|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The first life | |||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Yes I do agree with that however what I am curious about is if it is resonable to take what we know about the possible "soup" that formed life under ancient atmospheres and see if we can alter the chemistry of the "soup" such that life could be formed in todays atmosphere.This would serve two purposes one it would bolster the idea of abiogenesis beyond reproach (although creationists could just then say that we didn't use an ancient atmosphere) and it would give us a bridge into those realms that lie on either side of life/non life.We could perhaps establish the physics required for the bridge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Hey Joralex
I want to propose that you check out this site and stick with it to see how science actually percieves the relationships in the world and how we use mathematics to extend our understanding. Most of all I would like to see you catch hold of the Platimun Plover Egg.LOL http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.html Let me know what you think,okay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
joralex writes: We "understand" NOTHING. I don't think I know what you mean by "understand". There may well be philosophical viewpoints that would make you correct. However, as an analogy, would one say I 'understand' another person if I can say what they will do or say under given circumstances. Colloquially, I think we would agree that that is a reasonable level of understanding. We have a number of areas where we can predict very, very precisely what nature will do under given circumstances. I would consider that to be a form of understanding. What would you consider "understanding"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: I don't think this is at all obvious. I see no reason why abiogenesis could not have happened at more than one place and time. Life as we know it might indeed have has multiple starting points. I see no reason why abiogenesis could not be happening even in the present. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Good start, Rei... most fairy tales do begin with "once upon a time". Except, of course, for the one that begins "In the beginning".
We "understand" NOTHING. We have merely accumulated enough observations/experience to become adequate technicians (but not always and sometimes not so adequate). In time we will become better technicians but this is an infinite cry from true understanding. That's as it may be, but luckily for knowledge you don't have to Understand anything to do science. That's the beauty of empiricism. Not since Aristotle have we labored under the misapprehension that we have to big-U Understand (or, if you prefer, "grok") something to know what it does, or how it affects other things. So really your objection is rather pointless. Nobody is pretending to grok the nature of life, or even it's origin. We're simply looking for an explanitory model that doesn't conflict with the data. Unfortunately your Christian God hypothesis doesn't fit that bill; there's too much contradictory information, not least of which is the non-existence of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I see no reason why abiogenesis could not be happening even in the present. I assume it is, or starts, anyway. Then I assume that it gets its butt totally kicked by already-existing life, which has spread out to every possible niche and is strengthened by a billion years of competition. There's just no way that a proto-life replicating molecule could gain a foothold in a world that already has life. Then again such a molecule could survive by replicating in cells. Perhaps prions and viruses are the result of separate abiogenesis events after the formation of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
I would think that things like malformed prions are evolutionarily doomed. They have no internal adaptation methods; once the host organism(s) become immune, I can't picture how a prion would manage to work around it. However, they're simple enough changes that I would expect that new things to the effect of BSE probably regularly evolve. Virii, on the other hand, having DNA, are capable of mutation and adaptation.
Anyone else who is more knowlegable on the subject have a take? I've only read the basics of BSE. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hey Sidelined,
I think that's pretty much what the researchers involved in this topic are doing - playing around with initial conditions and chemistry to see what [i]might[//i] occur. The big problem, of course, is that the data on early atmosphere, early conditions, and early composition of the "soup" for that matter is very sketchy. IOW, they're trying different combinations of conditions to see if anything pops. The bottom line is even if science somehow manages to create a self-replicating system, it might not necessarily be under the same conditions as what brought about the "life event" on Earth. What we really need to do is explore the galaxy until we find a planet that is in that state - and watch what happens. I sometimes think I was born a few millenia too soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Well I am betting we can get a huge dose of help from the exploration of Jupiters moon Europa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:Another complication is that there is probably not a clear dividing line between "life" and "non-life". Which brings up the question: what characteristics would an artificially produced self-replicating system have to have before we can say that the concept of "abiogenesis" is proven? Do we need a full-blown living organism, or can we accept something further down the continuum?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tsjok45 Inactive Member |
Hi
