The Beginning of Life

[legion]

Originally posted by craigster59
So, was this after a hit of the "kush" or the "chronic"?

Unfortunately no.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by W Scott Shores
Here's a little secret from those of us with advanced degrees in biology: nobody really knows the answer. There are theories (see on-ramp's explanation), but this is one of the more faith-based areas of science.

Shhhhh! If the average person realizes that science doesn't know everything life as we know it will come to and end!

I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad thing....

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
As a side note, we know very little about the small life forms found in soil. In fact, the rain forests are void or bacteria in the dirt compared to the tundra which is rich in microbes. We know nothing about the lil critters deep down. Deep dpwn is where life began. Maybe if we look there and try to understand proto-life forms like virus and super-virus will we begin to understand the origins of life.

Nuh uh... We are the smartest people in the universe and we know everyting, human bings have it all figured out...
I can't hear you...
(fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The chemical compounds that are the basis of life (amino acids and other organic compounds) are easily synthesized and occur naturally. It's not a very far leap from a "primordial soup" rich in these types of compounds to a longer, more complex molecule that self-replicates. The exact mechanism of this self-replication is not yet fully understood, but to believe that it's solely and exclusively due to some sort of divine intervention is pretty ridiculous, IMO. An explaination will certianly be found - probably in the near future.

Also, I believe the first self-replicating molecule is believed to have been rudimentary RNA (not DNA). It existed in molecular forms for a long time before prokaryotes evolved and true "cells" as we understand them came into being.

I think most people are simply not able to comprehend the time scales of evolution - we're talking roughly 3.5 BILLION years. That's 3.5 thousand thousand thousand. It's a very big quantity. Doubt most people here have ever seen 3.5 billion of ANYTHING. It's a staggering amount of time. Certainly enough to facilitate some amazing things and amazing chemical reactions given the right conditions.

Sorry, but I think we're mostly the accidents of very basic chemical processes, given a very very long time to become more complex and sophisticated. Much as we like to assign significance and nobility and divinity to our own existence (or perhaps egos) - the evidence simply does not support it. The prospect of being small, insignificant and accidental in a vast, cold and lonely universe is a difficult concept for most people to accept, so they invent wonderful and poetic stories to ease the pain. Not entirely a bad thing, but it should not be confused with reality either.

[Taz's Master]

Someone is going to have to convince me that Dark Matter is more than an imaginary fudge factor to allow the math to work out before I'm going to believe that the Big Bang is science and not faith based. What science professes to be facts about the beginning of the universe (other than it resulted in what we have now) that will stay unchanged for the next 100 years is precious little.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The same has been said throughout history about everything we didn't fully understand - until we learned to understand it. The sun, moon, planets, movements of celestial bodies, thunder, lightning, etc. I'd recommend doing some reading on the "God of the gaps" before basing your position on that. Likely there's a lot still that we don't fully understand but in time our understanding will grow - just like it has with respect to chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics, etc. As such, the need for "godly" explainations diminishes.

[imcarthur]

So. Yes, I buy it all.

But where did the marble come from?

Is it from some god/alien's board game & it just bounced away & blew up?

Ian

[Jim Richards]

42

[Taz's Master]

Porsche-O, I'm not saying our understanding is not improving, nor am I saying that it is useless to use science to understand nature because it doesn't provide all the answers right now. I'm just saying that to me God is more believable than Dark Matter, but either way you got to have faith. When our mathematical understanding of our universe's origins depends on a premise like that, acting like we know with certainty the process, timeline, really much of anything about the origins of life or the solar system or the universe is being a bit dishonest.

You're saying when we understand it, it will all make sense. All I'm saying is that when we understand it, it's very possible much of what we believe (have faith in) to be true today won't be, and there is no garuntee the Big Bang will continue to be a viable theory.

[red-beard]

I'll take "Forms in the Ether" for 400, Alex.

