Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the first life
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 91 of 138 (127677)
07-26-2004 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by dandon83
07-26-2004 6:42 AM


Re: unity of universe
That's extrapolation, not analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dandon83, posted 07-26-2004 6:42 AM dandon83 has not replied

  
dandon83
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 138 (128299)
07-28-2004 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
07-26-2004 6:44 AM


______________________________________________________________________
If the universe was designed, that designer COULD do anything they liked.
______________________________________________________________________
COULD means ,if he want to ;he would do.Butif he don't want to; he would not do.
But COULD will NEVER mean that if he did NOT DO ;then he is not the one who DO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 07-26-2004 6:44 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Jack, posted 07-28-2004 5:37 AM dandon83 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 93 of 138 (128300)
07-28-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dandon83
07-28-2004 5:24 AM


COULD means ,if he want to ;he would do.Butif he don't want to; he would not do.
Exactly, so the ordered nature of the universe does not provide evidence for a designer one way or another.
But COULD will NEVER mean that if he did NOT DO ;then he is not the one who DO.
I have no idea what you mean by this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dandon83, posted 07-28-2004 5:24 AM dandon83 has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 138 (129957)
08-03-2004 4:01 AM


I don't see a problem
Take a moment to read my post in BigBang/Cosmo. If you are able to grasp my views then I submit that life is an infinite chain of evolution. There is no first life. At some point in the evolution of our planet there existed environments suitable to sustain living creatures so the conditions for evolution presented themselves. We have the scientific precision in our instruments to see what we consider the smallest self-contained units of life. I submit that smallest self-contained unit of life in fact every single smallest self-contained unit of life that we can see because we have the scientific precision to see it is the result of an infinite chain of evolution. Difficult to grasp I agree but if you are able to accept a truly infinite universe with no smallest particle of matter and no smallest unit of time then it follows reason that there can be no smallest unit of energy and no smallest unit of life. Somehow, I don't quite know how, but I believe in my heart it is true, that life is able to evolve from inside the atom into our known universe. If the universe is infinite and time is infinite then given the ability to provide for a habitable environment for an infinite length of time by being able to escape the inevitable destruction of our solar system and planet there is no reason to believe that the chain of evolution that brought our species (and all species) to the points they are at now would cease to continue. Who’s to say what evolution would bring us to a trillion years from now and that oxygen and carbon dioxide would be required parts of our survival.

  
mosseyz
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 138 (131416)
08-07-2004 7:57 PM


PreLife circumstances outlined
Its possible that the circumstances for Pre-life were in existence between 5bn — 3.5bn yrs ago. That gives about 1.5bn years to form the elements of life, create precellular elements, then create by 3.5bn yrs ago the first single celled life that is recorded in the rocks ie the Cyanobacteria family. Those bacteria are still around today and were responsible then for the creation of an oxygen atmosphere, and its my understanding they are still doing that today. I would be very interested in comparing the genome of one of those ancient bacteria with the genome of a modern Cyanobacteria to see if anything has changed. The genome of Cyanobacterium synechocystis sp. Strain PCC6803 has been mapped to about 3.6M bp!!! See http://dna-res.kazusa.or.jp/1/6/06/PDF/1_303.pdf Obviously a simple life as far as life on earth today is concerned ( infact its the simplest form of singled-celled life ,as I understand it ) but relative to the simple precellular life back then its incredibly complex. And the earth had as we say about 1.5bn years to form it and be recorded in some of the oldest rocks on earth. So I think the appearance of Cyanobacteria in the precambrian eon and complementary rocks that contain them must represent some higher first fossilized successful start of cell production.
Since there is no cellular life in the fossil record prior to this I would suggest that the parts that would go to make up this incredibly complex first form of uni-cellular life somehow couldn’t get fossilized. Ie the parts had the properties such that they would quickly be desolved, changed, transformed. It would be interesting to examine the chemistry of the rocks around and prior to 3.5bn years ago to see if the chemical composition could give any clues as to the chemical composition of intermediate parts of uni-cellular life. I suggest that the intermediate parts degraded too quickly to ever be fossilized, and maybe the conditions of pre-cellular ‘life’ where akin to the circumstances and processes in the early universe, not long after the big bang. Where particles were being created and destroyed rapidly and it wasn’t until the universe expanded and cooled enough that the circumstances of rapid chaos settled down to allow certain stable products to appear. Maybe the same sort of thing happened in the first 1.5bn years of the earths existence?
MOSSEYZ
2004 Ian Moss

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 96 of 138 (134391)
08-16-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
07-14-2004 12:35 PM


I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
Dear Lama dama ding dong,
First, Thanks for the biogenesis model This gives use something to work with. {and, by the way, where did you get it}
Now, I’m no scientist {I love science, but have no degrees} so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms, so I know I’m understanding what you’re saying.
According to what I understand of what you’re saying, scientists have been able to show that:
a) A, very basic, cell wall can form on it’s own.
b) The simple building block of the genetic code can form, under the right condition, with out intervention.
c) These, pre genetic code strands can copy them selves.
Now, lets apply these to another scenario vary similar to yours.
Let’s take the HP Laptop I’m writing this letter on.
Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop.
If we throw down a bunch of two-inch sticks, we can see that some letters form with out intervention.
If we throw down enough ‘bunches of sticks’, we can see that some letters repeatedly show up.
Each time I go to one of these discussion boards, any one who question’s evolution is called stupid, or worse, and ridiculed for having ‘faith’.
And yet, you don’t expect me to believe that the ‘Windows’ operating system came into existence on it’s own. Do you?
‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?
You don’t expect me to believe my laptop evolved {I.E. with no intelligent design}. Do you.
If my laptop, as simple as it is {compared to a single cell} could not have come into existence with out thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of man hours of intelligent designers, then why do you insist that a living cell can come in to existence with out intelligent design?
You say, Ah, but wait, there is a difference between your laptop and a living cell
Your right, but before that cell was alive it was just a collection of amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules
So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did.
Sorry, That take more blind faith then I have.
If, it is logical for me to look at a simple Laptop computer and say, Hay, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this then, would it not be just as logical to look at, the much more complex, cell and say, Gee, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-16-2004 02:23 PM

John3: 16, 17

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 07-14-2004 12:35 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by coffee_addict, posted 08-16-2004 3:56 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 98 by Loudmouth, posted 08-16-2004 4:25 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 08-16-2004 4:46 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 97 of 138 (134407)
08-16-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by JRTjr
08-16-2004 3:16 PM


Re: I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
jrtjr1 writes:
and, by the way, where did you get it}
I'm not an internet person. I got my info through the old fashioned way, sitting in college classes and take down notes.
Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop.
If we throw down a bunch of two-inch sticks, we can see that some letters form with out intervention...
You are using a false analogy fallacy.
Nowhere in the theory of abiogenesis did it say that under the right condition will a T-rex come to be from the primordial soup. That's what your analogy implied, that windows can come into being from scraps of metal.
The theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution (2 completely different disciplines in biology) only apply to organic matter and living things... and possibly to other things like memes.
You say, Ah, but wait, there is a difference between your laptop and a living cell
Your right, but before that cell was alive it was just a collection of amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules
Your point is?
So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did.
Um... no. A prokaryotic cell (which is believed to be the first living thing in the world) is not complex at all. I recommend a simple biology course at your local college.
Sorry, That take more blind faith then I have.
Um... you claimed before that you liked science, yet you don't really know how science works.
If, it is logical for me to look at a simple Laptop computer and say, Hay, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this then, would it not be just as logical to look at, the much more complex, cell and say, Gee, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this
False analogy, again.
What you just demonstrated was not logic. You used common sense, which can't be trusted in some things.
If you truly like science, you should have known to leave a blank spot in your book of knowledge if you don't know how something came to be rather than automatically have faith in an intelligent designer.
By the way, it seems that you have a grossly oversimplified understanding of how science works.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by JRTjr, posted 08-16-2004 3:16 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by JRTjr, posted 08-22-2004 12:52 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 138 (134408)
08-16-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by JRTjr
08-16-2004 3:16 PM


Re: I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
quote:
a) A, very basic, cell wall can form on it’s own.
b) The simple building block of the genetic code can form, under the right condition, with out intervention.
c) These, pre genetic code strands can copy them selves.
I think, in general, we can all agree with this definition.
quote:
Now, lets apply these to another scenario vary similar to yours.
Let’s take the HP Laptop I’m writing this letter on.
Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop.
HP laptops aren't a product of nature, nor do they reproduce. Secondly, it is not possible for an HP laptop to naturally form. However, it has been shown that the chemicals needed for life do spontaneously form without outside intervention. Also, some of these chemicals ARE capable of catalysing chemical reactions. Therefore, observations, not fantasy, have led science towards plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
quote:
Each time I go to one of these discussion boards, any one who question’s evolution is called stupid, or worse, and ridiculed for having ‘faith’.
I try not to ridicule anyone, and especially not their faith. However, we do see quite a few basic misconceptions that most creationist or laymen make. For instance, this thread deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory within chemistry while evolution requires that life first be present and is found within biology. For evolution to work all you need is an imperfect replicator. It doesn't matter where it came from or how it got there, all that matters is that life was present. If the first life was bacteria planted by space aliens the theory of evolution would be unaffected. However, abiogenesis is a separate theory and makes statements about where life first came from and how it arose. It is best not to confuse the two since there are obvious differences between the two theories.
quote:
‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?
They are about equal in length, but Windows is much more complex. Also, you are equating DNA sequences that we see TODAY and extrapolating them back into the past. This is not accurate nor logical since the first life to use DNA may have been much simpler than anything we see today. Also, the first life may not even have used DNA. The first life may have used catalytic RNA, proteins, or a combination of the two. All you need is a chemical that makes more of itself and voila, you have started life.
quote:
You don’t expect me to believe my laptop evolved {I.E. with no intelligent design}. Do you.
Of course not, because laptops don't make more of themselves. For evolution to work you need reproduction, therefore laptops are not analogous to life.
quote:
If my laptop, as simple as it is {compared to a single cell} could not have come into existence with out thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of man hours of intelligent designers, then why do you insist that a living cell can come in to existence with out intelligent design?
Because of the natural algorithm of natural selections and mutation. This causative forces cause increases in complexity and information within reproducing populations. A fair analogy would be comparing a reproducing population to a reproducing population. You have yet to do this.
quote:
So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did.
It doesn't require faith. In fact, abiogenesis and evolution don't even require you to believe in it. It stands by itself on the strength of objective evidence. Whether or not you believe that men landed on the moon has nothing to do with the fact that the evidence supports the moon landings. We have never seen life intelligently designed. We have never seen a supernatural deity shuffle DNA. However, we have seen random configurations of atoms derived from earth like conditions cause self catalyzing reactions.
[quote]Sorry, That take[s] more blind faith then I have.[/quote]
Good thing that science doesn't rely on faith. Also, what takes more faith, observations of natural phenomena that can result in self catalyzing reactions or faith in a supernatural deity that has never been evidenced? Would you be the type of person to credit Thor for producing thunder because you feel that swirling hailstones could not possible create the sound?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by JRTjr, posted 08-16-2004 3:16 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 138 (134416)
08-16-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by JRTjr
08-16-2004 3:16 PM


Re: I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
jrtjr1 writes:
‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?
Gee, I don't know. I understand your point, but Windows must be millions of lines of code and is far more complicated than a single DNA strand. I wouldn't argue that it's a better work of engineering, though.
I haven't read Lam's reply yet and so don't know what he's arguing, but I would urge you to be skepical of any claims that we have any satisfactory answers to the puzzle of the origin of life. There's plenty of well informed speculation, but at present we really do not know how life first began. We may never know.
I think two of your key issues, namely a) environmental isolation (cell wall) and c) replication, are fine, but b) the building block of the genetic code forming is already known not to be a problem. Nucleotides are not all that complex, and some nucleotides can even form spontaneously in outer space, and we find them in meteorites that fall to earth. Nucleotides can no longer form spontaneously here on earth, because since life is already present, any complex organic molecules that formed would be immediately consumed as food by bacteria and other microscopic life.
There is hardly any available evidence to help us figure out how the first life came about, and scientists accept a natural origin of life primarily because of a simple logical progression. When we look inside a cell we see nothing but chemistry. Complicated organic chemistry, to be sure, but just chemistry nonetheless, and certainly no evidence of the divine. Even reproduction is just chemistry. So if all life is just complicated chemistry, then as you trace life back to its beginnings you should still find nothing but chemistry.
Hutton gave us the phrase, "The present is the key to the past." In thinking about life's origins scientists assume that the same array of forces and influences for which we have evidence have been present throughout all time. All that is necessary to add a divine force to the list is to discover evidence for it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by JRTjr, posted 08-16-2004 3:16 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by coffee_addict, posted 08-16-2004 6:55 PM Percy has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 100 of 138 (134449)
08-16-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
08-16-2004 4:46 PM


Re: I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
Percy writes:
I haven't read Lam's reply yet and so don't know what he's arguing, but I would urge you to be skepical of any claims that we have any satisfactory answers to the puzzle of the origin of life.
That's why I tried to make it clear that the model I presented is only one of many models and that this is the one that is most generally accepted for now.
The simple truth is the theory of abiogenesis is still in its sketchy infancy compared to the theory of evolution.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 08-16-2004 4:46 PM Percy has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 101 of 138 (134981)
08-18-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by coffee_addict
07-15-2004 3:40 AM


radiation as early selection
For anyone interested in the once-mentioned topic regarding the effects of radiation on abiogenesis, early life, and evolution:
Here's full text of a peer-reviewed journal article that models how UV radiation can act as a selective force to drive RNA evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 07-15-2004 3:40 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by coffee_addict, posted 08-18-2004 4:21 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 102 of 138 (135005)
08-18-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by pink sasquatch
08-18-2004 2:44 PM


Re: radiation as early selection
That's cool.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-18-2004 2:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 103 of 138 (136045)
08-22-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by coffee_addict
08-16-2004 3:56 PM


I apparently did not make my analogy clear
Dear Mr. Ding Dong, Mr. Mouth, and Percy,
My apologies, I apparently did not make my analogy clear.
Before the first cell was alive it existed as a pre-life group of items amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules, ect. It is this pre-life cell I am comparing to my laptop, not T-rex.
As for widows being more complex than DNA, I’d Like to hear what Mr. Ding Dong has to say about that.
Percy says, There is hardly any available evidence to help us figure out how the first life came about, and scientists accept a natural origin of life primarily because of a simple logical progression. When we look inside a cell we see nothing but chemistry. Complicated organic chemistry, to be sure, but just chemistry nonetheless, and certainly no evidence of the divine. Even reproduction is just chemistry. So if all life is just complicated chemistry, then as you trace life back to its beginnings you should still find nothing but chemistry.
Of course, I could say that my laptop runs on simple, low voltage, electrical impulses. And since it’s far simpler than a single celled life form {which has machines in it that are built atom by atom, and that perform function on a microscopic scale} there’s no reason to assume that it was designed. After all, the fact that a pre-cell became complex enough to achieve life shows that non-living things can achieve high states of complexity. Right?
As for me over simplifying things, here again, I must have not maid myself clear, and again, I apologize for this.
My point, to all of this, is that, if anything, you’re over simplifying what it takes for life, any life, to come in to existence.
Even the simplest single celled life form we know of today is, by far, to complex a system of machines to have come into existence with out an intellect behind it.
I’m not disputing that some of the, vary simple, parts could be just part of the right condition. I am, however, disputing the notion that life comes from, is a product of, lifelessness; that a single celled life form can be produced with out an intellect producing it.
I can say that an intellect produced my laptop, and, if I study its design long enough, tell you how it was created. Acknowledging that something is the product of an intellect {I.E. it was designed} has no bearing on whether or not you can find out how it was maid. However, learning how something was made can give great insight to the one who made it.
The point here is that, if I see something that has both organization and complexity I look for an intelligent designer.
A hurricane has organization, but is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is the product of natural circumstances.
The universe has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer.
The Grand Canyon has organization, but, again, is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is a product of natural circumstances.
My cell phone has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer.
Whether or not anything has both organization and complexity, it not the only criteria that I could use to decide whether or not something was made {I.E. created by an intelligent designer}, but it is one good measuring stick.
For instance, a park bench has vary little complexity {I.E. it is a vary simple design.} but, we’re not going to mistake six peaces of lumber bolted to a metal frame for a natural occurrence. Thus, not all designed things are complex, but all ‘relatively’ complex things are designed; the more complex the item, the more intelligent the designer must be. {I.E. someone with an I.Q. of, say, fifty would not be able to design and build a laptop computer}
Although, there are things out there that are on the fence, sort-a-speak; most things can easily be recognized as either natural formations or designed by an intelligent designer.
I once heard of a rock formation off some coast somewhere. If I remember correctly it runs for a few miles, and seems to be queried stone. Some archeologists are saying that it is an ancient road that was once part of a long gone civilization. On the other hand, there are other archeologists that say this stone, because of its type, density, and where it is, formed naturally.
This would be an example of a boarder-line item.
Now, Mr. Mouth say, This {‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?} is not accurate nor logical since the first life to use DNA may have been much simpler than anything we see today. Also, the first life may not even have used DNA. The first life may have used catalytic RNA, proteins, or a combination of the two. All you need is a chemical that makes more of itself and voila, you have started life.
I’m not too sure I understand what you’re trying to say here.
Are you saying that my analogy is not correct because the first cells may have been much simpler? or, are you trying to say that, if it turns out that the first cell were much simpler than the ones we see today; then my analogy may not fit.?
Mr. Ding Dong states, We know for a fact that organic molecules form naturally rather easily under certain condition. That is true, unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, different molecules require different conditions.
Mr. Ding Dong goes on to say that, This was demonstrated by the Miller experiment in the early 50's. He basically created an enclosed apparatus and he put inside water, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and a whole bunch of other non-organic molecules that thought to have existed in early earth environment. He then zapped the apparatus with electricity for about 3-4 days. He then took the apparatus apart and found amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules.
Fuz Rana, Ph.D. says that, most origin-of-life researchers now consider Miller’s experiments irrelevant. The consensus view of atmospheric constituents has changed since the 1950s. Then they were thought to be hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.1 Now, scientists believe early Earth’s atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not yield organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments (hence, no primordial soup)a devastating blow for the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario.2 {Taken from Carbon Monoxide Kills Hopes for Primordial Soup Home - Reasons to Believe}
1) Stanley L. Miller, A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Science 117 (1953), 528-29; Stanley L. Miller, Production of Some Organic Compounds Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Journal of American Chemical Society 77 (1955): 2351-66.
2) Franois Raulin, Atmospheric Prebiotic Synthesis, presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Conference on the Origin of Life, San Diego, CA 1999; Stanley L. Miller, The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds, The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle, ed. Andr Brack (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 59-85.
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-21-2004 11:59 PM