quote : Proto-life can't compete with real-life, and so it never gets a chance. MaybeHowever let's be not so radical about it (no "laws " in biology ?--> these are all heuristic rules of thumb? all have exeptions ? ) I propose" proto-life forming NOW is not found or observed because it is immediately " eaten "( in the "building blocks "stadium ) by the present "overpopulation" on this planet ? all competing for the limited resources " and related to this can someone answer some questions ? Didn't Dr Carl Woese , suggest , that "abiogenesis processes" at least produced /resulted in three different LUCA ' s ?iow that at the very bottom of life on earth there are three differnt ancestors each at the origin of three different lines of descent ? prof . L. Margulis proposed 4 protocellular ( bacterial ) components takingroles in the " merging " symbiogenesis proces creating the eukaryotic cell ( SET theory , i believe ? ) .Where these descendants of four luca's ? ALSO--> Why should "ALIFE " things be restricted to only one kind of set-up /" approaches " or "build - up " mechanisms and the elements of living stuff C H O N P ... ---> there are aerobic / photosynthese using bacteria ,but alsoall "kinds" of extremophiles and deep- sea bacteria using other sources of "biochemical energy " to drive their metabolism .... --->Doesn't astrobiology suggest that 'maybe " several other chemical pathways ( and starting materials ) could be involved ? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tsjok45 Inactive Member |
Oops
SorryForgot to post some links --->New Theory of Cell Evolution Rejects Single-Ancestor Doctrine - Scientific American --->http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/0617evoltion.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tsjok45 Inactive Member |
Hi
QUOTE--------------------------------------------------------------------- happened exactly ONCE in the history of the world (as the theory of common descent requires) and never again, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.-a) Where did you find that "all above stated " is "required " by the theory of Common descent ? what is your reference ( at least you did look for some literature I hope ? ) or what is your "hint/key " for this claim ? would you mind to elaborate ? or is it just a mere suggestion ? a blind guess ? b) what are you introducing here ( what is your purpose : do you want to make an argument out of it ? ) ---> some strawman ? 2.- The theory of common descent ( one of the pillars of some ToE , you seem to say ) doesn't say anything about the occurence of the "first " living germ(s) or ultimate ancestor such as--> did this " thing " result from chemical complex processes ? --> was it created ? --> was it a "seed "coming from somewhere out of the cosmos ? ---> or some "gene soup " from which some occuring " fat enrobed " droplets freely pick-uped the needed "floating around" components and ingredients ( No shit like " ... rocks turning into bacteria you know..." ) Why Just pick up what YOU like from all that ... you're free to do so ---> But as soon as the so- called LUCA- thing is there , was present on this planet ---> it sure started a line of descendance( this is trivial , ) We"dd better not forget that 4.- How many "results " of ongoing abiogenesis processes "appeared " --> before the dominating ones occured as the surviving LUCA ( or luca's )? ____ oh yes , about the used term "results " above =( hypothesised )particular chemical pathways and processes of very complex auto-catalytic nature for example ---> see the suggestive BELOUSOV ZHABOTINSKY SYSTEMS____ did occur and produce results(outputs ) ____ Also---> What " sample " from these "production-lines "( continuum of processes ) could be called ALIVE ? Does it make a difference ? NEVER mind =as soon as LUCA ( LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR ) appeared descendance ( and organic-replicator evolution ) started ... And I have some questions too for you " If all life on this planet went extinctCould it reappear anew by abiogenesis ? and Why should life be restricted to our planet ? Even in the interstellar space they did find evidences of the presence of " organic " chemicals I think that " everywhere , where the conditions are favourable and the raw materials present live WILL occur --> naturally " of course IF , and IF and IF and IF .... By the way abiogenesis is now part of "exobiology "growing into a interdisciplinary specialised field of its own ASTROBIOLOGY ( ah yes the trick with " matian life " I hear creationist chuckle ) SOLet's stick to the ( already complex ) field of "evolutionary biology " , if we want to discuss the consequences of "common descent" -concept ( I even doubt if the so called " theoretical " biology is something more then a " wooly " reappearance of philosophy of biology ) and let's simply ACCEPT the ( necessary ) presence of LUCA or LUCA's as the initial spark and start of lines of descendance of living things ... without speculating how it occured ( if you want to discuss that you need a very advanced expertise in chemics and complexity systems theorie(s) so start studying and informing yourself ... )
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Infinitely stranger are those that not knowing how something occurs and not knowing of any natural mechanism that could possibly account for it yet vehemently and dogmatically insist that this is precisely how it did occur, i.e., naturally and without requiring a Creator. How in heaven's name do they think to get away after pulling a stunt like that? Since no-one has suggested an alternative explanation that has any credibility, seems smart to me. Since everytime some one has ever claimed something as supernatural (lightning, origin of the universe, mind, nature of life, etc., etc.) they've been wrong, seems smart to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024