[Rondinone]

Originally posted by Taz's Master
Porsche-O, I'm not saying our understanding is not improving, nor am I saying that it is useless to use science to understand nature because it doesn't provide all the answers right now. I'm just saying that to me God is more believable than Dark Matter, but either way you got to have faith. When our mathematical understanding of our universe's origins depends on a premise like that, acting like we know with certainty the process, timeline, really much of anything about the origins of life or the solar system or the universe is being a bit dishonest.

You're saying when we understand it, it will all make sense. All I'm saying is that when we understand it, it's very possible much of what we believe (have faith in) to be true today won't be, and there is no garuntee the Big Bang will continue to be a viable theory.

To use dark matter as an example, no dark matter has ever been observed on the Earth, and we have no idea what it really is, and we simply infer its presence based on derivative observations. Sounds alot like religion to me. And I'm a professional scientist.

Like you I find it far more absurd to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no reason. When you consider the vastness of the universe and our miniscule role in it, why is it unrealistic to accept that there may be a being on scale with the universe? Is string or M theory, or a curved or infinite universe really more believable than a supreme being? Not to me.

Personally, the more I learn about biochemistry the more I think that evolution had help.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
...Also, I believe the first self-replicating molecule is believed to have been rudimentary RNA (not DNA). It existed in molecular forms for a long time before prokaryotes evolved and true "cells" as we understand them came into being....

Didn't I say this

That being said, there are clearly many gaps in the theory. Really depends on what you want to believe before you get to the data.

[sammyg2]

You don't have to prove god exists. You have to believe he exists.

The rest will take care of itself in due time.

[nine_one_4]

If the probability of flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2, then the probability of flipping the coin twice in a row and getting heads both times is (1/2)^2 = 1/4 and the probability off getting heads three times in a row is (1/2)^3 = 1/8 and so on. Similarly, if after the first living organism sprang into life and the probability of it surviving one mutation was 99/100, then the probability of it surviving the first 1000 mutations would be (99/100)^1000 = 0.000043171. If the earth didn't have an ozone layer, life would have evolved on earth to cope with that condition and the same would be true if there were no radiation belts to filter out the harmful charged particles from the sun etc. So you see, the complex life and ecosystem that has evolved on earth is not really as miraculous as some would have you believe and given enough time such life will evolve on every planet, moon and desolate place.

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by sammyg2
You don't have to prove god exists. You have to believe he exists.

The rest will take care of itself in due time.

how can you believe in something that's not proven.

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too...does that mean they exist? that's insanity.

[nine_one_4]

Originally posted by on-ramp
how can you believe in something that's not proven.

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too...does that mean they exist? that's insanity.

The fact is that you do know God exists.

Romans 1:18-20

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

[trekkor]

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 followed by 113 zeros. But any event that has one chance in just 10 followed by fifty zreos is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10 followed by 113 zeros is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!


KT

[Won]

Originally posted by on-ramp
repeatable? i suppose if you kill off all life as we know it and the same conditions exist as they did 4.5 billion years ago, then yes, it might repeat. but there's no guarantee.

That doesn't mean we can't try

Seriously, let's say protein synthesis worked, via one way or another. What then motivated this "matter" to want to replicate itself? What made it possible for it to "want" or, at least at the very basic level, "think", i.e. become a "living" organism and not remain a blob of protein, sitting on the corner? Even if somehow the RNA and DNA assembled by itself this code to reproduce, it's not really a "life" is it? I think the synthesis of protein and such are all very plausible, but when did the mass of protein become what we consider as the first living "organism" and how would we distinguish it? Where did that "living" part come from? Did this thing just become self-aware (this did not until much later, I know) one day and start the first life? Going back to the original question, when/where is the beginning of life?

[svandamme]

been eating psychedelics of some sort Legion? strange mushrooms for evening dinner? a tasty cacti you couldn't help but eat? or a little vial of Sandoz Delysid that just happened to appear in the medicine cabinet?



for life's more tricky questions :

[IROC]

Originally posted by trekkor
The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 followed by 113 zeros.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life on this planet, so I doubt that "evolutionists" acknowledge anything like what you've written above. That sounds like some Kent Hovind nonsense.

I think people like to hide behind "statistics" like the one above when they don't fully understand science or don't want to try.

Mike