Origin of Life: The 5th Option

This was a great read. It took some time to understand how random mutations in DNA produce non-random effects and how the life system actually counters the information entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I struggled a bit with the old belief that all you need for life to exist it is just chance and enough time although I intuitively knew that sounded improbable, Schiller set the record straight by decoupling the “chemical soup” theory from evolution and showing that randomness is just another tool controlled within the life system.

One thing that I have struggled a bit with is his explanation of how quantum evolution works,
I don’t know if it’s a language barrier or if I am missing something, but I don’t seem to get a clear answer for how that works.

5th option P:365

The key to understanding the reasons why transitional fossils are not found is simple: it is because they do not exist. Neither must they exist because phenotype evolution does not, and need not (and in many instances cannot) occur incrementally, it occurs as discrete “quantized” levels of phenotype expressions. That is why “incremental” phenotype transitions are not found within the fossil record. The question then becomes: if evolution is some kind of quantum phenomenon how do you get from one level of phenotype expression to another. This is not as difficult as it may seem. The answer resides within an understanding of the specific conditions that allow genotype to be expressed as a viable phenotype.

A quantum theory of evolution:
The quantum theory of evolution (QTE) begins with the acknowledgement that the integral viability of an organism depends on the intimate relationship between the information encoded in its genotype and the expression of that information in its phenotype. To the extent that the final successful result can only occur under very specific sets of conditions associated with genotype and phenotype respectively, one can consider each to be “quantized” with respect to meeting whatever conditions that will ultimately yield a successful(viable) outcome. Any genotype that can result in the expression of a viable phenotype can be considered to be a quantized genotype. Any given organism (a combination of genotype and phenotype) can be considered to be a “quantized organism(QO)” in the sense that reproduction of a new generation cannot occur unless an accurate copy of the genotype of the parent is produced which can then be expressed successfully into the phenotype of the next generation. Accordingly, we can go further and define individually the “quantized genotype(QG) and the “quantized phenotype(QP)” as the two partners in the process, each able to contribute, respectively, to the production of a viable QO. The production of a viable QP becomes the direct result of the expression of an integral QG resulting in a viable integral QO. From the above, it becomes obvious that every QP is the result of the expression of a QG. Thus, by definition every QQ leads inexorably to the expression of a QP.
Click to expand...


To my understanding he then goes on to write about the fact that every quantum phenotype can be the result of a multiple of possible quantum genotypes due to the schemed mutations in the genes (The probability of one amino substitution of any amino acid is not equal and often a substitution in the codon results in the same amino acid). And that the reason these transitional fossils does not exists is because although the genotype exists it was not expressed or failed to reproduce.

5th option P:368

Incremental changes to genotypes do not directly translate into incremental changes to phenotype expression, because of the quantification of sets sufficient and necessary conditions for reproductive viability. While the degeneracy of the genetic code has the effect of expanding the pallet of future phenotype modifications in very limited directions, as a restrictive evolution filter it cannot avoid a critical role in promoting the successful quantification process(es) of phenotype expressions. It is all a question of the potential within the genomes of a population of a given species(due directly to he built in logic within the AmAcid Node schematics) for evolutionary divergence within the permissible range of such possibilities. We argue that this is fed directly by a small but specific set of permissible mutations to critically situated basepairs.
The offspring that do get expressed as viable phenotypes can retain the sub-critical genotypes in neutral form until in some generation, critical mutations appear that propel the emergent phenotype into a newly successful quantum level of complexity resulting in successful reproduction. This scenario strongly invokes the premise within chaos and complexity theory, that small and seemingly infinitesimal changes(such as critical mutations to neutral basepairs) have a way of becoming inordinately amplified down the long sequential process of genetic expression that leads inexorably to phenotype species attribute emergence.
Click to expand...

So in layman`s terms it would mean that the changes in the genotype does not express itself as phenotype until certain conditions have been met. That means that many kinds of genetic changes within the organism can lay dormant for a long time and be transferred from generation to generation without expression. Then after reaching a “critical mass” the quantized genotype can express itself as very abrupt changes in the new or evolved species phenotype, thereby showing that transitional fossils does not need to exist.

If I am way of the mark a correction or point in the right way would be much appreciated.
 
Torstone said:
So in layman`s terms it would mean that the changes in the genotype does not express itself as phenotype until certain conditions have been met. That means that many kinds of genetic changes within the organism can lay dormant for a long time and be transferred from generation to generation without expression. Then after reaching a “critical mass” the quantized genotype can express itself as very abrupt changes in the new or evolved species phenotype, thereby showing that transitional fossils does not need to exist.

