Abiogenesis

Which scenario for explaining life on Earth is more probable: Earthly abiogenesis or panspermia?Answer: The second scenario, because it doesn't require an Earthly abiogenesis, which removes a limiting factor and raises its likelihood.This of course leaves abiogenesis itself unexplained. It may be that way forever if it truly was an extraterrestrially exotic event. Given enough time, NASA will have explored Mars and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, probing into their watery domains, if they have 'em, to find traces of life. I expect they will eventually find those traces, and then panspermia will get more respect.”HM

...so? Why can't you figure out what happened? It was only abiogenesis, after all”fundamental to the extreme. It ought to be simple enough to explain. Life just pops up anywhere warm ponds can be found, doesn't it? One scientific luminary, Stuart Kauffman (1995, At Home in the Universe, p. 45) thinks it does. He believes abiogenesis was a natural freebie:

quote:

---

[T]here are compelling reasons to believe that whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth. If this argument is correct, metabolic networks need not build one component at a time; they can spring full-grown from a primordial soup. Order for free, I call it. If I am right, the motto of life is not We the improbable, but We the expected.

---

Is he serious? Yikes! That's a joy ride to nowhere but belief. I wonder just how many here on this thread would sign off on Kauffman's "motto of life." Probably a few, including Percy and Ringo, who know life is just a collection of chemicals. Not a whole lot more to it, pilgrim....and you guys are pickin' on rob? For shame!”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Shouldn't the egg be simpler to explain than the chicken?”HM

Nosy wrote: My "god in the gap" is the god of principles, and I don't think we know all the principles yet. Maybe the unknown principles will be even more powerful than those of molecular biology.”HM

...or mabe in a coop far, far away.”HM

When its principles are understood it will be simple. Until then, we're all just hathching brainstones. I smell a pre-Copernican perfume in the coop, when it comes to explaining abiogenesis. Panspermia, as a seeding mechanism, is not as far fetched as its detractors claim it is. Meanwhile, they need to believe that the God of Biology chose Earth to conduct His blessed lab experiments. How utterly conceited are we?Question: Do you believe the principles of abiogenesis will become well-enoughy understood to reproduce the process (or whatever) from chermical scratch in a labroatory?”HM

Good! Wouldn't want you to suffocate. Take a breath. What ever it is that science doesn't know isn't worth bothering about. But, hey, I want to entertain every crazy idea, because all the un-crazy ideas have been perfumed poodles when it comes down to explaining abiogenesis.”HM

Abiogenesis will be as easy to explain as the Milky Way, once we understand its principles gain the right perspective.Once upon a time the Milky Way was not easy so to explain. It was a deep mystery until the end of the nineteenth century. Then technology”a better telescope”solved the mystery. Galaxies were revealed and eventually understood. And the Milky Way galaxy, once a starry conundrum, became our home.And once upon a time there was this very wise old philosopher who said that explaining the Milky Way would be simple...when its principles are discovered and understood. I forgot his name, but he was right.That's the best answer you're going to get from me, jar, and I will take a wild guess that it is not good enough for you (keemosabi). Perhaps you should tell me why understanding abiogenesis will not be simple, once we apprehend those elusive principles. What do you know about abiogenesis that refutes what I say? You seem to think it happened on Earth. Why? What principles can state that confirm your opinion?”HM

kuresu wrote: Perehaps you could list 1, 2, 3... just what it is that abiogenesis claims. Far as I know, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are equally speculative. Far as I know, abiogenesis could have happened before the Big Bang, maybe in another mother universe. Maybe it never happened at all. Maybe life was a constant fixture just fluttering around in the pre-Bang era like hopeful mosquitoes, waiting for warm ponds to show so they could breed. Without knowing any abiogenic principles, how can separate the good questions from the bad?”HM

Ringo writes: Nothing, except they don't seem to be enough to make life from scratch like a pizza pie, which is what one might expect from the "principles of chemistry." But those are only the known principles of chemistry, of course. Wouldn't you suppose there are a few more principles to be discovered that might help to explain abiogenesis? And why would you suppose those new principles have to be chemical? Oh, but I forgot, you are the one who thinks genes are just collections of chemicals.”HM

To wit: Richard Dawkins (in River Out of Eden, 1995, p. 19) explains:

quote:

---

Genes are pure information”information that can be encoded, recorded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything moden computers can do.

---

Some chemicals! Come on, you chemists, give me the chemical principles for that.”HM

Ringo writes: Gee, that's all? Well, then, we're almost there. Whoopee!”HM

AZPaul3 writes: If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now. What's holding us back? Federal funding? If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?Oh, I know, conditions are different nowadays. But how would you know that if you don't know what those conditional requirements were (are)? How would you know? What chemical principles support your opinion? I am not a vitalist. I'd be very surprised if a "life force" is ever discovered. Something exotically chemical probably did happened, but it was (or is) still hidden from our view. When it is finally revealed I predict a paradigm shift in chemistry of major proportions.”HM

jar asks: Yes, I would expect all the principles of abiogenesis should be known by now, especially if they're only chemical. But my reasons will probably not satisfy you. My expectation is intuitive, and somewhat scornful, drawing on my appreciation of other great accomplishments in chemistry and the chemists who brag about them. But the principles behind abiogenesis might not be all chemical, not entirely. There is something about those genes”those Good Fairies of Biological Fruitiness”that we don't know. If it weren't for those genes, I'd guess the chemists would have abiogenesis nailled by now. Only a guess, though. I wouldn't sell the farm over it.Maybe I'm more impressed with the deep mystery of life than I ought to be. But, dang it, there must have been something in that ancient broth besides chemicals.”HM

Mod wrote: Yes, I know. It's a version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse. Only in this case it's "life ate my evidence."”HM