Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grey Wolf on August 03, 2004, 02:20:40 pm
-
I was reading an article at Space.com ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/meteorite_survival_001025-1.html ) and it led me to thinking. What are your views of the origin of life on Earth? Spontaneous formation of proteins, the theory espoused in the article, or something else entirely?
-
I try not to think about it.
BTW; nice new GTD Wolf avatar.
-
Some form of spontaneous formation, partially caused by an as-yet-undiscovered, um, 'tendency' which leads to an increased chance of the creation of life.
Er...so not completely random - but not created - down to some aspect of subatomic physics or biolgy or something which in some way improves the odds on the formation of life. Call it 'crystallisation' or something - I've always liked the notion, unfounded as it may be, that there is an inherent tendency within the rules of the universe for life to develop.
I've always felt that saying life was in some way 'transported' to earth is really dodging the issue, because life still has to emerge somewhere.
-
T3H VORLONS DID IT!
eh...
never mind...
-
When a man and a woman love eachother...
...oh, wrong topic.
To be honest I'm not sure - I do err towards the concept of evolution into Homo Sapiens though - it seems a logical concept. Though whether it all began with promordial soup... I really don't know.
-
the Great Green Arklesiezure...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I've always felt that saying life was in some way 'transported' to earth is really dodging the issue, because life still has to emerge somewhere.
Now this is exactly what I've been saying for years. What difference does it make ultimately where the primordial soup was located.
In truth, there's less sense in it, because for life to have come to Earth at the time the fossil record shows it emerging, the entire solar system would have been far too young to have evolved a life form capable of surviving both the void of space and the shock of re-entry or planetary impact. And if it came from somewhere older in the galaxy, how'd it get through the interstellar void? Not much does, IIRC. Ultimately the odds of that happening are less (far less) than the chances of spontaneous protien combination by simple random collisions.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
the Great Green Arklesiezure...
Atchoooo!
-
We are reborn Minbari souls.....
-
Originally posted by Tiara
T3H VORLONS DID IT!
eh...
never mind...
well maybe not vorlons ... but some other uber cool super advanced race yeah :)
-
Of course, the universe could just be a piece of mould growing on a discarded sock in a super-giga-quantum-universe.......
makes you think, doesn't it?
no
-
or it could be just a marble in an intergalactic game of...oh wait.
-
A dollar says life began around black smokers... though sunlight or lightning could also have provided the neccessary spark. With God nearby screaming "IT'S ALIIIIIIIIVE", natch...
-
1. Take some organic chemicals
2. Take electric current
3. Take warm water
4. Combine
5. Try again and again for a couple milliard years (was it ~2,5 or what?)
6. Profit
Because the entire process lasted so long time, the odds for some self-replicating molecule to appear, even though initially small, grew as time went by. Most likely.
Or, if you wish..
A Wizard Did It!
-
Al Gore created humanity. Right after he invented the internet, and just before he invented the environment.
-
You guys know what I think. ;)
Originally posted by Raa
BTW; nice new GTD Wolf avatar.
:nervous: New?
-
Think about this, what caused the big bang? I should think that our meager origins are considerably unimportant compared to the beginning of our universe.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
In truth, there's less sense in it, because for life to have come to Earth at the time the fossil record shows it emerging, the entire solar system would have been far too young to have evolved a life form capable of surviving both the void of space and the shock of re-entry or planetary impact. And if it came from somewhere older in the galaxy, how'd it get through the interstellar void? Not much does, IIRC. Ultimately the odds of that happening are less (far less) than the chances of spontaneous protien combination by simple random collisions.
Not neccesarily - in fact, much of what you've written here is pretty much common misconception.
First off, the simpler the life, the more robust it is. Thus, the younger the life, the more likely it would have been able to survive interstellar travel and reentry. Bacteria are damned robust things, and I have no trouble accepting they could have survived in the heart of a spaceborne meteorite, especially since the discovery of the subsurface Archaebacteria not that long ago.
