Explanation of How Chemical and Physical Processes Established Foundation for Life

[Jim Richards]

The Creature must be horny.

[lendaddy]

The point about "odds" is a very silly one as it hinges on the idea that there was a goal in mind during the "chemical coin flips". Obviously from the non religious standpoint there was not so the odds are not even legitimate.

In other words.. You flip a coin a billion times and record the exact sequence. The odds of flipping a coin a billion times an getting that exact same sequence are indeed massively huge. But...there you are, you just did it!! OMG it's amazing!!!!

Well, no... not amazing at all. There was no sequence in mind when you started, so there are no odds to calculate. The coin simply flipped the way it flipped.

The chemical coin flipping that went on resulted in our current physical bodies. Had the coins flipped different we would be different.. or maybe we wouldn't "be" at all. But the point is that "odds" played no part in it.

[IROC]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The point about "odds" is a very silly one as it hinges on the idea that there was a goal in mind during the "chemical coin flips". Obviously from the non religious standpoint there was not so the odds are not even legitimate.

Exactly. Obviously, the flips turned out to be in the exact sequence necessary for me to end up typing this post. Now, to go back to the beginning and make a prediction of what flips needed to occur to allow me to type this post, we would be back to "brah".

The coin-flipping analogy becomes appropriate when someone argues that it never could have occurred *because* of probability. Lots of chemical arrangements were going on back then, some worked out, lots of them didn't. But the point is, there were LOTS of them.

[trekkor]

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule?

It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly.

Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?


KT

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by trekkor
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule?
KT

There was no goal of creating a protein molecule.

The question is what are the odds of amino acids combining and mutating into something/anything else.

You are thinking from a position of predetermination.

[Tervuren]

My problem with accepting this, is the sheer amount of radiation going on, would kill and break up anything that tried to form the building blocks of a single living cell. The same energy allowing basic building blocks to be built, would kill any living organism.

Its not a matter of odds for me, just simple fact that if we look at the radiation levels back then, life starting is not possible until after things have cooled down a lot - at which point you no longer have the necessary energy for the chemical reactions...

I think teaching anything about origins of life in schools is a big waste of time, whatever was believed in the past is out of date, and what is current will be. I'm not much of one for teaching anything in he past full of "ifs" and "perhaps" in every sentence - unless its teaching logic.(which there is a lack of understanding of logic, its uses, and meaning these days.)

They might as well being teaching 'perhaps two minutes to five years ago, a giant elephant may have sat on several ingrediants, and maybee when it got up, it could have left the sandwich you are eating today.

I got sick of reading such unscientific crud in school, was a big waste of time. When I talk to someone in their 50's, their knowledge is laughable compared to what is being taught, it was an entire waste of time.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The point about "odds" is a very silly one as it hinges on the idea that there was a goal in mind during the "chemical coin flips". Obviously from the non religious standpoint there was not so the odds are not even legitimate.

In other words.. You flip a coin a billion times and record the exact sequence. The odds of flipping a coin a billion times an getting that exact same sequence are indeed massively huge. But...there you are, you just did it!! OMG it's amazing!!!!

Well, no... not amazing at all. There was no sequence in mind when you started, so there are no odds to calculate. The coin simply flipped the way it flipped.

The chemical coin flipping that went on resulted in our current physical bodies. Had the coins flipped different we would be different.. or maybe we wouldn't "be" at all. But the point is that "odds" played no part in it.

It doesn't make it any less remarkable. Does it?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
It doesn't make it any less remarkable. Does it?

No, but I don't see what difference it makes as to how remarkable it is/was anyway.

[kang]

Originally posted by Tervuren
My problem with accepting this, is the sheer amount of radiation going on, would kill and break up anything that tried to form the building blocks of a single living cell. The same energy allowing basic building blocks to be built, would kill any living organism.

There were (are) plenty of places to hide from radiation, deep in caves, etc.

Originally posted by Tervuren
Its not a matter of odds for me, just simple fact that if we look at the radiation levels back then, life starting is not possible until after things have cooled down a lot - at which point you no longer have the necessary energy for the chemical reactions...

What do you mean by “you no longer have the necessary energy for chemical reactions?” Last time I checked, we still have the energy required for chemical reactions, and there is a lot less geologic or radiological energy around today. There was plenty of energy back then.

Originally posted by Tervuren
I think teaching anything about origins of life in schools is a big waste of time, whatever was believed in the past is out of date, and what is current will be. I'm not much of one for teaching anything in he past full of "ifs" and "perhaps" in every sentence - unless its teaching logic.(which there is a lack of understanding of logic, its uses, and meaning these days.)

They might as well being teaching 'perhaps two minutes to five years ago, a giant elephant may have sat on several ingrediants, and maybee when it got up, it could have left the sandwich you are eating today.

I got sick of reading such unscientific crud in school, was a big waste of time. When I talk to someone in their 50's, their knowledge is laughable compared to what is being
taught, it was an entire waste of time.

You think it is a waste of time to teach current thought? If we don’t teach that, how will we advance? Every advancement we have, in any field, comes from standing on the shoulders of those that came before us.

Not wanting to teach current thought in schools is the kind of backwards thinking that I would expect from extremists like the Taliban, who only want to indoctrinate their children with one thing, and one thing only. I suppose you think it would be better to have our children memorize the bible than it would be to teach them our current level of science, technology, industry, etc, etc?

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by lendaddy
No, but I don't see what difference it makes as to how remarkable it is/was anyway.

"Remarkable" is code for "God's creation."

[nostatic]

some of you guys should stick to your day job. Your understanding of chemistry is just a tad thin...

If you believe in God, that is fine. But don't try and use science to explain it.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm admittedly no chemist, but I think I can at least somewhat follow a logical line of reasoning. All I see here is a non-sequitor laced with hopeful assumptions.

So, let me see if I have this straight, in laymans' terms. They managed to get two catalysts in solution to combine. These catalysts can combine differently, depending upon concentrations of either. When combined, they become more complex. When combined in different ratios, they both achieve greater complexity and now variety. Is that the gist of it?

Now the assumptions; the non-sequitor. These simple chemical and physical processes may have laid the foundation for life. So they got more complex compounds through combinations of simple ones, and then leap forward to make a claim like that?

There are umpteen billions of their "novel combinations" of complexes that contain no life whatsoever. I think all they really accomplished was to demonstrate how these may have formed. There appears to be no link to "life". We observe exceedingly simple life, and exceedingly complex life. Just as we observe exceedingly simple elements all the way up to very complicated "complexes". There remains a chasm of "life" vs. "no life" between the two. I don't see where they bridged that chasm. Has anyone? Has anyone created sustainable life with such experiments? Or are we still at the "may have" stage?

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
"Remarkable" is code for "God's creation."

Let's not jump the gun. Remarkable in the sense that we are even here at all. Then there are two ways to explain the chemical proposition: by scientific explanation which is indifferent to whether it was designed or not, being only interested in the chemical levers and gears of the thing, versus that of teleology which would be interested in the maker, and, as much as possible, the motives behind it.

[nostatic]

May have. But everything requires a leap of faith, right

The crux of the argument is that random events happen, and the environment can select certain outcomes. If you can show that underlying reactions *could* have taken place, that indicates a possible route to complexity.

The question of "life" v. "no life" is somewhat beyond this. How do you determine what is sentient? Is reproduction the gold standard for "life"? Is autonomy required?

This article is talking about the underlying science, not the philosophy or metaphysics. People have generated amino acids from primodial soup. You can also do rna replication that doesn't require enzyme mediation (another key component of a grander "zero-to-hero" theory). Have we gone from soup to "life" in the test tube? No, but we've done quite a few of the component reactions. We haven't spent billions of years flipping coins...

What gets me is that some people will accept the existence of a higher power with arguably no empirical evidence, yet will dismiss science and theories like this because they haven't created "life" from soup in vitro. A double standard perhaps?

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I'm admittedly no chemist, but I think I can at least somewhat follow a logical line of reasoning. All I see here is a non-sequitor laced with hopeful assumptions.

So, let me see if I have this straight, in laymans' terms. They managed to get two catalysts in solution to combine. These catalysts can combine differently, depending upon concentrations of either. When combined, they become more complex. When combined in different ratios, they both achieve greater complexity and now variety. Is that the gist of it?

Now the assumptions; the non-sequitor. These simple chemical and physical processes may have laid the foundation for life. So they got more complex compounds through combinations of simple ones, and then leap forward to make a claim like that?

There are umpteen billions of their "novel combinations" of complexes that contain no life whatsoever. I think all they really accomplished was to demonstrate how these may have formed. There appears to be no link to "life". We observe exceedingly simple life, and exceedingly complex life. Just as we observe exceedingly simple elements all the way up to very complicated "complexes". There remains a chasm of "life" vs. "no life" between the two. I don't see where they bridged that chasm. Has anyone? Has anyone created sustainable life with such experiments? Or are we still at the "may have" stage?

So you know better than these scientists? Let’s compare your scientific credentials with theirs, shall we?

You state: “All I see here is a non-sequitor laced with hopeful assumptions.” My thinking is that you don’t want scientists to find an origin for life. The origin of life is one of the last few things that you can chalk up to god, and if a scientific explanation is found, that will burst your bubble. You are so tainted by your feeling that god exists that you are close minded to these kinds of scientific advances.

You ask:
“So they got more complex compounds through combinations of simple ones, and then leap forward to make a claim like that?”

The only claim they made was that “These simple chemical and physical processes may have laid the foundation for life.”

They didn’t claim they formed life, they claimed the *may* have laid the *foundation* for life. That’s hardly a wild claim. In fact, they say this process may have “preceded these pre-life steps.”

You also state “So they got more complex compounds through combinations of simple ones.” This is how it is postulated that life was formed. That they reproduced it in the lab is an outstanding achievement. Life is a complex compound that must have come from simple ones. These people now have a working model of how that happened, and you’re saying “So what?

You ask: “There remains a chasm of "life" vs. "no life" between the two. I don't see where they bridged that chasm.” No, they haven’t bridged that chasm, nor did they claim they have. What they claim is “the chemical interactions in the model involve competition, cooperation, innovation and a preference for consistency.” This chemical process of “competition, cooperation, innovation and a preference for consistency” are “pre-life steps.” Something along these lines must have happened before life came along.

No, they haven’t formed life, but they closed a big gap between life and no life. It is quite possibly a very major accomplishment.

Another key statement is this: “Like all useful models, theirs can be tested, and they describe how this can be done.”

Someone will come along and test this. Your belief, on the other hand, is not testable.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by kang


Someone will come along and test this. Your belief, on the other hand, is not testable.

I wouldn't go that far. Putting up with all the heretics here is quite a test of his beliefs. I'm sure the whiskey helps

[teenerted1]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
"Remarkable" is code for "God's creation."

NOT

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
re·mark·a·ble /rɪˈmɑrkəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-mahr-kuh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. notably or conspicuously unusual; extraordinary: a remarkable change.
2. worthy of notice or attention.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1595–1605; < F remarquable. See remark, -able]

—Related forms
re·mark·a·bil·i·ty, re·mark·a·ble·ness, noun
re·mark·a·bly, adverb


—Synonyms 2. notable, noteworthy, striking, extraordinary, wonderful, unusual, singular, uncommon.
—Antonyms 1, 2. common, ordinary.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source re·mark·a·ble (rĭ-mär'kə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Worthy of notice.
Attracting notice as being unusual or extraordinary. See Synonyms at noticeable.

re·mark'a·ble·ness n., re·mark'a·bly adv.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source remarkable

adjective
1. unusual or striking; "a remarkable sight"; "such poise is singular in one so young"
2. worthy of notice; "a noteworthy fact is that her students rarely complain"; "a remarkable achievement" [syn: noteworthy]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
reˈmarkable adjective

unusual; worth mentioning; extraordinary
Example: What a remarkable coincidence!; He really is a remarkable man; It is quite remarkable how alike the two children are. Arabic: مُلْفِت للإنْتِباه، رائِع، غَيْر عادي
Chinese (Simplified): 不平常的，显著的
Chinese (Traditional): 不平常的，顯著的
Czech: pozoruhodný
Danish: bemærkelsesværdig
Dutch: merkwaardig
Estonian: märkimisväärne
Finnish: huomattava
French: remarquable
German: bemerkenswert
Greek: ασυνήθιστος, αξιόλογος, αξιοσημείωτος
Hungarian: figyelemre méltó
Icelandic: athyglisverður
Indonesian: luar biasa
Italian: notevole, straordinario
Japanese: 注目すべき
Korean: 놀랄 만한, 주목할 만한
Latvian: ievērojams; neparasts; brīnišķīgs
Lithuanian: nepaprastas
Norwegian: uvanlig; bemerkelsesverdig, påfallende
Polish: nadzwyczajny
Portuguese (Brazil): notável
Portuguese (Portugal): notável
Romanian: remarcabil
Russian: удивительный
Slovak: pozoruhodný
Slovenian: izreden
Spanish: notable; curioso
Swedish: anmärkningsvärd, märklig, påfallande
Turkish: dikkate değer

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by kang
There were (are) plenty of places to hide from radiation, deep in caves, etc.

