course might also be triggered by the environment), and if that was in place from the start, would there not also have been such mutations from the start?-Thank you for reviewing and summarizing my theory, but the intent of my comment re' Archaia staying the same, is different than your interpretation. We don't know what Archaia were like 3.6 bya. It is only by presuming they are unchanged that I can reach certain tentative conclusions about their condition then.--> The same applies to complexity. The earliest known complex forms are now believed to date back 2.1 billion years (Gabon fossils). So what do you reckon went on during the first 1.5 billion years, if mechanisms for innovation and increasing complexity were already in place? -We really don't know mujch about the Gabon fossils. They could be interesting mats of bacteria, or very simple multicelluar sheets in wavy form. They may relate to a jump in oxygen at that time, the same theory for the Cambrian Explosion. They don't seem directly related to any existing phyla. They may have been an attempt at multicellularity that went awry, and disappeared. They do suggest that life has a built-in propensity to become complicated when given the right stimulus.-> 
>Of course we may never know, but if you're right, might we not expect to find even older complex forms? And if the Cambrian explosion was caused by dramatic changes in the environment but the mechanisms for adaptation and innovation were already present right from the start, wouldn't the "enormous environmental changes" 3.6 bya and onwards have caused similar explosions?-Those explosions may be there waiting for discovery, but the Cambrian did not reach a blind end, and earlier ones may have. -
> 
> It seems to me that innovation adds to the complexity of the mechanisms (which reinforces the argument against chance), but the apparent stasis for 1.5 billion years and the presumption that Archaia haven't changed much do nothing to reinforce the argument that all the mechanisms for evolution were in place from the beginning. However, I still can't see why it makes any difference to the design (or chance) theory whether they were or weren't in place then.-From my previous comments, I think you can see why I do not agree with your above conclusion. Epigenetic innovation creates inheritable genes. The apparent stasis may be only that and we will turn up 'starts and stops' in that ancient time period. If I presume that archaia are unchanged, I can then state that the arrow of increasing complexity in evolution is not due to the Gould effect, i.e., that it could only grow more complex, because it started so relatively simply. Epigenetics is the method of complexity, and chance only relates to changes in the Earth's challenging environment, and development of alternate enemies in differing organisms. Chance mutations are not worth much, as stated any times. -And as a final point, I believe there are still layers of genome control within the organisms that are not yet discovered. Our knowledge of genome complexity will still grow a bit. I can't explain the Cambrian Explosion just on oxygen increase. The oxygen allowed the genome to perform and create new organs and organisms. Again, all my theory of the past 10 years, and the new discoveries seem to keep on confirming more and more of it.