If I am way of the mark a correction or point in the right way would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

That's how I understood it and that's also how epigenetics was explained to me (or close). But, there's obviously even more to it than that as recent discoveries have shown: that experiences of an individual can be "passed down". I think there are some articles about that posted here on the forum. It's totally fascinating stuff. It reminds us how critically important what we think, say, do, and what we experience can be for the future generations.
 
Laura said:
Torstone said:
So in layman`s terms it would mean that the changes in the genotype does not express itself as phenotype until certain conditions have been met. That means that many kinds of genetic changes within the organism can lay dormant for a long time and be transferred from generation to generation without expression. Then after reaching a “critical mass” the quantized genotype can express itself as very abrupt changes in the new or evolved species phenotype, thereby showing that transitional fossils does not need to exist.

If I am way of the mark a correction or point in the right way would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

That's how I understood it and that's also how epigenetics was explained to me (or close). But, there's obviously even more to it than that as recent discoveries have shown: that experiences of an individual can be "passed down". I think there are some articles about that posted here on the forum. It's totally fascinating stuff. It reminds us how critically important what we think, say, do, and what we experience can be for the future generations.
Click to expand...



Great, thank you.
That is interesting, I didn`t think of it regarding this subject, but when you mentioned it does make sense.
The most obvious casual link would be from parent to offspring, and with regards to direct survivability, on of the systems most sensitive to change might be the fear system, which can be used as an example.

Scientist have found that memories may be passed down through generations in our DNA

New research from Emory University School of Medicine, in Atlanta, has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA. During the tests they learned that that mice can pass on learned information about traumatic or stressful experiences – in this case a fear of the smell of cherry blossom – to subsequent generations.
“Such a phenomenon may contribute to the etiology and potential intergenerational transmission of risk for neuropsychiatric disorders such as phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.”

This suggests that experiences are somehow transferred from the brain into the genome, allowing them to be passed on to later generations.

_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html
Click to expand...

This then suggest that behavior and thought patterns are not only learned but also inherited by prior generations. The individual in a given generation who acknowledges this then has to do a lot of self-work that may remedy the expression the genome is producing, changing you DNA for the better so to speak. Easier said than done when the damage (extreme fear-reaction) comes much easier then it goes, especially if it is encoded in our DNA.

The implication would then be that any informational input to our DNA (extreme fear, reinforced behavior and thought patterns) may have the ability to effectively change it and pass it down.
In other words, mutations might occur due to external causes.

5th option P:158

Mutations:
While mutations can occur in DNA of any individual cell in multicellular organisms, only those that occur within the reproductive cells(sperms or egg) will be able to affect the information passed on to offspring. We have delineated above two different categories of mutations, labeled “M” and “m”, according to when they occur in the life cycle of an organism, culminating in the reproduction of the next generation.

“M-type” mutations refer to the genetic library of an organism (without regard for how they occur) that occur during its lifetime up to the time it reproduces offspring. All such changes to genetic information occur as a result of the physical manipulation of the chemical “letters” of the language in which genetic instructions are written in the chemical medium of DNA. Some changes can occur spontaneously when, for example, some high-energy particle at the atomic level strikes the chemical DNA information medium and alters the chemical composition of the information contained therein.
“m-type” mutations occur specifically during the reproductive process when a parent cell gives rise to a daughter cell.
Both kind of mutations to genetic information – M, and m, and their physical expression effect whether an organism`s genome will ultimately contribute to the future survival of its species, or become a dead end as a result of its inability to meet the many challenges to survival. Thus, every organism beings with an altered genome it inherits and from which it`s phenotype becomes expressed. This genome will undergo two levels of additional mutations plus error correction algorithms before being passed on to its own offspring to the next generation. Stated in mathematical form, if G1 is the base genome inherited by any organism from its parent, then the genome, G2, it passes on to its own offspring in the next generation can be described as:

G2= G1+M1+m1

where:
M1 and m1 are respectively mutations to genetic information acquired during the organism`s lifetime until replication, and mutations directly associated with replication.
This is so far for any generation and, therefore, we can produce a universal expression that will apply in any given generation as follows:

Gn = G(n-1) + M(n-1) + m(n-1)
Where:
n = any given generation.

The above expression simply acknowledges that the genetic library inherited by every generation comprises that of the previous generation, together with both M and m kinds of mutations modifications.
Click to expand...


