[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A

[Vaccine]

There are all sorts of intermediate bombardier beetles. And the chemicals used are already present in other beetles that don't shoot them. So it's not surprising that it evolved.

Good evening Barbarian! I've heard of this argument but I only heard one side. I'm be curious what explanation evolution has. TIA

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No wonder you hate science.

I don't hate science at all.

You seem pretty unhappy with it right now.

(Concerned about science thinking life came from non-living matter)

Barbarian suggests:
So God says in Genesis.

Exactly. If you believe that, what do you try to refute creationism?

The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is contrary to scripture. There are some other forms of creationism that are not contrary to scripture, but are refuted by evidence.

Barbarian offers:
Start a thread, and we'll talk about it in some detail.

I'm good.

Just checking how serious you were.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello tob! Thanks for sharing! I thought I'd build on your information if you don't mind.

His numbers are like shuffling a deck of cards and being impressed that the result is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. He found an arrow stuck in a tree, drew a bulls-eye around it, and marveled at the accuracy.

Amino acids can be 'left handed' or 'right handed' depending on the bonding site. Life only has the 'left handed type'. So in the 'soup' we would have to have only left handed ones link up to make life.

The Murchison meteorite was found to contain abiotic amino acids, some of which don't even occur in living things. And there was an excess of the L-forms, which suggests why living things first settled on L-forms.

Assuming enough left handed ones did link up, the next issue is shape. A string of amino acids has to be folded into a specific shape to work:

Most of them form particular shapes because of the chemistry of the amino acids involved. But these seem to have come later. The most critical element for life as we know it is the cell membrane, the thing that separates an organism from the environment. And it is the simplest organelle in a cell. Which tells us something important about the way God brought forth life from the Earth.

 

[Vaccine]

The Murchison meteorite was found to contain abiotic amino acids, some of which don't even occur in living things. And there was an excess of the L-forms, which suggests why living things first settled on L-forms.

Good morning Barbarian! While I can appreciate your point of view, whether it happened on earth or somewhere in space the issues are the same. We need only left handed amino acids to bond and make a chain while preventing right handed (D form) ones from bonding. We need them to fold into a SPECIFIC shape to function. And we need a specific sequence billions of basepairs long.
Your suggestion of L forms on a meteorite is well noted. That just could be why. I think it could have happened a different way. My position is a meteorite crashing into the earth explains the presense of some but not all amino acids, as well as there being only slightly more left handed (L form) ones.

Most of them form particular shapes because of the chemistry of the amino acids involved. But these seem to have come later.

Your suggestion of 'seem to have' is noted. It just could have happened that way. I have a different point of view. Since what is observed is a specificic shape to function I see no reason to assume otherwise.

The critical element for life as we know it is the cell membrane, the thing that separates an organism from the environment. And it is the simplest organelle in a cell. Which tells us something important about the way God brought forth life from the Earth.

what would that be?

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that Ed seems a little unhappy with science right now)

Whatever gave you that idea?

Your unhappiness with evolution and your misunderstanding of what it is. As Everett Dirksen said, people are usually down on things they aren't up on.

This is an exciting time for science. With the new technologies, we're learning what the real deal is now instead of the old time loosy goosey theories. Darwin was an idiot, but he also had very little technology to go on, so I forgive him.

The reason Darwin's theory remains the one accepted by the vast majority of scientists, is that so many of his predictions have been since validated. This is considered to be compelling evidence in science.

Of course, even now, there remain detractors of the truth, and people who will be hesitant to have all they know turned upside down. It may create a sort of psychological problem with some folks? I praise the Lord I am able to be open minded and receive new info in peace. Especially new science, brother!

Lots of new science in biology. Evolutionary development, for example. A lot of things Darwin predicted about development turn out to be the result of homobox genes that are homologous for a wide variety of animals, including both protostomes and deuterostomes.

The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is contrary to scripture.

I had to look that one up, lol. Out of nothing. Ok. Yeah, that's what I believe at this time. God spoke and BAM. There it is. Such is the power of God. Why do you feel it's contrary to scripture?

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God says life was not created ex nihilo. He used nature, which brought living things forth from the earth as He intended.

Just checking how serious you were.

I'm very serious and have spent a awful lot of time doing homework on these things reading and watching videos and such.

I read what you wrote, but when I asked you to tell us why you think some of those things are contrary to evolution, you declined to do so. Either you're not interested, or you think they aren't such good examples after all.

I just realize how futile it is to try to discuss certain issues with certain people, that's all. Indoctrination is strong, and it's hard, nigh impossible to uh, discuss anything with someone with a closed mind.

Funny how people like that, never know it applies to them, huh?

A good discussion of the evidence might not change you or me, but there might be some people on the fence looking in. Could be useful for them. C'mon, show us what you have.

 

[Barbarian]

Good morning Barbarian! While I can appreciate your point of view, whether it happened on earth or somewhere in space the issues are the same. We need only left handed amino acids to bond and make a chain while preventing right handed (D form) ones from bonding. We need them to fold into a SPECIFIC shape to function. And we need a specific sequence billions of basepairs long.

I think you're confusing proteins with DNA. DNA is not made of amino acids.

Your suggestion of L forms on a meteorite is well noted. That just could be why. I think it could have happened a different way. My position is a meteorite crashing into the earth explains the presense of some but not all amino acids, as well as there being only slightly more left handed (L form) ones.

Maybe the excess is why we only use L-forms. Or there could be a functional reason. What makes you think it couldn't be a natural process?

Most of them form particular shapes because of the chemistry of the amino acids involved. But these seem to have come later.

Your suggestion of 'seem to have' is noted. It just could have happened that way. I have a different point of view.

When you get some evidence, then you're in business.

Barbarian observes:
The critical element for life as we know it is the cell membrane, the thing that separates an organism from the environment. And it is the simplest organelle in a cell. Which tells us something important about the way God brought forth life from the Earth.

what would that be?

The cell membrane. A very simple phospholipid bilayer:

Article
Abiotic formation of acylglycerols under simulated hydrothermal conditions and self-assembly properties of such lipid products

Bernd R.T. Simoneit, Ahmed I. Rushdi, David W. Deamer
Petroleum and Environmental Research Group, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Advances in Space Research DOI:10.1016/j.asr.2007.07.034
ABSTRACT The abiotic formation of aliphatic lipid compounds (i.e., fatty acids, alcohols, and acylglycerols) has been reported to occur at elevated temperatures and pressures under simulated hydrothermal conditions. Although abiotic synthetic chemistry can occur under these conditions, the prebiotic self-assembly of micelles to bilayer to vesicles (protocells) may have occurred elsewhere. Amphiphilic compounds such as fatty acids are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation, because they are abundant products of Fischer–Tropsch-type reactions and are also found in carbonaceous meteorites. Thus, it is of interest to determine whether more complex amphiphilic precursor compounds, capable of assembling into stable membrane structures, can be synthesized under hydrothermal conditions. Hydrothermal experiments were conducted to study condensation reactions of model lipid precursors in aqueous media, i.e., glycerol and alkanoic acids, to form acylglycerols (glyceryl alkanoates) at elevated temperature under confining pressure. Nine different alkanoic acids ranging from C7 to C16 (except C8) were used in these experiments. The condensation products were two isomers each of monoacylglycerols and diacylglycerols, as well as the corresponding triacylglycerol. The results indicated that: (1) condensation (dehydration) reactions are possible under aqueous pyrolysis conditions; (2) abiotic synthesis and subsequent condensation reactions of aliphatic lipid compounds are possible under hydrothermal conditions; and (3) such molecules have robust properties of self-assembly into membranous structures that would be suitable boundary structures for primitive forms of cellular life.

And these molecules, once formed, spontaneously make small enclosed vesicles. So the conceptually most difficult part of cellular origin turns out the be the easiest.

Which is a pretty good revelation in itself.

 

[Barbarian]

Guess we'll never know about all those holes.

 

[Vaccine]

I think you're confusing proteins with DNA. DNA is not made of amino acids.

Good morning! Well of course I know the difference, DeoxyriboNucleic Acid. I was making the observation amino acids make protiens, such as polymerase, which then needs a specific shape to function. FURTHERMORE, DNA sequences are required to make those protiens. Its a conundrum, DNA sequences are necessary to make protiens, yet, protiens are necessary to make DNA.

Maybe the excess is why we only use L-forms. Or there could be a functional reason. What makes you think it couldn't be a natural process?

For the same reason natural processes can't make sandcastles.

Most of them form particular shapes because of the chemistry of the amino acids involved. But these seem to have come later.

I am unable tonnect what you are saying to the topic. Shapes seem to have come later? All of life need protiens in those specific 'shapes' for DNA synthesis.

When you get some evidence, then you're in business.

Gould said most appeared 'fully formed'. We were just talking about science having a responsability to the public. Making assumptions and saying it 'could have' happened like this is pseudo science.

Barbarian observes:
The critical element for life as we know it is the cell membrane, the thing that separates an organism from the environment. And it is the simplest organelle in a cell. Which tells us something important about the way God brought forth life from the Earth.

what would that be?

The cell membrane. A very simple phospholipid bilayer:

Article
Abiotic formation of acylglycerols under simulated hydrothermal conditions and self-assembly properties of such lipid products

Bernd R.T. Simoneit, Ahmed I. Rushdi, David W. Deamer
Petroleum and Environmental Research Group, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Advances in Space Research DOI:10.1016/j.asr.2007.07.034
ABSTRACT The abiotic formation of aliphatic lipid compounds (i.e., fatty acids, alcohols, and acylglycerols) has been reported to occur at elevated temperatures and pressures under simulated hydrothermal conditions. Although abiotic synthetic chemistry can occur under these conditions, the prebiotic self-assembly of micelles to bilayer to vesicles (protocells) may have occurred elsewhere. Amphiphilic compounds such as fatty acids are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation, because they are abundant products of Fischer–Tropsch-type reactions and are also found in carbonaceous meteorites. Thus, it is of interest to determine whether more complex amphiphilic precursor compounds, capable of assembling into stable membrane structures, can be synthesized under hydrothermal conditions. Hydrothermal experiments were conducted to study condensation reactions of model lipid precursors in aqueous media, i.e., glycerol and alkanoic acids, to form acylglycerols (glyceryl alkanoates) at elevated temperature under confining pressure. Nine different alkanoic acids ranging from C7 to C16 (except C8) were used in these experiments. The condensation products were two isomers each of monoacylglycerols and diacylglycerols, as well as the corresponding triacylglycerol. The results indicated that: (1) condensation (dehydration) reactions are possible under aqueous pyrolysis conditions; (2) abiotic synthesis and subsequent condensation reactions of aliphatic lipid compounds are possible under hydrothermal conditions; and (3) such molecules have robust properties of self-assembly into membranous structures that would be suitable boundary structures for primitive forms of cellular life.

And these molecules, once formed, spontaneously make small enclosed vesicles. So the conceptually most difficult part of cellular origin turns out the be the easiest.

Which is a pretty good revelation in itself.

Cell membrane from a bubble? Guesses. assumptions. imagination. very irresponsable.

 

[Barbarian]

Good morning! Well of course I know the difference, DeoxyriboNucleic Acid. I was making the observation amino acids make protiens, such as polymerase, which then needs a specific shape to function. FURTHERMORE, DNA sequences are required to make those protiens. Its a conundrum, DNA sequences are necessary to make protiens, yet, protiens are necessary to make DNA.

Actually that only happens in living things. In nature, proteins can form spontaneously. Indeed short proteins were found in the Murchison meteorite. And the discovery that some nucleic acids can self-catalyze, makes that also consistent with God's disclosure that the earth brought forth living things.

I am unable tonnect what you are saying to the topic. Shapes seem to have come later? All of life need protiens in those specific 'shapes' for DNA synthesis.

Which proteins? DNA isn't a protein. mRNA isn't a protein. tRNA isn't a protein. A ribosome isn't a protein, although the ones today have some proteins in them, the active part is the RNA.

When you get some evidence, then you're in business.

Gould said most appeared 'fully formed'.

He also pointed out that all transitionals are "fully formed." So that's really a misconception. Further, he points out examples where large numbers and favorable conditions for fossilization give us a complete and gradual transition.

We were just talking about science having a responsability to the public. Making assumptions and saying it 'could have' happened like this is pseudo science.

That's another misconception. Scientists are inherently conservative, and rarely claim to prove anything. They always couch their findings in likelihoods.

Barbarian observes:
The critical element for life as we know it is the cell membrane, the thing that separates an organism from the environment. And it is the simplest organelle in a cell. Which tells us something important about the way God brought forth life from the Earth.

what would that be?

The cell membrane. A very simple phospholipid bilayer:

Article
Abiotic formation of acylglycerols under simulated hydrothermal conditions and self-assembly properties of such lipid products

Bernd R.T. Simoneit, Ahmed I. Rushdi, David W. Deamer
Petroleum and Environmental Research Group, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Advances in Space Research DOI:10.1016/j.asr.2007.07.034
ABSTRACT The abiotic formation of aliphatic lipid compounds (i.e., fatty acids, alcohols, and acylglycerols) has been reported to occur at elevated temperatures and pressures under simulated hydrothermal conditions. Although abiotic synthetic chemistry can occur under these conditions, the prebiotic self-assembly of micelles to bilayer to vesicles (protocells) may have occurred elsewhere. Amphiphilic compounds such as fatty acids are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation, because they are abundant products of Fischer–Tropsch-type reactions and are also found in carbonaceous meteorites. Thus, it is of interest to determine whether more complex amphiphilic precursor compounds, capable of assembling into stable membrane structures, can be synthesized under hydrothermal conditions. Hydrothermal experiments were conducted to study condensation reactions of model lipid precursors in aqueous media, i.e., glycerol and alkanoic acids, to form acylglycerols (glyceryl alkanoates) at elevated temperature under confining pressure. Nine different alkanoic acids ranging from C7 to C16 (except C8) were used in these experiments. The condensation products were two isomers each of monoacylglycerols and diacylglycerols, as well as the corresponding triacylglycerol. The results indicated that: (1) condensation (dehydration) reactions are possible under aqueous pyrolysis conditions; (2) abiotic synthesis and subsequent condensation reactions of aliphatic lipid compounds are possible under hydrothermal conditions; and (3) such molecules have robust properties of self-assembly into membranous structures that would be suitable boundary structures for primitive forms of cellular life.

And these molecules, once formed, spontaneously make small enclosed vesicles. So the conceptually most difficult part of cellular origin turns out the be the easiest.

Which is a pretty good revelation in itself.[/QUOTE]

Cell membrane from a bubble?

It is a bubble. Remarkably simple, as you'd expect the first step in cellular life to be.

Guesses.

Data. Evidence.

assumptions.

Conclusions based on that evidence.

imagination.

Scientific method.

very irresponsable.

You might think so, but nothing else we can do works better for understanding the physical universe.

 

[Vaccine]

hey Barbarian! It isn't going to work. Using a protien found in nature to infer protiens in life is like finding an X made by natural processes and inferring a nature could write a book. Very unreasonable.
Using a bubble found in nature to infer nature could form a cell membrane is like finding a
peak in a sand dune and inferringnature can make a sandcastle. Not a reasonable assumption at all.
Science is has learned from what it has discovered. The problems are insurmountable for nature to produce life. Crick, a noble laurate, who is not ignorant of the origin of life issues, and many others accept this and move on. Discussing a natural process for the origin of life is not a fruitful discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

(Edward declines to name any problems with evolutionary theory)

Barbarian laments:
Guess we'll never know about all those holes.

Aw, all it takes is a little homework brother.

Since you've done your homework, show us some of them. We'll take a look and talk about it.

 

[Barbarian]

hey Barbarian! It isn't going to work. Using a protien found in nature to infer protiens in life is like finding an X made by natural processes and inferring a nature could write a book.