What do you mean by “you no longer have the necessary energy for chemical reactions?” Last time I checked, we still have the energy required for chemical reactions, and there is a lot less geologic or radiological energy around today. There was plenty of energy back then.

Precisely my point, if everything comes together to form a living creature in a cave, it cannot live, as it has no means of energy to keep itself alive. The first living creatures have to be plants, taking solar energy, and using it to split and join things chemically, storing the energy that can be released chemically by the organism. Life in a cave, is dependent on life outside the cave. There are indeed creatures that live in caves, and never leave, but if you killed all life except what was in the cave, it would die.

You think it is a waste of time to teach current thought? If we don’t teach that, how will we advance? Every advancement we have, in any field, comes from standing on the shoulders of those that came before us.

Current thought? I'd want to make sure it would serve some sort of usefulness. You have to understand, "current thought" of the 1400's in Erope involved a massively skewed viewpoint by power hungry leaders of a corrupt "religious" organization. I don't see much difference in the truth of the viewpoint being shoved down kids throats then, or now.

Science is entirely about belief, you either start with an outcome, form a belief of what caused, then find facts to support your belief, or the inverse, starting with facts, form a belief of the outcome of the facts, then arrange things to actually create that outcome. So many people do not realize the amount of raw faith that true science is built on, and use the word in opposition to faith, which immediately alerts me to a very narrow minded person.

[kang]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Precisely my point, if everything comes together to form a living creature in a cave, it cannot live, as it has no means of energy to keep itself alive. The first living creatures have to be plants, taking solar energy, and using it to split and join things chemically, storing the energy that can be released chemically by the organism. Life in a cave, is dependent on life outside the cave. There are indeed creatures that live in caves, and never leave, but if you killed all life except what was in the cave, it would die.

Current thought? I'd want to make sure it would serve some sort of usefulness. You have to understand, "current thought" of the 1400's in Erope involved a massively skewed viewpoint by power hungry leaders of a corrupt "religious" organization. I don't see much difference in the truth of the viewpoint being shoved down kids throats then, or now.

Science is entirely about belief, you either start with an outcome, form a belief of what caused, then find facts to support your belief, or the inverse, starting with facts, form a belief of the outcome of the facts, then arrange things to actually create that outcome. So many people do not realize the amount of raw faith that true science is built on, and use the word in opposition to faith, which immediately alerts me to a very narrow minded person.

Your first paragraph is not true at all. Check out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_life You will see that there were simple cells called prokaryotes that existed for a billion years before photosynthesis evolved. There was plenty of organic matter (that was not life) for them to eat, and plenty of heat energy (sun, geologic), for them to survive. The first living creatures were NOT plants.

There is also plenty of life in caves, or deep under the sea, that live off of geologic energy, not using photosynthesis at all. This life exists currently, and is not dependent on “life outside the cave.”

Do a little homework before you make false statements like “the first living creatures had to be plants” or “Life in a cave, is dependent on life outside the cave.”

Current thought? I'd want to make sure it would serve some sort of usefulness. You have to understand, "current thought" of the 1400's in Erope involved a massively skewed viewpoint by power hungry leaders of a corrupt "religious" organization. I don't see much difference in the truth of the viewpoint being shoved down kids throats then, or now.

You don’t see a difference between power hungry leaders of a corrupt religious organization and what is currently taught in public schools? What would you have public schools teach besides current thought? Out of date thought? Your particular religious beliefs?

Science is entirely about belief, you either start with an outcome, form a belief of what caused, then find facts to support your belief, or the inverse, starting with facts, form a belief of the outcome of the facts, then arrange things to actually create that outcome. So many people do not realize the amount of raw faith that true science is built on, and use the word in opposition to faith, which immediately alerts me to a very narrow minded person.

Again, science can be tested. Many things are tested and shown to be false. They are thrown out immediately. Those that are true remain. Where is the faith, or belief, in this? Where is the narrow mindedness in this? It is those who believe without questioning, without testing, who are narrow minded.

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Tervuren

Science is entirely about belief, you either start with an outcome, form a belief of what caused, then find facts to support your belief, or the inverse, starting with facts, form a belief of the outcome of the facts, then arrange things to actually create that outcome. So many people do not realize the amount of raw faith that true science is built on, and use the word in opposition to faith, which immediately alerts me to a very narrow minded person. [/B]

Wow...just wow.