So the M-mutation is what seems crucial to the given generation and that might be receptive to changes by our conscious efforts. One other thing about mutations to our DNA is that survivability is what trumps everything, therefore it is the mutations which further mechanical survival that will be preferred on the most basic level. This got me thinking that if we use the term greed(for example) as an umbrella term for certain inherited behavioral characteristics which are reinforced due to a accepted necessity for survival, this expression will get stronger further down the generations. And humanity is where it is because of that chosen road(among others).
This is just speculations of course, fwiw.
 
Hello,

I am close to finishing this book and discovered it by way of cassiopaea.org. I have joined the forum to make this post in hopes of finding out more information how the RDH theory has evolved since the writing of the book in 2006. I am fascinated by the RDH concept and have scoured the internet hoping to find more information on Shiller and his ideas. I couldn't find anything... no book reviews or analyses/criticisms and his blog has not been updated since 2006. Has anyone tried contacting him or getting him to do an interview?

I am also interested if anyone has researched how his RDH hypotheses has held up to more recent research of intron sections of DNA since the books writing. His ideas rely heavily on "junk DNA" being a sizeable portion of biological genome and I am curious if this is still the consensus in recent years. Things like the ENCODE project to not lend credibility to this theory, but then again there seems to be a bit of controversy around that work as well. Wondering what a 2nd edition of the book might look like... perhaps if no one can shed light on here I will try to e-mail him for feedback. Thanks!
 
Hi mk1154,

I see that this is your first post on this Forum, so I want to give you my welcome. We would appreciate it if you can introduce yourself in the Newbies section. Nothing personal, just a little bit about yourself and how you found the forum. If you are unsure of what to write, take a look at how others on the board have done it. Thanks. :)
 
This tread is absolutely fascinating, I've yet to get

Origin of Life: The 5th Option10.1 - Bryant M. Shiller
The Living Stream: Evolution and Man - Sir Alister Hardy
The Scars of Evolution: What Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins - Elaine Morgan

But i'll pick them up soon I do have
Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics10.2 - Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False10.3 - Thomas Nagel

So i can start on them, i've actually been looking though my list for something to get my teeth into, off to read some book's :lkj:
 
One more option to the origin of life

Vladimir Matveev. The great basic question of science: Membrane compartment or non-membrane phase compartment is a physical basis for origin of life?
Oral presentation at The 2nd All-Russian Conference on Astrobiology. Moscow, Pushchino, 5-9 June 2016.
Video in English: https://youtu.be/Hn7A-1w0tuQ

Presentation slides in English as pdf:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/conf/Matveev-2016-The.great.basic.question.of.science_Eng_Slides.pdf

Comments for slides in English:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/conf/Matveev-2016-The.great.basic.question.of.science_Comments_Eng.pdf
 
Vladimir Matveev said:
One more option to the origin of life

Vladimir Matveev. The great basic question of science: Membrane compartment or non-membrane phase compartment is a physical basis for origin of life?
Oral presentation at The 2nd All-Russian Conference on Astrobiology. Moscow, Pushchino, 5-9 June 2016.
Video in English: https://youtu.be/Hn7A-1w0tuQ

Presentation slides in English as pdf:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/conf/Matveev-2016-The.great.basic.question.of.science_Eng_Slides.pdf

Comments for slides in English:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/conf/Matveev-2016-The.great.basic.question.of.science_Comments_Eng.pdf
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Vladimir Matveev.

Since this is your first post on this forum, we would appreciate it if you could post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.
 
I just ordered my copy (used, as new) on Amazon for under $14. Can't wait! Thanks for presenting this work to the forum. :D
 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tYLHxcqJmoM

Another video of the illustrative media: The case of a creator ... here is allowed to see more clearly the mixture with Christian interests ja! But the evidence in the background is that and does not suffer from greater distortion ... it is more of the same, the subject of the cambrian explocion the which contradicts the Darwinian idea of ​​the slow and gradual that make one species derive in another after Millones Of years (which recalls The recent case of rapid evolution in some geckos in Brazil: Big-heads-scientific-say /) speaks of cellular engineering as the bacterial flagellum And physical laws .... I highlight what they mention of La Cell and much more complex than the organic components obtained by Stanley Muller. If a cell is broken it does not create life (other cells, an organization, etc.) the only thing the book knows by mention in sott's articles And the conference in Barcelona See if it is possible to add to my list since it really looks Excellent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom