3 ms·

We do know, though. We know the evolution of elemental matter, from the big bang through the formation of the solar system through the birth and the tectonic hi

We do know, though. We know the evolution of elemental matter, from the big bang through the formation of the solar system through the birth and the tectonic history of earth. We know that a particular combination of energetic environments and chemicals allowed a self reproducing process to take hold at least once. Because of the chirality of the chemistry of life, it's more likely that it developed on the surface, where solar radiation would select in that way, b but it could also have been thermal vents, underground springs, undersea volcanoes, or any of a set of locations that had the durability, energy, chemical availability, and border conditions that allowed cyclic processes to run the experiment a sufficient number of times for "life" to take hold. We're missing a tiny blip of specificity in the history of life, but there's not anything particularly mysterious about it anymore. It's chemistry and time and probably vast scale and chaotic processes, but fundamentally and simply, it's a matter of chemistry and probability. There's no reason to ascribe to life life any special mystery over any other dynamic processes, like tides or orbits. We won the existence lottery, nothing more or less.

robbiep 5y ago
Surely the OP is aiming for a god of the gaps argument
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Yes, it had that flavor to it, which prompted my response. Like minds as consciousness radios - we don't know how cognition works, but we know the brain is doing it. I'm arguing against mysticism, not curiosity or wonder at the awesomeness of the universe.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  No, was just poking fun at these tautological pieces trying to explain everything like evolution has some goal in mind. :)
tsol 5y ago
A tiny blip called "how the entire thing started in the first place". This is a weak argument, honestly. The truth is there is no answer currently.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  We know the limited range of conditions and requirements for how it started. We can replicate the chemistry of life - what I'm getting at is that we can rule out acts of God or magic. Successfully sparking the chemistry of life from scratch is still a profound and interesting endeavor, and might have value beyond things like the Drake equation and where to look for likely extraterrestrials. I'm just saying the answer is sufficiently bounded that it's not very mysterious - there's not a lot of room for anything radically weird. We're not going to find out that the great spaghetti monster visits planets every hundred million years and deposits special life building nanobots. Panspermia, weird multiplanet exotic chemical exchange from massive impacts, etc are all possible contributors to the origin of life. Whatever the answer ends up being, modern science is 100% capable of replicating any chemical or physical occurrence that played a part. It might require impractical scales of energy or mass - I personally suspect you need an ocean sized laboratory to achieve the variety of chemicals and sequences of processes to get the right mix of molecules that combine into replicators, and you need a lot of replicators before you get dynamic life that starts evolving. Complex amino acids have been found in asteroids and space debris, so maybe the spark was space junk? It's a neat question but we're not looking for elan vital or anything fundamental anymore. We know what the mechanics of life are at a subatomic level, so the particular occurrence of life on earth is now a mystery similar to the interstellar origin story of matter in the solar system - we lack specifics but have a great general handle on how and why things are the way they are.
- kergonath 5y ago
  You assume that the engine has to get started at some point. We have seen basic building blocks being produced in nature. We know how these building blocks can be assembled in self-replicating molecules that we would not consider “alive”. The engine is always working everywhere, it is just chemistry. Now, there must have been specific conditions that lead to the production of some specific molecules, and we do not know all the details. These conditions are probably quite different from what we have on earth today, which does not help. There certainly is room for progress. But we do have a decent understanding of basic biochemistry.

robbiep 5y ago

Surely the OP is aiming for a god of the gaps argument

robbedpeter 5y ago
Yes, it had that flavor to it, which prompted my response. Like minds as consciousness radios - we don't know how cognition works, but we know the brain is doing it. I'm arguing against mysticism, not curiosity or wonder at the awesomeness of the universe.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
No, was just poking fun at these tautological pieces trying to explain everything like evolution has some goal in mind. :)

tsol 5y ago

A tiny blip called "how the entire thing started in the first place". This is a weak argument, honestly. The truth is there is no answer currently.

robbedpeter 5y ago
We know the limited range of conditions and requirements for how it started. We can replicate the chemistry of life - what I'm getting at is that we can rule out acts of God or magic. Successfully sparking the chemistry of life from scratch is still a profound and interesting endeavor, and might have value beyond things like the Drake equation and where to look for likely extraterrestrials. I'm just saying the answer is sufficiently bounded that it's not very mysterious - there's not a lot of room for anything radically weird. We're not going to find out that the great spaghetti monster visits planets every hundred million years and deposits special life building nanobots. Panspermia, weird multiplanet exotic chemical exchange from massive impacts, etc are all possible contributors to the origin of life. Whatever the answer ends up being, modern science is 100% capable of replicating any chemical or physical occurrence that played a part. It might require impractical scales of energy or mass - I personally suspect you need an ocean sized laboratory to achieve the variety of chemicals and sequences of processes to get the right mix of molecules that combine into replicators, and you need a lot of replicators before you get dynamic life that starts evolving. Complex amino acids have been found in asteroids and space debris, so maybe the spark was space junk? It's a neat question but we're not looking for elan vital or anything fundamental anymore. We know what the mechanics of life are at a subatomic level, so the particular occurrence of life on earth is now a mystery similar to the interstellar origin story of matter in the solar system - we lack specifics but have a great general handle on how and why things are the way they are.
kergonath 5y ago
You assume that the engine has to get started at some point. We have seen basic building blocks being produced in nature. We know how these building blocks can be assembled in self-replicating molecules that we would not consider “alive”. The engine is always working everywhere, it is just chemistry. Now, there must have been specific conditions that lead to the production of some specific molecules, and we do not know all the details. These conditions are probably quite different from what we have on earth today, which does not help. There certainly is room for progress. But we do have a decent understanding of basic biochemistry.