Nope. It's like predicting that proteins must be formed abiotically, and then finding evidence that supports the prediction. That's how science works.

Very unreasonable.

You might think so, but science has been amazingly successful at learning about the natural world.

Using a bubble found in nature

More precisely, finding the cellular membrane is made of naturally-occuring molecules.

to infer nature could form a cell membrane is like...

... a revelation. The first and most important organelle in cellular life turns out to be the simplest and easiest to produce by nature.

Science is has learned from what it has discovered. The problems are insurmountable for nature to produce life.

Not according to God. He says life was brought forth by the earth.

And now, we are beginning to find evidence that He was right. If you actually need evidence to believe Him.

 

[Barbarian]

You want one, brother? Ok. Riddle me this. DNA is chock full of information (scientific fact.) Explain where the information came from for evolutionary changes to begin in anything.

Mutation and natural selection. Would you like to see some examples? While you're at it, tell me how you measure genetic "information" in an organism or a population of them .

Example: I am an existing XXX species. I need to evolve and grow XXX...(I need wings, I need feet, whatever.) where did the information come from to begin and effect the change in the species?

Suppose that you're a primitive predator, say a reptile. The selective pressures are several;
1. Efficient utilization of prey. Reptiles grab and swallow whole or in large sections. Have to. No way to make smaller pieces in an efficient way. So a lot of it doesn't get digested, and is excreted instead.

2. Prey are getting faster, as the predators kill off the slower ones before they can reproduce. But reptiles have a metabolism that tends to conserve energy (have to, because they don't efficiently utilize food) and that keeps them from going faster. Besides, if they had a higher metabolism that would require them to stay warmer, instead of going with whatever the ambient temperature is. But that would be fatal, unless they could conserve thermal energy efficiently.

3. And even if they had teeth adapted for prolonged chewing to make the food more digestible, they couldn't breath while eating; a serious problem if metabolism goes up. And their jaws are relatively weak, being made up of several connected bones, instead of a solid one.

4. Prey are getting more alert, and because reptiles hear by putting those extra jaw bones to the ground (they connect to the middle ear), hearing isn't acute enough to locate hidden prey.

5. Not smart enough to keep up with evasive prey. Small reptilian brain.

So there an opportunity here. And two different solutions appeared. One was to go warm-blooded, and get really big, (better thermal control and more robust jaw) with a greatly improved, respiratory system that depended on a flow-through lung. These were the theropod dinosaurs. Eventually feathers provided more insulation, and the dinosaurs became smaller, faster, and judging by brain size, smarter.

An earlier solution, also included becoming warm-blooded and developing a more upright and agile posture. These were the pelycosaurs like Dimetrodon. They also had greatly strengthened jaws, the result of the mandible becoming much larger, and the remaining bones smaller.

Later, a bellows-style diaphragm (the enlargment of an existing muscle in therapsids) made breathing possible even when not moving about, and a secondary palate (derived by the extension of an existing brace in pelycosaurs) made it possible to breath and chew at the same time. And given that new ability, there was selective pressure for teeth that could more efficiently chew. And differentiated teeth (which existed in a rudimentary form in pelycosaurs) formed carnassals.

The two rudimentary bones in the lower jaw became smaller and smaller in later therapsids. At one point, a new joint formed, and there are several species with both the mammalian and the reptilian jaw joint. Eventually, the remaining bones had no connection with the mandible, but became smaller (and more sensitive to vibrations) and remained connected to the middle ear.

And eventually mammals. The dinosaurs dominated at first, as great size looked like a better choice, but then the environment turned hostile to big animals. At the K-T boundary, all land animals greater in size than a few kilograms died. What was left were those smaller mammalian predators.

Notice that all the changes mentioned above were those that made organisms more fit for the environment. Natural selection, in other words. I hope you got some appreciation for the way that evolution works in concert with the whole organism, and the way fitness depends on what the environment happens to be at the time.

