NobelCynic
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 29, 2006
Age: 64
Posts: 683
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 10:41 am Post subject: The origin of life |
 |
|
As far as I know, science has yet to develop a theory of abiogenesis which would be a theory of how life come to be. Evolution only covers how life became so diversified but how it began is an unanswered question. There are basically two possibilities. Either matter came into existence first, or perhaps always existed and began reshaping at the big bang, and that brought life into existence; or life always existed or came into existence first and that created matter.
For the most part, atheists assume the former and theists the latter yet I know of no evidence to support either assumption and if either side has a reason for assuming what they do, I don't know what it is.
Can anyone inform me?
_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 10:45 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| NobelCynic wrote: | As far as I know, science has yet to develop a theory of abiogenesis which would be a theory of how life come to be. Evolution only covers how life became so diversified but how it began is an unanswered question. There are basically two possibilities. Either matter came into existence first, or perhaps always existed and began reshaping at the big bang, and that brought life into existence; or life always existed or came into existence first and that created matter.
For the most part, atheists assume the former and theists the latter yet I know of no evidence to support either assumption and if either side has a reason for assuming what they do, I don't know what it is.
Can anyone inform me? |
The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance. The question is still wide open and no one knows for sure how it will be answered or even if it will be answered at all.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance ... |
... and I would add the bet of intelligent design first making same possible.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 10:55 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| leejosepho wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance ... |
... and I would add the bet of intelligent design first making same possible. |
No evidence of a Designer is at hand. Natural processes means the universe, dumb, deaf and non-alive as it is is doing its thing. We are all contingent happenstances. The result of underlying natural forces and blind chance. If there is a supreme intelligence in the cosmos even It started out this way.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whether this universe was handcrafted for life to emerge from the start or whether this universe is just one of many and just happens to be suited for life to emerge is unknown. But I think dragging a later handcrafted abiogenesis event into is a bad bet.
If the gods exist they obviously prefer to use natural systems whenever possible. Because that's what we see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TallyMan
Rebooting
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Posts: 36591
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:01 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance. The question is still wide open and no one knows for sure how it will be answered or even if it will be answered at all. |
Experiments done a year or two ago show that amino acids can organise themselves into RNA too. Once you have RNA the rest is just cause and effect, chemistry at work; no divine instruction manual required.
_________________
- signature - |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:02 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| TallyMan wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance. The question is still wide open and no one knows for sure how it will be answered or even if it will be answered at all. |
Experiments done a year or two ago show that amino acids can organise themselves into RNA too. Once you have RNA the rest is just cause and effect, chemistry at work; no divine instruction manual required. |
I like that.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately in this area of discussion there is the common proposal that ignorance of occurrences is used to prove the existence of a doubtful action. Unfortunately that outlook can only indicate a possibility and an unlikely one at that since there are no indications it exists. Since all life processes in existence function on known principles it seems very likely they always did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sand wrote: | | Unfortunately in this area of discussion there is the common proposal that ignorance of occurrences is used to prove the existence of a doubtful action. Unfortunately that outlook can only indicate a possibility and an unlikely one at that since there are no indications it exists. Since all life processes in existence function on known principles it seems very likely they always did. |
Do you mean living stuff has always existed?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Sand wrote: | | Unfortunately in this area of discussion there is the common proposal that ignorance of occurrences is used to prove the existence of a doubtful action. Unfortunately that outlook can only indicate a possibility and an unlikely one at that since there are no indications it exists. Since all life processes in existence function on known principles it seems very likely they always did. |
Do you mean living stuff has always existed?
ruveyn |
That may be your theory. It seems unlikely to me. All I am suggesting is that we work with what we see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Philologos
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 22, 2010
Posts: 6977
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
We know life originated here [I am not ruling out the hypothesis that the first life HERE came from otherwhence already alive; just saying there was a first terrestrial life.].
Seeing life originate elsewhere, or coming up with a plausible scenario how it might have happened proves nothing.
It does not help that we do not really have a non-arbitrary definition of the boundary between life and non-life.
Only someone who watched life originate here would be imn a position to state categorically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | No evidence of a Designer is at hand ... |
... and neither is there any suggesting one is not.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philologos wrote: | We know life originated here [I am not ruling out the hypothesis that the first life HERE came from otherwhence already alive; just saying there was a first terrestrial life.].
Seeing life originate elsewhere, or coming up with a plausible scenario how it might have happened proves nothing.
It does not help that we do not really have a non-arbitrary definition of the boundary between life and non-life.
Only someone who watched life originate here would be imn a position to state categorically. |
We do not know that life originated here. Fred Hoyle postulated that it might have drifted in from outer space. Others suggested that life here may have come from garbage tossed out by a passing space ship. No one knows at present. One of the many theories is that a supernatural being waved a hand or a tentacle or some other appendage and thereby created life.That seems one of the more unlikely teories since we have never encountered a supernatural being. But no one has seen passing space ships either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: Re: The origin of life |
|
|
| TallyMan wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | The Urey Miller experiment which shows how amino acids form by a natural process tends to favor the matter --> life hypothesis. My bet is that life arose from insensate non-alive matter by chance. The question is still wide open and no one knows for sure how it will be answered or even if it will be answered at all. |
Experiments done a year or two ago show that amino acids can organise themselves into RNA too ...
... no divine instruction manual required. |
How do/can you be so certain?
Ray Charles was blind;
Some say love is blind;
Some say God is love;
Nobody can prove that either way;
Why/how was Ray Charles blind?
Why/how did people love Ray Charles?
Mere "natural selection"?
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
Philologos
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 22, 2010
Posts: 6977
|
| Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sand wrote: | | Philologos wrote: | We know life originated here [I am not ruling out the hypothesis that the first life HERE came from otherwhence already alive; just saying there was a first terrestrial life.].
Seeing life originate elsewhere, or coming up with a plausible scenario how it might have happened proves nothing.
It does not help that we do not really have a non-arbitrary definition of the boundary between life and non-life.
Only someone who watched life originate here would be imn a position to state categorically. |
We do not know that life originated here. Fred Hoyle postulated that it might have drifted in from outer space. Others suggested that life here may have come from garbage tossed out by a passing space ship. No one knows at present. One of the many theories is that a supernatural being waved a hand or a tentacle or some other appendage and thereby created life.That seems one of the more unlikely teories since we have never encountered a supernatural being. But no one has seen passing space ships either. |
I will interrupt my Sand silernce again because this is exceptional.
READ MY LIPS, dummy. I SPECIFICALLY indicated I was not postulating that ALL life necessarily originated here, NOR that the life found here disd not have an external origin.
I said and say - there was a first instance of life here. Or else there IS no life here. Pick one and put your reading specs on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
