The Origin of Life

[DOTR]

Singled celled organisms have had complex DNA from the beginning. Who created that code?

Nobody, silly...humans weren't around for almost 4 billion more years. Selection created DNA.

How exactly did selection create DNA in the first single celled organism?

I think we need to be careful about how we define the first organism and start with a definition of life. I don't think we needed a fully formed DNA molecule with hundreds or thousands of base pairs (amino acids). Just a small, self-replicating grouping of amino acids could be enough. And there is a lot of evidence for the spontaneous formation of amino acids.

Sure, how much code does that require?

I have no idea. I don't have a degree in this kind of stuff and read about it. Base pair triplets define the 20 amino acids that make up the proteins that build our bodies. I'd say it could be some small multiple of three.

Nucleic Acids to Amino Acids: DNA Specifies Protein | Learn Science at Scitable

There are 64 possibilities with each 3 codon base. Another fascinating fact (or incredible coincidence) is that some of the pairs are "wobble pairs". Other pairs can stand no digression. The third codon can mutate and will produced related amino acids..for instance a change on that base will produce a different protein that is still hydrophobic if the original was. It will be a different hydrophobic but operate in the same position. Same with hydrophilics. This gives evolution room to experiment. A slightly different protein isnt catastrophic and may provide a benefit.
Once again...a universe that seems geared towards one thing...pushing life up a ladder.

 

[ding]

Once again...a universe that seems geared towards one thing...pushing life up a ladder.

Agreed.

 

[DOTR]

Singled celled organisms have had complex DNA from the beginning. Who created that code?

Nobody, silly...humans weren't around for almost 4 billion more years. Selection created DNA.

How exactly did selection create DNA in the first single celled organism?

Would not have been possible without RNA. DNA alone can do nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ask Bill Gates if digital codes can invent themselves.

Nobody says the codes invented themselves, so you are arguing against a nonexistent claim.

A code has a coder

Unsupported, authoritative claim. Sorry, but that doesnt fly in this case; this is science, not church.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

complex" has a meaning and being relative doesn't make it less meaningful.

Sure it does. That is precisely what "relative" means. A child may think multiplication is complex. A mathematician would not. So yes, it loses meaning, in the mind of the mathematician. In fact, it's wrong, in the mind of the mathematician. It is meaningless label that gives us no understanding whatsoever.

If you told a child that liquid nitrogen was warm...would that child now have any understanding whatsoever ? No. Point being,it is folly to think one can gain any deep understanding of life or its origins via our puny, finite brains calling it "complex". I don't think you disagree.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Maybe this is the minimum level of simplicity

The Simplest Living Organism Ever Has 437 Genes and Was Made in a Laboratory

The work, published Thursday in Science, describes a self-replicating bacterium invented by Venter and his team that contains just 437 genes, a "genome smaller than that of any autonomously replicating cell found in nature," according to the paper. The work sheds light on the function of the individual genes necessary to have life, and it also shows us just how little we actually know about specific gene functions.

The Simplest Living Organism Ever Has 437 Genes and Was Made in a Laboratory

And it is difficult to imagine something that complex could arise spontaneously. But I am still a believer that life arose here on earth and was not the creation of a supreme being .

And I gotta depart

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954.

Pasteur may have disproved "spontaneous generation" but that was a very simple short term laboratory experiment. It in no way could replicate the billions of possible chemical experiments taking place over thousands and thousand of years around thermal vents and in tide pools and elsewhere. Mr. Wald compares apples and oranges.

 

[anotherlife]

How is if "undeniable" that life started on earth only one time?

The early earth was dynamically bombarded with all kinds of asteroids each of which could have brought life or extinguished life.

Also, there is a universal theory, that like all the physical forces of the universe, life too is one of such forces, therefore originating from outside the universe and before the Big Bang.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

How is if "undeniable" that life started on earth only one time?

The early earth was dynamically bombarded with all kinds of asteroids each of which could have brought life or extinguished life.

Also, there is a universal theory, that like all the physical forces of the universe, life too is one of such forces, therefore originating from outside the universe and before the Big Bang.