Moreover, the earliest proper fossils have been traced back to about 3.5 billion years (There's evidence from isotopic carbon ratios and stuff that it actually arrived a little earlier, maybe 3.8, but the 3.5 is a more certain figure). The Earth is estimated to be around 4.5 billion. That's a billion years. A Bloody long time, even in the geological scale. Admittedly, most of that period was rather nasty, but still, the earth's been around awhile longer than life.
Personally, I'm with DG, and going with the black smokers rather than the primordial soup or even extraterrestrial origin. The probelm with the Earths surface at 3.5 billion years ago was that we were constantly being bombarded by huge meteorites than had the irritating habit of blocking out the sun for thousands of years at a time, which would have killed surface life. If you accept a surface origin, then life would have almost certainly have had to start several times over, which is possible I suppose, especially if you subscribe to the Life tendency theory (That basically states that life tends to arise wherever the conditions are right... I'm sitting on the fence on that one). Anyway, without a surface origin, you're left with geothermal heat providing the energy beneath the ground, or Black Smokers under the early seas. I prefer the black smoker theory because it'd be a lot easier to adapt to surface or near surface life from the oceans than it would from living in porous rock dozens of kms down, plus the Black smokers would provide a more ready supply of sulphur and the like for chemical breakdown.
-
The Butler did it!
-
one problem: they still haven't found a large mass of intelligent life on this planet yet. :p
sporadic groupings of sentient life have been found.. :p
-
I've got to go with the black smokers theory too.
While life could have got here from somewhere else Occam's razor cuts that theory to pieces. Life evolving elsewhere is no more probable than it evolving here so why subscribe to a more complicated theory for no good reason.
There's a theory that inorganic clay crystal formation was the source which is quite interesting too though.
-
due to the Law of Extremely Large Numbers and the conditions on early earth the probability of life forming was overwhelmingly in _favor_
-
I tend to agree there Kazan. I saw a paper on self replicating molecules a few years back. The molecule was surprisingly small.
When you consider the fact that a self replicating molecule only has to arise once and that you have 3.5 billion years for it to happen it becomes a reasonable probability that something will happen sooner or later.
-
especially if you remember in reality PARELLEL test's of probability happen, not serial
-
There's also a theory, IIRC, that proteins didn't spontaneously form, but rather 'evolved' into the form that allowed life (and DNA, blahblahblah)... which sounds pretty damn plausible, especially as it means there's no need to rely on the gigantic odds of a protein like collagen forming spontaneously.
(NB: IIRC, the odds of a 200-amino-acid protein forming spontaneously are 1*10^260, which is a stupidly large number. And that's excluding the interrelationship with DNA and whatnot which allows life to form)
I think a/the book which describes this in proper detail is called The Blind Watchmaker. I've not read it, only seen a summary and reference.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393315703/104-4918594-4199961?v=glance is it, I believe. The presence of negative reviews from creationists lends it a nice bit of credibility ;)
-
proteins didn't spontaenously form -- what we were talking about earlier were protein precursors
-
Originally posted by Kazan
proteins didn't spontaenously form -- what we were talking about earlier were protein precursors
Missed that.
My post wasn't really a direct response or anything, just a generally supportive, um, thought that occured to me.
-
Anyone looking for a book on this subject should pick up "The Fifth Miracle" by Paul Davies (Link to Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684837994?v=glance)). This book kicks arse, and explains things really well. Another good read is "A Short History of Planet Earth" by Ian Pilmer. This is a geology book at heart, and only spends a chapter or two on biogenesis, but presents something of an opposing view to Davies' book, and is slightly more up to date. The rest of the book's a good read too, so it's worth the cash, either to purchase or for the fuel for a trip to the library.
-
[color=66ff00]I'm surprised that nobody has ventured the possibility that the human race has evolved from consultants, telephone sanitation engineers and hairdressers...
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I'm surprised that nobody has ventured the possibility that the human race has evolved from consultants, telephone sanitation engineers and hairdressers...
[/color]
Then hairdressers, consultants and telephone sanitation engineers would have vanished through natural selection (beat over the head with a mallet), though.
-
[color=66ff00]*sulks*
When the Vogons arrive it won't matter anyhow.
