The Origin of Life

[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.

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

Unique...how? Been to all the planets, have ya? Alone, eh? How so?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

That is an error on your part. That is not evidence that life can only be DNA based. What you are saying is false. And such a willing, egregious error of logic reeks of an agenda.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if we have found no other life forms, or remnants, then the simplest answer is that they never existed

That is not the simplest answer. That answer requires more assumptions than the answer that it may have existed and either died out or has not been found. Your answer requires the assumption that other types of life never existed, which can only be concluded by arguing they could not have existed. My answer is simpler and requires no such extra arguments.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again..neither you nor I know that it took trillions of reactio

That's not an assumption I made. The first such reaction that led to a nucleotide base may have been the butterfly that flapped its wings, leading to all life as we know it.. So that is not an appropriate response to my arguments.

But we do know that trillions of reactions occurred, and this was the environment that led to the formation of life. Being that we dont know the chain of chemical reactions and events, it is correct not to rule out any of them yet.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

And such a willing, egregious error of logic reeks of an agenda.

desert creationist ....

Being that we dont know the chain of chemical reactions and events, it is correct not to rule out any of them yet.

... chemical reactions and events

for the chemical reaction to be successful the reaction would require the appropriate metaphysical forces / axioms to be equally applied for a successful conclusion to create life. life can not evolve without a morality.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

A view supported by all known evidence.

.

We are unique and alone.

A view supported by all known evidence.

We are unique and alone ..


you imply there is no other life and were there life elsewhere it would be something different than on planet Earth ...

that is not proven and more succinct all life in the universe as the example found on Earth would all be the same till proven otherwise and logically present wherever the same conditions exist for life's evolution to occur as found on Earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

for the chemical reaction to be successful the reaction would require the appropriate metaphysical forces / axioms to be equally applied for a successful conclusion to create life.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

I read that there are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy. So there might be 10 other Earths.

 

[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?

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

Whose estimates are those?

 

[danielpalos]

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

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

I read that there are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy. So there might be 10 other Earths.

The latest from Hubble shows around that many galaxies, in the darkest part of the night sky.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

Whose estimates are those?

Astronomy.

 

[BreezeWood]

for the chemical reaction to be successful the reaction would require the appropriate metaphysical forces / axioms to be equally applied for a successful conclusion to create life.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

just look at civilization as the abstract for the metaphysical axioms at play - how many are rewarded for murdering their neighbor - the progression is as much the same in the development of DNA over time and reflects the progressions found in evolution. morality dictates the prognosis for success over the failures that are discarded and what leads ultimately to extinction.

 

[DOTR]

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]

The Fermi paradox crushes the Drake Equation without the unlikely existence of some common filter which occurs AFTER advanced civilization develops. (one suggestion is that AI inevitably wipes out intelligence)

It is Carl Sagan who is responsible for the Argument from Mediocrity...and the crew of atheists who have followed him. They took great pleasure in it.

Ward and Brownlee sound interesting. Ill read them.

 

[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?

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.

Not be any evidence we have whatsoever. If you doubt it put one Water Hyacinth into Lake Travis...or introduce Zebra Mussels or just one pregnant Asian Carp into the great lakes.

You people will believe in the wildest flights of fancy and supernatural creatures.

 

[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.

Unique...how? Been to all the planets, have ya? Alone, eh? How so?

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary

 

[DOTR]

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

That is an error on your part. That is not evidence that life can only be DNA based. What you are saying is false. And such a willing, egregious error of logic reeks of an agenda.

Let me repeat it and you point out where it gets false...

"we have only DNA (or RNA in some cases) based life in evidence."[/QUOTE]

 

[DOTR]

if we have found no other life forms, or remnants, then the simplest answer is that they never existed

That is not the simplest answer. That answer requires more assumptions than the answer that it may have existed and either died out or has not been found. Your answer requires the assumption that other types of life never existed, which can only be concluded by arguing they could not have existed. My answer is simpler and requires no such extra arguments.

That is the most circular thing I have ever seen. And the most liberal

Its ok. Ill just repeat the bare fact...when faced with the total absence of any trace or evidence (and your imagination or intuition dont count as evidence) of A then the simplest conclusion is that A never was there.

You imagine a three headed dragon in my back shed. I dont see one. Is the simplest answer that a three headed dragon was there and died? Or that there never was one there in the first place?

 

[DOTR]

Again..neither you nor I know that it took trillions of reactio

That's not an assumption I made. The first such reaction that led to a nucleotide base may have been the butterfly that flapped its wings, leading to all life as we know it.. So that is not an appropriate response to my arguments.

But we do know that trillions of reactions occurred, and this was the environment that led to the formation of life. Being that we dont know the chain of chemical reactions and events, it is correct not to rule out any of them yet.

No we dont know. It could have taken trillions...or one. Or do you find a way to rule out any alternative to your obvious favorite..trillions?

 

[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?

The odds are about forty billion to one, according to the latest estimates.

I believe, by all the evidence, that the odds are something just this side of infinity to one. Because obviously we are here, thus less than infinity... but no others are, so a tremendously rare event over the course of 14 billion years.
Some here postulating trillions of reactions..over billions of years. If that is the case, trillions times billions, then odds of 40 billion to one would make new life originations a commonplace event.
Obviously that is not the case.
In fact, when you get into odds as high as to preclude only the one event despite "trillions of reactions" over billions of years, you are almost at the point of having to view it as a miracle.