I find that silly. Life is not a basic force. Life is complicated chemistry.

 

[BreezeWood]

How is if "undeniable" that life started on earth only one time?

The early earth was dynamically bombarded with all kinds of asteroids each of which could have brought life or extinguished life.

Also, there is a universal theory, that like all the physical forces of the universe, life too is one of such forces, therefore originating from outside the universe and before the Big Bang.

I find that silly. Life is not a basic force. Life is complicated chemistry.

.

I find that silly. Life is not a basic force. Life is complicated chemistry.

physiology is the complicated chemistry - requiring a metaphysical force, life for it to exist and disintegrates to empty space when removed.

 

[DOTR]

How is if "undeniable" that life started on earth only one time?

The early earth was dynamically bombarded with all kinds of asteroids each of which could have brought life or extinguished life.

Also, there is a universal theory, that like all the physical forces of the universe, life too is one of such forces, therefore originating from outside the universe and before the Big Bang.

I find that silly. Life is not a basic force. Life is complicated chemistry.

Dont be too quick. Physics is generally beyond me but i do know modern theories claim that merely observing the universe changes it. Remember the double slit experiment? Not only changes in appearance but changes that seem to travel back through time. In the double slit experiment the change *must* have taken place before the observer observed anything...as if elemental forces somehow anticipated the future change.
There has been some confirmation of this on a huge scale when observing distant galaxies through gravitation lensing.

I'm not saying I agree with any "life force" per se. I'm just saying that life apparently changes the universe merely by the force of observation so who know?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm just saying that life apparently changes the universe merely by the force of observation so who know?

Does the observer have to be alive?

 

[DOTR]

I'm just saying that life apparently changes the universe merely by the force of observation so who know?

Does the observer have to be alive?

Nope. Just intelligence

See double slit experiment...detectors set up to automatically spy on the slits cause the electrons to choose one slot or the other. If you sneak over and unplug the detector they return to a wave form.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm just saying that life apparently changes the universe merely by the force of observation so who know?

Have you ever looked at Chaos Theory's take on evolution? It is generally powered by random mutation, and the non-linear relationship between genotypes and phenotypes.


HOWEVER

Does observation influence this? Consider a particle, hitting and "condensed" by the gamete-producing organ of a creature (therefore, "observed") in such a way that causes a DNA mutation which persists. Consider a happenstance that a strong red hue causes an observing creature to rage and kill the offending colored creature. Consider the event that, relatively suddenly, a species changes habitat westward , due not to environmental changes, but instead due to minor genotypic changes fueled by naturally occurring radiation. And then they flourish. Or then they die out.

In all cases, the "observation" affected the outcome. All "observers" were alive, but not necessarily sentient. Now, I do have a point. What property, specifically, separates these organisms (in this context) from a stream, or a cloud, or a hurricane, or a field of grass, or a volcano, or climate? Point being: not much. They are deterministic physical systems. As are we.

While our observation may, indeed, change the future (and past?) merely by virtue of having observed the present, we are still fully packed within the scope of our physical universe. "Life" should be regarded as no more special, in the deterministic sense, than is any other physical process.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope. Just intelligence

Disagree. The Photoelectric Effect shows us that we don't have to observe the determination of the state of a particle to then know its history. It has been determined (via photoelectric effect) before we observe it, unlike the helium atom between the laser grids, in the experiment showing determination of the past.

 

[DOTR]

I'm just saying that life apparently changes the universe merely by the force of observation so who know?

Have you ever looked at Chaos Theory's take on evolution? It is generally powered by random mutation, and the non-linear relationship between genotypes and phenotypes.


HOWEVER

Does observation influence this? Consider a particle, hitting and "condensed" by the gamete-producing organ of a creature (therefore, "observed") in such a way that causes a DNA mutation which persists. Consider a happenstance that a strong red hue causes an observing creature to rage and kill the offending colored creature. Consider the event that, relatively suddenly, a species changes habitat westward , due not to environmental changes, but instead due to minor genotypic changes fueled by naturally occurring radiation. And then they flourish. Or then they die out.

