The Origin of Life

[flacaltenn]

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.

Bottom line. BILLIONS of years. Multiple great extinctions and YET all you have is stuff that hardly EVER existed. The Tree of Life NOW goes back pretty close to the ORIGINAL creation. No "missing roots" in the entire tree. THAT'S evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Bottom line. BILLIONS of years. Multiple great extinctions and YET all you have is stuff that hardly EVER existed. The Tree of Life NOW goes back pretty close to the ORIGINAL creation. No "missing roots" in the entire tree. THAT'S evidence.

 

[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.

Bottom line. BILLIONS of years. Multiple great extinctions and YET all you have is stuff that hardly EVER existed. The Tree of Life NOW goes back pretty close to the ORIGINAL creation. No "missing roots" in the entire tree. THAT'S evidence.

That's only evidence that no other type of life flourished. It is not evidence that no other types ever formed. You are still making the same mistake. You also err to act as if we have done anything remotely close to an exhaustive inventory of the possible evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I invite the posters here to define "life". You will be left with two paths in this argument:

1) You define it as the life as we know it, thus trapping yourself in a circular fallacy when you argue only life as we know it ever existed, as that is all we know. This argument can be flushed immediately.

2) You define it by behaviors and properties, like locomotion or replication. If you take this tack, you will then be tasked with ruling out all other possibilities that any other physical systems could ever have displayed these properties, other than the life we know of, if you are to rule out the things I am saying. This is an impossible task, and you will fail, leaving my arguments completely intact.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen than there being a God. … 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.

The time will come when you will stand before God, and be held to account for your life. You'll have the chance, if you choose, to tell Him to His face that He does not exist. I do not think that He will be very much impressed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen than there being a God. … 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.

The time will come when you will stand before God, and be held to account for your life. You'll have the chance, if you choose, to tell Him to His face that He does not exist. I do not think that He will be very much impressed.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

Religion and ‘god’ are creations of man.

If there were a ‘god’ it would be omnipotent, no need for an ‘accounting.’

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do not think that He will be very much impressed.

The feeling would very much be mutual.

 

[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.

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

I mean to say, in part, that the idea that life influences the universe via "observation" is valid, but what separates the observation of a rock from an insect from a cow from a human? Nothing, when it comes to "observing" particles.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Life started by chemical reaction in the oceans that started single cell life forms around 3 billion

 

[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.

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

We are unique and alone. Remarkable. And im done with word play with you.

 

[DOTR]

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

A view supported by all known evidence.

 

[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.

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.

Yes interesting..but speculation. Of course that is what we are mostly doing here. But I have to reiterate that *as far as we know* we are the only life in the universe. Your religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs about extraterrestrial life are to be respected but as it stands unique creation/origination are what we see supported by available evidence.

 

[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

I mean to say, in part, that the idea that life influences the universe via "observation" is valid, but what separates the observation of a rock from an insect from a cow from a human? Nothing, when it comes to "observing" particles.

OK put a rock or a cow as an observer on the double slit experiment and see if the electrons act as waves or particles. As far as I know the walls or oxygen molecules in the surrounding air or the table it sits on dont have an effect on the outcome.
You think maybe rocks outrank tables in intelligence?

 

[DOTR]

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.

Intuition? As opposed to evidence or lack of? Is that scientific?

But it lends itself to nothing of the sort even so. You have no evidence any other form of life ever existed. You do have evidence of only one form as far back as we see life. You may want other life to have existed. But you have no reason to even suspect that it did. Unless it fits into a philosophical worldview you are intent on preserving?

 

[DOTR]

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".

Again..neither you nor I know that it took trillions of reactions. And if it did take a couple million years then there have been thousands of those time frames over the last 4 billion or so years, with trillions of ever richer molecules in an increasingly rich organic soup for it to have been replicated.

 

[DOTR]

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.

Now you should know this...if we have found no other life forms, or remnants, then the simplest answer is that they never existed. Without some scientific reason to believe otherwise shouldn't we go with the assumption that our tree of life is unique? Maybe that will change with the next rock broken apart and examined. I'm open to it. But until then...
Or to ask it another way...for what reason would we postulate other life forms outside pure imagination?

 

[DOTR]

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.

Sure there is. Mainly being that we have only DNA (or RNA in some cases) based life in evidence.

 

[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.

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

We are unique and alone. Remarkable. And im done with word play with you.

.

We are unique and alone.

no, we are the same throughout the universe -

being derived from the metaphysical forces, we are everywhere the same in physiology that will accommodate to the metaphysical / physical life presence.

 

[Flash]

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.

I think you are a little confused about this.

We have advanced scientific knowledge of many things in chemistry, physics, biology etc but we have no idea how life was created. It is much more than the right combination of checicals and environmental condition's because we can reproduce those condition's in the lab but yet have been able to create artificial life.

Although chemistry is universal and environmental conditions could exist elsewhere there is the real possibility that life could be unique to earth. Everything else we can observe is sterile. We only know of life on earth. That may change as we explore more of the universe but that is the reality now.

I personally think that it is probable that at least microbial life exist elsewhere. Statistics don't create life but given the sheer number of other star systems in the observable universe it is probably that the same chemistry and environment conditions will be reproduced somewhere else.

However, I am thinking that advanced life may be extremely rare, maybe even unique to the earth.

The Drake Equation that predicts the possibility of life elsewhere is obsolete. There are many factors that are omitted from the equation.

There is a book that scientifically looks at the conditions that were factors that should have been added to the equation. The book is "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe" by Peter Ward. It is a great analysis of the unique factors we have on earth that may or may not exist elsewhere.

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the evolution of biological complexity requires a host of fortuitous circumstances, such as a galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, a right sized terrestrial planet, the advantage of a gas giant guardian like Jupiter and a large natural satellite, conditions needed to ensure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rare bolide impacts, and whatever led to the appearance of the eukaryote cell, sexual reproduction and the Cambrian explosion of animal, plant, and fungi phyla. The evolution of human intelligence may have required yet further events, which are extremely unlikely to have happened were it not for the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago which saw the decline of dinosaurs as the dominant terrestrial vertebrates.

In order for a small rocky planet to support complex life, Ward and Brownlee argue, the values of several variables must fall within narrow ranges. The universe is so vast that it could contain many Earth-like planets. But if such planets exist, they are likely to be separated from each other by many thousands of light years. Such distances may preclude communication among any intelligent species evolving on such planets, which would solve the Fermi paradox: "If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?"[1]

 

[WinterBorn]

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

It is deniable. It may have started more than once, or it may have come from an outside source.

Whatever or whichever. As far as Earth is concerned life took hold exactly once. A little odd isn’t it?

Not really. Once life happened, it reproduced at a fast rate. It filled the niches quickly, since there was no competition. Once life existed it would have made it nearly impossible for other life to appear and take hold.