3 ms·

> a system with primordial chemicals could generate self-replicating reactions and structures - you could figure that out by looking in a mirror Only if you re

by joobus 9y ago

> a system with primordial chemicals could generate self-replicating reactions and structures - you could figure that out by looking in a mirror Only if you require no evidence, and no verifiable, independently confirmed experiments to back up your claim. What you said is basically the scientist's version of intelligent design at this point.

xenadu02 9y ago
There have been plenty of experiments showing that the building blocks of life will spontaneously self-assemble under the right conditions. We have now confirmed that comets and other bodies in space contain complex molecules such as hydrocarbons. There are also plenty of experiments demonstrating that certain structures self-assemble and even "replicate" (for some definition of replicate) under the right conditions, purely as a function of their molecular structure. There is no conclusive proof... but certainly everything we've discovered to date supports abiogenesis of life given the right conditions and a few 100 million years for many trillions of attempts. It is likely that the first "life" wasn't life as we would define it, more like a prion: a self-replicating molecule built out of amino acids dumped on Earth from meteorite and comet impacts. The first true "life" was probably exceedingly simple and lived off chemical reactions around hydrothermal vents.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  No conclusive proof? No proof at all. Go and listen to James Tour and his video on the problems of just getting the right pre-life chemical synthesis to occur. He is a organic chemist (one of the top in the world) and he talks about each of the incompatible processes between each step. I would be more inclined to take his word for it than a biologist (of any stripe). Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life (as in close to 0 as to make no difference) irrespective of the amount of time that is allocated.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life Yet we know it happened, because life exists, and it didn't spring from magic so it must have sprung from non-life. Random chance is a hell of a search algorithm, abiogenesis is simply the inevitable outcome randomly trying every possible combination over hundreds of millions of years. There are no more likely scenarios.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      Just because we know something is, does not mean know why. You make a very broad leap to say that there are only two possibilities - magic and abiogenesis - and that one of those possibilities doesn't exist. There are three broad classifications of philosophical belief - the universe is all there is and there is no non-physical component, that the universe is and has a non-physical component (it is alive, etc) and that there is a creator who is separate from the universe and that creator made the universe. Within that context, the three can be split into two variations, the universe (with or without a non-physical component) is eternal (steady state or cyclic) and an eternal creator who has made a finite lifespan universe. Abiogenesis can arise in one of those three variations, in the other two, either the universe creates life as apart of its functionality (its non-physical attributes) or there is a creator that has designed and set in motion life. Please note that abiogenesis is a completely different subject to any evolutionary model that people may subscribe to. You can argue all you like about the variations above but you cannot use science to determine the "truth" of which variety you personally believe in. That is a metaphysical/philosophical/religious debate that is outside of the domain of science. So, where does that leave us in this discussion? Well, it says that you have not given much thought to your point of view in such a way that you are able to logically argue its merit. In which case, I would suggest that you might like to flesh out your arguments because as they stand, the arguments you present are extremely weak and illogical.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        I've given it plenty of thought, I simply don't subscribe to philosophical masturbation involving that which simply has no evidence of existing at all, the non-physical; there is no such thing, it's woo, nonsense, magic, unsupported by any evidence in all of history. Dualism is the view of an irrational mind. You give equal weight to the possibility of an eternal universe or a created universe, this is simply illogical as there's no logical argument to be made for a creator that doesn't suffer from the fallacies of infinite regress and special pleading; the very idea of a creator is at its base irrational and illogical. Thus the entire fantasy of the creator can be ruled out leaving only the universe to contend with, and as there's no such thing as the non-physical that rules out the other path. Of the three possibilities you presented, two are magic, which I addressed originally. This is not outside the domain of science, it is not a metaphysical/philosophical debate, it is very much firmly a matter of science and evidence. Abiogenesis happened, we can deduce that logically as a fact, we are here, there's really nothing to debate other than figuring out how it happened. So please don't talk to me about illogical while you posit illogical faulty arguments akin to magic; you have no logical leg to stand on. Where does this leave us in this discussion, with me realizing you haven't yet grown beyond belief in magic and superstition making having a logical discussion all but impossible.
aisofteng 9y ago
His point was that we know it happens because we exist, it's that we don't know how it happened.
ABCLAW 9y ago
You are a large bag of molecules. You self replicate and generate a variety of structures. You are great evidence that complex systems arise out of simple phenomena. Wolfram's initial explorations dealt with this in particular. This is also the reason for developing systems like Conway's game of life. Simple rules. Complex outcomes. The pumice stone you use to scrub yourself with has a particular distinctive pattern to it, not caused by life, but rather by volcanic and non-biological forces. When you wash your hands with soap and water in front of that bathroom mirror, the you construct a reversed lipid bi-layer, a self organizing structure that occurs as a result of polarity. This set of forces is the same as those that self-organizes your cell walls. I think there's plenty of evidence. You just need to do a bit of learning to understand what you're seeing.