As you probably know, any new mutation adds information to a population, useful or not. But of course, natural selection tends to remove those that make the organism more likely to die before reproducing, and tends to increase the frequency of those that make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce.

Now in light of all that information, I'm sure you want some details on how we know. Feel free to pick something and we'll get started.

 

[Barbarian]

DNA needs proteins to grow.

Nope. It replicates pretty much on its own. In fact, some RNA is self-catalyzing, and doesn't even need DNA.

Proteins need DNA to know how to grow correctly.

Some do. Others as the ones in the Murchison meteorite, did just fine without DNA.

Which came first, the DNA or proteins?

Yes.

 

[Barbarian]

You merely identified a specific problem area where they needed to upgrade.

Several. And so there was selective pressure to change. And of course, there are always mutations adding information to the population. Some of them happen to be useful to an organism in surviving in the environment. Those tend to increase. The important thing is to note that several trends happened over time, and they were mutually reinforcing.

Ok so they're sitting there needing these improvements, better feathers and lungs and such. Where did the information come from to tell their cells to start growing the better lungs and so forth?

Mutations.

Don't avoid the question brother! Where did the information come from?

Mutations. Want to see a directly observed example? Or would you like me to show you the calculations for this?

 

[Barbarian]

DNA needs proteins to grow.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. It replicates pretty much on its own. In fact, some RNA is self-catalyzing, and doesn't even need DNA.

No, you're wrong. Every cell of the body requires proteins to grow..

No, you've just confused nucleic acids with cells. Nucleic acids can reproduce themselves without proteins.

Which came first, the DNA or proteins?

Barbarian chuckles:
Yes.

Uhh, what?

The evidence shows that proteins and RNAs can arise abiotically, but neither needs the other to do this.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Mutations.

No, that's the effect. They needed to mutate. Ok, what to, we need info first of what to mutate to.

Try again. Where did the information come from into their DNA which told their cells what to change in growth?

Not is not how mutations work. When mutations happen, the ones that are either neutral or beneficial have a high chance of remaining in the DNA because they are useful in either sustaining life, attractiveness, or performance, or barely any effect at all. Mutations don't know what to do, mainly because there are many mutations that either do nothing impactful or are harmful. Natural selection weeds out the mutations that don't work as efficiently as it possibly can.

 

[Vaccine]

DNA needs proteins to grow.

Nope. It replicates pretty much on its own. In fact, some RNA is self-catalyzing, and doesn't even need DNA.

Good evening! DNA uses many single strand proteins and enzymes (all enzymes are proteins) such as polymerase, and primase. Here is an animation: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna/DNAi_replication_vo1.html


[video]http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/media/DNAi_replication_vo1-sm.wmv[/video]

If anyone has ever watched machinery, that's exactly how I would describe this video. Imagine taking 6 feet of that red string and cramming it into a nucleus, I've heard it compared to taking a few miles of fishing line and stuffing it into a basketball. God sure is amazing.

Proteins need DNA to know how to grow correctly.

Some do. Others as the ones in the Murchison meteorite, did just fine without DNA.

That's quite an assumption.

Which came first, the DNA or proteins?

Yes.

Well I can agree with that.

 

[Barbarian]

No, that's the effect. They needed to mutate. Ok, what to, we need info first of what to mutate to.

Nope. Natural selection only requires random changes.

Try again. Where did the information come from into their DNA which told their cells what to change in growth?

You're still having trouble with it. All that's necessary is a random mutation. A change in the genome. These happen constantly. Every now and then, one of them causes a change in the phenotype that makes the organism more fit. And so those tend to be preserved. And they accumulate over time, and can account for the diversity of life we see.

 

[Barbarian]

Good evening! DNA uses many single strand proteins and enzymes (all enzymes are proteins) such as polymerase, and primase.

Some do. Others do not. There are forms of RNA that can reproduce themselves with no proteins at all.

Proteins need DNA to know how to grow correctly.

Barbarian observes:
Some do. Others as the ones in the Murchison meteorite, did just fine without DNA.

That's quite an assumption.

No, amino acids and peptides (short proteins) have been observed to form on hot volcanic rock.