In all cases, the "observation" affected the outcome. All "observers" were alive, but not necessarily sentient. Now, I do have a point. What property, specifically, separates these organisms (in this context) from a stream, or a cloud, or a hurricane, or a field of grass, or a volcano, or climate? Point being: not much. They are deterministic physical systems. As are we.

While our observation may, indeed, change the future (and past?) merely by virtue of having observed the present, we are still fully packed within the scope of our physical universe. "Life" should be regarded as no more special, in the deterministic sense, than is any other physical process.

If I understood what you said you can bet your ass I would refute it

 

[social philosopher]

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

That is not even partially true. Life has arisen and been all but wiped out on earth several times. It is true that the condition for life to take root is not limited to this planet. Not taking into account the general worthiness of earth for humans, it seems that the conditions for life exist in abundance in just our solar system alone. This likelihood that even one celled life could be on another planet is extremely high. It seems that life is tenacious. It will start where ever those conditions (far ranging conditions) are present. We will likely find life all over.

 

[DOTR]

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

That is not even partially true. Life has arisen and been all but wiped out on earth several times. It is true that the condition for life to take root is not limited to this planet. Not taking into account the general worthiness of earth for humans, it seems that the conditions for life exist in abundance in just our solar system alone. This likelihood that even one celled life could be on another planet is extremely high. It seems that life is tenacious. It will start where ever those conditions (far ranging conditions) are present. We will likely find life all over.

"All but wiped out". Maybe. Life did survive the Late Bombardment. But it survived and no other exist. By evidence there is no trace of any life that did not share a common ancestor with us. There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth.
We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

That is not even partially true. Life has arisen and been all but wiped out on earth several times. It is true that the condition for life to take root is not limited to this planet. Not taking into account the general worthiness of earth for humans, it seems that the conditions for life exist in abundance in just our solar system alone. This likelihood that even one celled life could be on another planet is extremely high. It seems that life is tenacious. It will start where ever those conditions (far ranging conditions) are present. We will likely find life all over.

"All but wiped out". Maybe. Life did survive the Late Bombardment. But it survived and no other exist. By evidence there is no trace of any life that did not share a common ancestor with us. There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth.
We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

Maybe as far as our own planet is concerned, but that's not remarkable.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

That is not even partially true. Life has arisen and been all but wiped out on earth several times. It is true that the condition for life to take root is not limited to this planet. Not taking into account the general worthiness of earth for humans, it seems that the conditions for life exist in abundance in just our solar system alone. This likelihood that even one celled life could be on another planet is extremely high. It seems that life is tenacious. It will start where ever those conditions (far ranging conditions) are present. We will likely find life all over.

"All but wiped out". Maybe. Life did survive the Late Bombardment. But it survived and no other exist. By evidence there is no trace of any life that did not share a common ancestor with us. There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth.
We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

.

"All but wiped out". Maybe. Life did survive the Late Bombardment. But it survived and no other exist. By evidence there is no trace of any life that did not share a common ancestor with us. There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth.
We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth ... We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

a rather moribund view of the universe endemic of a desert creationist ...

 

[ChesBayJJ]

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

That is not even partially true. Life has arisen and been all but wiped out on earth several times. It is true that the condition for life to take root is not limited to this planet. Not taking into account the general worthiness of earth for humans, it seems that the conditions for life exist in abundance in just our solar system alone. This likelihood that even one celled life could be on another planet is extremely high. It seems that life is tenacious. It will start where ever those conditions (far ranging conditions) are present. We will likely find life all over.

"All but wiped out". Maybe. Life did survive the Late Bombardment. But it survived and no other exist. By evidence there is no trace of any life that did not share a common ancestor with us. There is no evidence of life anywhere but earth.
We are unique and a special case by all evidence.

I like the statistical theory. 100 Billion galaxies. Each with 100 Billion stars (averages, of course). The odds of life forming elsewhere on any single planet don't have to be very high to make us less than unique.

Here's one way to approach some odds

Drake Equation: Estimating the Odds of Finding E.T.