6 ms·
For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing. None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model. There's still n
by Valmar 7y ago
For all of these lab soups, it means basically nothing.
None of this has advanced any understanding of the Neo-Darwinian origin of life model.
There's still no working theory of how one gets from basic building blocks to a fully-functioning working cell, nevermind the rest.
- brink 7y agoTo those downvoting this comment, can you please clarify why you're downvoting? This is also how I see it, and I'd like to know the counter-argument.
- Valmar 7y agoThe Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt. I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is. Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter. Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.
- nurettin 7y agoIt is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nurettin 7y agoFair enough
- Valmar 7y agoSo... you flagged me because you think I'm making some supposed statement of superiority? Also, what "purpose" narrative? Is contradicting the Neo-Darwinist model of life somehow not allowed? Does contradicting it make me a closet Christian, in your eyes? Because I don't see an answer in Neo-Darwinism or any religion. I'm happy not knowing, just as I'm happy to criticize people who claim to know.
- nurettin 7y agoI didn't flag you, dang flagged me for criticising your character instead of an idea. In any case, I think there is a case of false dichotomy going on here.
- lisper 7y agoBecause the first two sentences in the GP comment are false and the third is a non-sequitur.
- toasterlovin 7y agoSee my response above. Neo-Darwinianism has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. It was strictly concerned with explaining the mechanism (genetics) underpinning Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. And the fact that the OP has engaged in name calling that isn't even correct kind of implies that their objection is ideological rather than merely logical.
- bediger4000 7y agoDragging "Darwinism", which is a theory of evolution, into an argument about abiogenesis, which is life coming from non-living stuff, is a hallmark of Creationism. Creationist are known to argue in bad faith. Best just to rid the space of Creationist arguments. Like Mark Twain once wrote, if you wrestle with pigs, you'll get very dirty, and the pigs just might enjoy it.
- analreceiver 7y agoHow?: Time
- Valmar 7y agoTime cannot logically explain it. Given such complex lifeforms, even a billion years wouldn't suffice to explain going from a RNA bases to a modern day human. And no, I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. It's fine for me to accept that we humans have no answer as to life's origins.
- foota 7y agoFwiw I think the transition from single cellular life, or even non-callulqr life like viruses, is fairly easy to imagine.
- mikelyons 7y agoBe patient, this step is part of the process of discovering the part that you are focused on.
- solinent 7y agoJust because you can't explain it doesn't mean it cannot be explained. It could just be a reflection of you.
- lovecg 7y agoSo? Don't you think it’s important to understand even this first basic step?
- Valmar 7y agoSure, I guess. But we've been down this road of chemical soups before ~ and gotten nothing out of it. I'm just frustrated that they seem to keep chasing the same failed ideas. It's time to look for other explanations... not a religious one, at that. Some biologists look towards a meteoric explanation of life, but punting it off-planet isn't an explanation, either...
- tlb 7y agoI don't think the idea is failed. Yes, attempts to replicate it in laboratory-scale tanks haven't succeeded yet. But that isn't evidence against the theory that it occurred sometime over millions of years in billions of cubic kilometers of water. It happens at some statistical rate, and lab experiments so far have put an upper bound on the rate.
- gmoot 7y agoThis is interesting. If we can put an upper bound on the rate (what is it?) we could rule out abiogenesis if we could lower that upper bound sufficiently. Most here seem to reason the other way around - it must have happened, so we'll just keep looking until we figure out how. I'd like to think that we could reach a point at which we could confidently say "this universe doesn't have the probabilistic resources to make it happen" instead of kicking the can down the road indefinitely.
- pfdietz 7y agoI don't see how one could rule it out, since we don't know the number of planets on which the conditions required for abiogenesis could have occurred. It's not limited to the # of planets in the volume of the universe observable from Earth.
- smpetrey 7y agoYou must be fun at parties. /s
- Valmar 7y agoI dislike parties. Too much noise. Plus, I get bored easy. :P
- dang 7y agoPersonal attacks will get you banned here, no matter how wrong or annoying another comment is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd be grateful.
- jhedwards 7y agoAren't alkaline hydrothermal vents[0] a pretty good candidate for that? AFAIK they provide almost everything necessary for the creation of cellular life. Once you have cells and RNA everything else is just time + evolution. [0] https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/03/from-geology-to-biology-a-serpentine-story-of-early-life.html https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/03/from-geolo...
- toasterlovin 7y agoThe Neo-Darwinians don't have an origin of life model. Neo-Darwinism was a synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics. It was about fleshing out an actual mechanism behind heritability and variation (two of the three necessary ingredients for evolution by natural selection; the other being selection). It was not about explaining how life started. The origin of life is very much a speculative area of science. I thought Nick Lane's The Vital Question was an interesting take on how life could have gotten started. I'm not qualified to comment on the validity of the chemistry behind it, though.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoTo get from the basic building blocks to a fully functioning working cell, you need steps A, B, C, D, ... This article shows that C could have spontaneously happened. It's not at all meaningless. Is it the whole story? Of course not. But it's an interesting part of the chain. Science is slow. Don't throw out the transistor because it's not an iphone.
- kanzenryu2 7y agoHere's a working theory. Warning: turn down the volume. https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg?t=227 https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg?t=227
- civilian 7y agoYou should read "The Vital Question" by Nick Lane. He puts forward a theory for what the first life might look like, based on the shared common genes between bacteria and archea. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuinely curious.