|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
The goalposts now seem to have achieved warpspeed.
Which scenario for explaining life on Earth is more probable: Earthly abiogenesis or panspermia? Consideration of panspermia is a very reasonable one considering all the evidence of extraterrestrial amino acids that we have. But speculation on alternative modes of life based on different genetic or pseudogenetic material is reaching pretty much into the realm of science fiction. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
"We can't figure out how it happened, so...
...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: 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! ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Why should it be simple to explain?
Shouldn't the egg be simpler to explain than the chicken? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nosy wrote:
You sure are attaching a lot to the abiogenesis question. Maybe it is a good strategy since we all figure it is a tough one to nail down. However, it is just another god of the gaps game. If the gap closes where will you hide your smaller and smaller god next time?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
But this egg hatched quite a while ago in a coop very unlike the ones we have today.
...or mabe in a coop far, far away. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Why should abiogenesis be simple?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
We'll await your "unknown prinicples" without holding our breath.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So once again:
Abiogenesis will be as easy to explain as the Milky Way, once we understand its principles gain the right perspective. Why should it be simple to explain? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
kuresu wrote:
Abiogenesis does not claim that life only started on earth. So your final complaint is a non-starter.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Why do there have to be special "abiogenic principles"? What's wrong with the principles of chemistry?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
What the heck else could genes be? Some variant on The Force? Eleventh-dimensional pixies? They're chains of nucleotides, Hoot. Chemicals!
To wit: Richard Dawkins (in River Out of Eden, 1995, p. 19) explains:
quote:Some chemicals! Come on, you chemists, give me the chemical principles for that. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Ringo writes:
We know that all living things are made up of the same chemical elements as non-living things. We have a pretty good understanding of how those elements bond to form molecules. We have some understanding - if not complete yet - of the reactions that produce those bonds. All that really seems to be missing is a plausible pathway (or pathways) from goo to you.
Gee, that's all? Well, then, we're almost there. Whoopee! ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
We haven’t the complete knowledge, yet, but everything we do have reasonably points to a chemical process and appears to point here to this planet as the source of our terrestrial life.
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)?
And the chemistry of some other event may be totally different from what may have happened here (different genetic code set, structure, different aminos or nucleotides if these are even used at all, etc.)
How would you know? What chemical principles support your opinion?
HM wrote: If you're thinking "digital code set" I have no objection. If you're thinking "essence of universal life force," well now we have a problem. you are the one who thinks genes are just collections of chemicals. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
jar asks:
Why would you expect that we would know everything important about it by now?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Mod wrote:
The earth is bio friendly, but it is not abiogenesis friendly right now. It is swarming with life, and any primitive life will be almost certainly less fit than the millions of highly evolved bacteria that will undoubtedly be all over the place in those woods. Organic matter is food for bacteria, and primitive life - even where it chemically possible to form in our current environment - has a massive biological barrier preventing its realization.
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024