[/color]
-
NO! the beginning of earth is all part of teh conspiracy! :nervous: :shaking: :nervous:
-
God! ;7
I know that by saying this I am prone to extreme flaming, disgust, hatred, etc...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
God! ;7
I know that by saying this I am prone to extreme flaming, disgust, hatred, etc...
No cause I agree with you....... :D
It was God
and whoever doesn't agree with me get a Bible and read Genesis and the first chapter of the book of John!
-
Since i wans't about since the begining of time, I often have trouble imagining how life started. In general I don't like to think about concepts involving time, as i've only 18 years experience of time passing under my belt. Indeed, even yestarday seems a long time ago when you think about it.
But enough of my dillusions, given the right sort of elements (both material and conditions like temprature), a bit of time, and a bit of change life could form. I dont think it would always happen on every planet with earth like conditions, or any conditions capable of life support. In the end it just comes down to chance. Life did form on earth, but the smallest atom out of place could have made the difference between me posting this message, and the earth just being a rocky ball with liquid water on it.
-
A force currently unknown to man, because we know practically nothing.
AKA God.
-
Of course God is my answer
*hides*
:shaking:
-
deepblue and jdtcagle are delusional
-
:lol:
-
Holy crap 3 people agreed with me on the subject of "God" as the answer. I have newfound respect in you! :nod:
-
You should have respect for people no matter what they believe, God says not to judge people for yourself
-
No! Biogenesis topic > Religion debate! Go start a new thread. God and the beginning of life are totally unrelated.
-
He's right...
(to a point) :p
-
jdjtcagle: i only have to respect your right to have and opinion, i do not, and infact it is dangerous to, respect every opinion
You are delusional, all three of you -- you have absolutely positively ZERO evidence supporting your poisiton and yet you assert that your position is the absolute truth in the face of invalidating evidence
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusional
3. # Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
-
If that is the definition then yes I am and if you don't respect me Kazan, whatever...
Ok Kazan, all this your dangerous to society bull**** gets on my nerves, seriously...
I don't ask anybody to believe, I don't try and persuade people to believe, and I don't go around in the streets yelling and screaming about the return of christ, ect...
I simply live my life the way I want without being persuaded to believe anything that they want me to believe and I don't persuade or interfere with the way they live there life
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I was reading an article at Space.com ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/meteorite_survival_001025-1.html ) and it led me to thinking. What are your views of the origin of life on Earth? Spontaneous formation of proteins, the theory espoused in the article, or something else entirely?
Trying not to sound to spiritualistic...
Earth is a living planet. Earth breathes life... life exists everywhere, from the microbes in soil, to the African plains, to the most extreme enviroments of Antartica and oceanic trenches.
Earth is simply TEEMING with life.
-
I'd assume everything is "alive" to some degree. How it all started, I have no idea. Wouldn't even want to hazard a guess, although I'm quite sure that with further understanding of science, we're getting closer and closer to the answer.
-
[color=66ff00]Guys, learn from experience; Kazan is particularly vocal about the whole 'God issue' and will argue for hours stating many more references than you could believe exist.
Sit happily and believe what is best to you and ignore those who would undermine your beliefs.
Kazan, learn from experience; these guys are particularly vocal about the whole 'God issue' and will argue for hours stating many more references than you could believe exist.
Sit happily and believe what is best to you and ignore those who would undermine your beliefs.
[/color]
-
Maeglamor.. you're _half_ right -- they don't have any references i would be suprised to see and couldn't invalidate in a matter of minutes -- i speak from pure expirience.
-
[color=66ff00]See.
[/color]
-
This was really intended to be a discussion on how, not why. Those are completely different discussions. Scientists and engineers debate how. Philosophers debate why. Even if you believe God created life on earth, the question is how, in scientific terms, did the actual event happen.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
This was really intended to be a discussion on how, not why. Those are completely different discussions.
I disagree. The concepts are not so distant as you think. The meaning of the purpose of life come from the same source as the answer to the origin of life.
Consider the invention/creation/birth of anything "new". A baby, a new product, a new theory - for lack of appropriate comparisons. The only explanation for why lies in the heart of the how. Why is a baby born? Ask the parents. Why is a new product invented and sold? Ask the inventors. Why is a new theory proposed? Ask the scholar.