by joobus 9y ago

xenadu02 9y ago

There have been plenty of experiments showing that the building blocks of life will spontaneously self-assemble under the right conditions. We have now confirmed that comets and other bodies in space contain complex molecules such as hydrocarbons. There are also plenty of experiments demonstrating that certain structures self-assemble and even "replicate" (for some definition of replicate) under the right conditions, purely as a function of their molecular structure. There is no conclusive proof... but certainly everything we've discovered to date supports abiogenesis of life given the right conditions and a few 100 million years for many trillions of attempts. It is likely that the first "life" wasn't life as we would define it, more like a prion: a self-replicating molecule built out of amino acids dumped on Earth from meteorite and comet impacts. The first true "life" was probably exceedingly simple and lived off chemical reactions around hydrothermal vents.

oldandtired 9y ago
No conclusive proof? No proof at all. Go and listen to James Tour and his video on the problems of just getting the right pre-life chemical synthesis to occur. He is a organic chemist (one of the top in the world) and he talks about each of the incompatible processes between each step. I would be more inclined to take his word for it than a biologist (of any stripe). Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life (as in close to 0 as to make no difference) irrespective of the amount of time that is allocated.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life Yet we know it happened, because life exists, and it didn't spring from magic so it must have sprung from non-life. Random chance is a hell of a search algorithm, abiogenesis is simply the inevitable outcome randomly trying every possible combination over hundreds of millions of years. There are no more likely scenarios.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Just because we know something is, does not mean know why. You make a very broad leap to say that there are only two possibilities - magic and abiogenesis - and that one of those possibilities doesn't exist. There are three broad classifications of philosophical belief - the universe is all there is and there is no non-physical component, that the universe is and has a non-physical component (it is alive, etc) and that there is a creator who is separate from the universe and that creator made the universe. Within that context, the three can be split into two variations, the universe (with or without a non-physical component) is eternal (steady state or cyclic) and an eternal creator who has made a finite lifespan universe. Abiogenesis can arise in one of those three variations, in the other two, either the universe creates life as apart of its functionality (its non-physical attributes) or there is a creator that has designed and set in motion life. Please note that abiogenesis is a completely different subject to any evolutionary model that people may subscribe to. You can argue all you like about the variations above but you cannot use science to determine the "truth" of which variety you personally believe in. That is a metaphysical/philosophical/religious debate that is outside of the domain of science. So, where does that leave us in this discussion? Well, it says that you have not given much thought to your point of view in such a way that you are able to logically argue its merit. In which case, I would suggest that you might like to flesh out your arguments because as they stand, the arguments you present are extremely weak and illogical.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      I've given it plenty of thought, I simply don't subscribe to philosophical masturbation involving that which simply has no evidence of existing at all, the non-physical; there is no such thing, it's woo, nonsense, magic, unsupported by any evidence in all of history. Dualism is the view of an irrational mind. You give equal weight to the possibility of an eternal universe or a created universe, this is simply illogical as there's no logical argument to be made for a creator that doesn't suffer from the fallacies of infinite regress and special pleading; the very idea of a creator is at its base irrational and illogical. Thus the entire fantasy of the creator can be ruled out leaving only the universe to contend with, and as there's no such thing as the non-physical that rules out the other path. Of the three possibilities you presented, two are magic, which I addressed originally. This is not outside the domain of science, it is not a metaphysical/philosophical debate, it is very much firmly a matter of science and evidence. Abiogenesis happened, we can deduce that logically as a fact, we are here, there's really nothing to debate other than figuring out how it happened. So please don't talk to me about illogical while you posit illogical faulty arguments akin to magic; you have no logical leg to stand on. Where does this leave us in this discussion, with me realizing you haven't yet grown beyond belief in magic and superstition making having a logical discussion all but impossible.

aisofteng 9y ago

His point was that we know it happens because we exist, it's that we don't know how it happened.

ABCLAW 9y ago

You are a large bag of molecules. You self replicate and generate a variety of structures. You are great evidence that complex systems arise out of simple phenomena. Wolfram's initial explorations dealt with this in particular. This is also the reason for developing systems like Conway's game of life. Simple rules. Complex outcomes. The pumice stone you use to scrub yourself with has a particular distinctive pattern to it, not caused by life, but rather by volcanic and non-biological forces. When you wash your hands with soap and water in front of that bathroom mirror, the you construct a reversed lipid bi-layer, a self organizing structure that occurs as a result of polarity. This set of forces is the same as those that self-organizes your cell walls. I think there's plenty of evidence. You just need to do a bit of learning to understand what you're seeing.