The Origin of Life

[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.

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?

May I add that even the good old maxwell equations of radio wave propagation have all their solutions valid in negative time too, that is the future formulating the past. And that is even without quantum mechanical event statistics or relativity.

 

[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.

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

Forces are mathematical models that describe the ability to interact. Like energy models. And therefore, they have resonance and structure. Nobody would deny that life itself is a structure. You can call it chemistry, as that too is a structure. And there is no law that demands that it must originate in this universe.

 

[flacaltenn]

With the very first life form, it came complete with a complex digital code. So it isn't a question of the origin of life anymore. With the discovery of DNA it is now, what is the origin of information? Who created that code?

No. That is circular reasoning, as you are defining life to be only those individuals with a full DNA code.

Not really "no".. ALL life on the planet has the same genetic coding. Done with chemical combinations that have PLENTY of other ways to combine. For instance the Base Pairs used in DNA as info "bits", could be any other bonding base pair. In fact, "alien DNA" has been made in labs that do just that.

So it lends a LOT of credence to ONE DISTINCT "creation" event. Doesn't impact the ensuing science or reasoning. BUT -- it does make you ponder whether there was "outside interference" in that chemical accident.

We share DNA with most primitive viruses and bacteria. IN FACT, a large part of the human "junk" DNA is ancient virus codes. It all points to a singularity for creation...

 

[anotherlife]

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?

No, the observer needs not be alive, I must say, at least mathematically.

 

[Flash]

If all you need for life is water and a few chemicals every Jr High School science class would be creating life as a lab project.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So it lends a LOT of credence to ONE DISTINCT "creation" event

It more lends itself to the fairly intuitive idea that one model of life flourished at the expense of all others.

 

[Dr Grump]

"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.

What a load of shit. You have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen than there being a God. Life formed over millions and millions of years. There is ample evidence. There is not one shred of evidence of a god. And let us not forget, that most of YOUR god's anecdotes can be traced back to other civilisation's beliefs. That is also a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If all you need for life is water and a few chemicals every Jr High School science class would be creating life as a lab project.

Sure, if the lab had a couple of million years to reiterate trillions of complex chemical reactions. Also, please define "life".

 

[anotherlife]

If all you need for life is water and a few chemicals every Jr High School science class would be creating life as a lab project.

Sure, if the lab had a couple of million years to reiterate trillions of complex chemical reactions. Also, please define "life".

Definition of life: the ability to feel pain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ALL life on the planet has the same genetic coding.

Two errors here:

For one, you do not really know the truth of this, as other types of life may exist even today on our planet.

Second, we aren't talking about extant life only, we are talking about the formation of other types in the past. So, even if it were true that "all life on earth today has the same genetic coding", it still has not been ruled out that other types of life once existed and now do or do not.

 

[anotherlife]

ALL life on the planet has the same genetic coding.

Two errors here:

For one, you do not really know the truth of this, as other types of life may exist even today on our planet.

Second, we aren't talking about extant life only, we are talking about the formation of other types as well. So, even if it were true that "all life on earth has the same genetic coding", it still has not been ruled out that other types of life once existed and now do not.

May I add, that it was postulated once, that life itself can exist even as a software, that is without any chemical foundation.

 

[Flash]

[Qlso, please define "life".

Well we know that you Liberals don't define a human fetus as life, don't we?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[Qlso, please define "life".

Well we know that you Liberals don't define a human fetus as life, don't we?

Of course we do. What a stupid, bizarre, off topic thing to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

So it lends a LOT of credence to ONE DISTINCT "creation" event

No it doesnt, not at all. It only lends itself to the gairly intuitive and obvious idea that one model of life flourished at the expense of all others.

So all the other dozens of chemical "life coding" possibilities were inferior? Nice try.. The basics dynamics of DNA work in ALL combinationatorial cases.

Besides -- we got DNA for large fraction of life that EVER existed on the planet and EVERYTHING SHARES at least 40 50% in common. If there was a DNA showdown -- it must have been VERY brief and limited. And NOT at a level of physical competition. Possibly on the level of ENVIRONMENTAL survival of extremely damaging events.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So all the other dozens of chemical "life coding" possibilities were inferior?

Not necessarily. It could also be that they didn't form in as many numbers, or formed at more inopportune times in viable numbers. And you are placing false constraints to only consider dozens of other possibilities. There could be many more than dozens.

If there was a DNA showdown

Anither false constraint. There is no reason to presume life can only be DNA-based. And the idea that environmental changes necessarily drive the evolutionary changez of any life, past or present, has been debunked. Chaos plays a bigger factor.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

So all the other dozens of chemical "life coding" possibilities were inferior?

Not necessarily. It could also be that they didn't form in as many numbers, or formed at more inopportune times in viable numbers. And you are placing false constraints to only consider dozens of other possibilities. There could be many more than dozens.

If there was a DNA showdown

Anither false constraint. There is no reason to presume life can only be DNA-based. And the idea that environmental changes necessarily drive the evolutionary changez of any life, past or present, has been debunked. Chaos plays a bigger factor.

True. But we do know it carries the genetic code for the life we have now. And environmental changes play a very important role in evolution, everything from plate tectonics to climate change to catastrophic events.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But we do know it carries the genetic code for the life we have now.

More accurately, the life we KNOW of, now.

The rule of those things (environmental) in macroevolution has been greatly diminished. It came as quite a surprise to Darwinians, who had to basically toss aside one of the most fundamental principles of his theory.

 

[Dr Grump]

What I find amazing with this argument is that religious whackos can't get their head around that it took millions of years and MILLIONS of chemical reactions for life to occur on Earth, but they believe that some omnipotent entity that came from nowhere and demands we bow down to it (why, who knows? Biggest ego ever) went abracadabra and we came into being. And let's break it down even further. If he or she did do that, for what purpose? Why invent us at all? As a play thing? Is he or she that bored that they have to have sentient play things to idle his or her time away? It's just laughable that in the 21st century intelligent people still believe in this shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

So all the other dozens of chemical "life coding" possibilities were inferior?

Not necessarily. It could also be that they didn't form in as many numbers, or formed at more inopportune times in viable numbers. And you are placing false constraints to only consider dozens of other possibilities. There could be many more than dozens.

If there was a DNA showdown

Anither false constraint. There is no reason to presume life can only be DNA-based. And the idea that environmental changes necessarily drive the evolutionary changez of any life, past or present, has been debunked. Chaos plays a bigger factor.

Those are all examples of FAILED life chemistry. Something that "lives" too short to procreate isn't really life is it? I can spend a whole life doing "failed basic chemistry of life" experiments. We could postulate a LOT of things that didn't even APPROACH evolutionary time scales that "didn't survive".

But CERTAINLY, there would life forms today that didn't and don't compete on "fitness terms" thru evolution displaying alternate basic biochemistry. I told you before -- that MAYBE PRIONS are an example of that. But there's no other evidence to my knowledge of alternate chemistry DNA or alternative methods of coding.

Concepts in Biochemistry - Cutting Edge

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those are all examples of FAILED life chemistry. Something that "lives" too short to procreate isn't really life is it?

Another false constraint. It is not necessary to claim other, failed models did not procreate.

But there's no other evidence to my knowledge of alternate chemistry DNA or alternative methods of coding.

Well, for one, those other models may not exist, now.. It doesnt mean they never existed. And we may not recognize them if we found them, and we might not find them even if we were looking for them, for the same reason amd because they could be very tiny, and the Earth is relatively huge.And there are plenty of other possibilities for coding that don't involve DNA.