John3: 16, 17

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by coffee_addict, posted 08-16-2004 3:56 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mihkel4397
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 138 (185619)
02-15-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-14-2004 3:03 AM


That first life form
The question of ozone layers at the very beginning is unnecessary. Obviously life survived, wether because of the protection of the atmosphere itself (not only ozone interacts with UVB and UVC) or the water wherin the life occurred. It survived. The amazing thing which science accepts but wishes to ignore is that life emerged the moment there was water. And it contained the fantastically complex genome which has been the basis of all further evolution.
This is what science's holy rule that all is a result of random events cannot allow.

Mihkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-14-2004 3:03 AM tubi417 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 02-15-2005 4:37 PM mihkel4397 has replied
 Message 107 by Ooook!, posted 02-15-2005 5:28 PM mihkel4397 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 138 (185621)
02-15-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by mihkel4397
02-15-2005 4:26 PM


there was no "first" life form
quote:
The amazing thing which science accepts but wishes to ignore is that life emerged the moment there was water.
What does this mean? That life emerged one second after water appeared on the earth? After one day? After one year? Or that the oceans existed for several tens of millions of years before life emerged? All of these would count, in geology, as "the moment there was water". But tens of millions of years is a pretty long time for an ocean sized chemical laboratory to perform its experiments, yes?
And, in regards to the title of the post, there was no "first life form". There was likely a very primitive replicating system, say, for one possibility, crystal defects in the surfaces of clay minerals, that no one would actually call life, and in the end, perhaps several millions of years later, something that we would definitely call a living cell; but in between there would have been a continuum of replicating chemical systems without a sharp boundary between what we would call non-living and living.
The last sentence has been edited for clarity.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-15-2005 17:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by mihkel4397, posted 02-15-2005 4:26 PM mihkel4397 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mihkel4397, posted 02-15-2005 5:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024