Thus, if life does have a purpose; to know that purpose one must question the source of life. If life does not have a purpose, then why even search for how? For what comfort could the how bring, lest it answers the why?
-
Originally posted by Impurial
Thus, if life does have a purpose; to know that purpose one must question the source of life. If life does not have a purpose, then why even search for how? For what comfort could the how bring, lest it answers the why?
There is no why. I'm quite comfortable in that fact. In fact I sleep better at night knowing there is no ultimate reason why I'm here. The problem with spiritual people is that they can't comprehend this fact and think that deep down I'm missing something cause I crave the same answers they do.
Sadly they are wrong. I've long ago dealt with the fact that there is no why. How on the other hand is important because every little bit of knowledge is one step further down the road to explaining how the universe works.
Originally posted by aldo_14
There's also a theory, IIRC, that proteins didn't spontaneously form, but rather 'evolved' into the form that allowed life (and DNA, blahblahblah)... which sounds pretty damn plausible, especially as it means there's no need to rely on the gigantic odds of a protein like collagen forming spontaneously.
(NB: IIRC, the odds of a 200-amino-acid protein forming spontaneously are 1*10^260, which is a stupidly large number. And that's excluding the interrelationship with DNA and whatnot which allows life to form)
I think a/the book which describes this in proper detail is called The Blind Watchmaker. I've not read it, only seen a summary and reference.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393315703/104-4918594-4199961?v=glance is it, I believe. The presence of negative reviews from creationists lends it a nice bit of credibility ;)
The blind watchmaker is sheer brilliance. The inorganic clays theory I mentioned earlier is explained quite well in that book. I would however suggest reading the Selfish Gene first (same author) as that is a much easier book to understand.
-
Gee-ohh-dee
:drevil:
*spites Kazan purposefully*
-
We don't need a why. Because life is.
Why does it exist? Because in this xxxth iteration of the universe, or reality, or whatever, life began and evolved. The numbers came out right.
-
aldo: that's assuming serial trials of the probability - in reality PARELLEL (billions upon billions at once) of trials happen simultaenously
Just to keep the watchmaker fallacy from hopping in: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design
-
Life began when two godly companies invented a game called Freespace.
-
only one of those companies was godly -- the other was satanic
;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: that's assuming serial trials of the probability - in reality PARELLEL (billions upon billions at once) of trials happen simultaenously
Just to keep the watchmaker fallacy from hopping in: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design
What about the Big bang - collapse cycle?
Analogy still works if you think side to side in time, not forward and back, anyways.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Just to keep the watchmaker fallacy from hopping in: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design
One more reason for reading The Blind Watchmaker. It has an even more in-depth explaination of the fallacies of the Watchmaker arguement.
-
aldo: there are still parallel trials of the probabilities even with the theorectically expansion/contraction cycle (i'm still 'out' on that one..)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
deepblue and jdtcagle are delusional
And you honestly think tht everything just happened out of no where? Where there is a creation there is bound to be a Creator.
If I set a coke can in front of you and said that it appeared out of nowhere would you believe me?
-
We came here from same place as all living Creatures in this planet, I don't know how maybe from Asteroid that did hit billions of years (started reaction and all living things did birth) or maybe Forces of nature did it somehow or god did create all living creatures we never know....
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: there are still parallel trials of the probabilities even with the theorectically expansion/contraction cycle (i'm still 'out' on that one..)
Y'know what I mean - in the grand pool of multiple serial/parallel universes, this one came out in such a way as that life developed. :)
-
So in every conclusion we ever come up with and never learn, Bickering, bigotry, or flaming is stupid and gets us nowhere
-
Originally posted by Falcon
And you honestly think tht everything just happened out of no where? Where there is a creation there is bound to be a Creator.
If I set a coke can in front of you and said that it appeared out of nowhere would you believe me?
this is a form of the watchmaker fallacy.. please refere to my previous post
(Hint: something existing doesn't require someone to create it -- things can arise naturally)