Surely, evidence of everything alive (especially humans) supports Darwin's theory?

[iNow]

Well, AFAIK, it's rather simple to form RNA strands and wait for them to mutate. The complex part is in creating a model of the early earth which is accurate and properly scaled.

[cameron marical]

why do you need a perfect model of earth in the first place? why cant you just have a simple rna strand "evolve", artificially or naturally, into a life form of any kind and have it in a different container than the one we started in. just develop a supersimple cell from this rna. Also, does the rna have to become dna before this?

[Patrick Henry]

Basically, they're just copying errors.

 

Exactly. Mutations are copying errors, not environmental adjustments. Mutation is different from natural selection (obviously).

[Kyrisch]

why do you need a perfect model of earth in the first place? why cant you just have a simple rna strand "evolve", artificially or naturally, into a life form of any kind and have it in a different container than the one we started in. just develop a supersimple cell from this rna. Also, does the rna have to become dna before this?

 

Because the only reason that it was able to do all that was due to the conditions on early Earth and gratuitous amounts of time. Even if we do set up that extensive of a lab something interesting would only happen after we let it simmer for millions of years...

[cameron marical]

Because the only reason that it was able to do all that was due to the conditions on early Earth and gratuitous amounts of time. Even if we do set up that extensive of a lab something interesting would only happen after we let it simmer for millions of years...

 

but we couldnt throw in a couple artificial mutations of our own to speed it up? or at least make a cell that is just the most basic form of life possible, yet, still a life form, therefore proving abiogenesis? maybe just start an experiment that was geared for the future, and just have your students keap it in check and their students in check, and record all that has changed and all that has evolved.

[Mokele]

but we couldnt throw in a couple artificial mutations of our own to speed it up?

 

That would be, effectively, 'cheating', and wouldn't really show much of anything. We're fairly close to being able to deliberately create life, but the point of abiogenesis is how it happened without human intervention.

 

I think what is needed is a suitably long-term experiment, a bathtub of primordial goop left in some back corner of the lab for someone's entire scientific career, and only then opened.

[iNow]

but we couldnt throw in a couple artificial mutations of our own to speed it up? or at least make a cell that is just the most basic form of life possible, yet, still a life form, therefore proving abiogenesis? maybe just start an experiment that was geared for the future, and just have your students keap it in check and their students in check, and record all that has changed and all that has evolved.

The problem with that approach is its impact on the outcome. Your suggestion is basically to setup the experiment in such a way that you will get the result you want, instead of setting it up based on reality and waiting to see what happens independent of your expectations.

 

If you did that, it would no longer be an experiment. It would be a manufactured event, and hence completely useless for achieving the stated purpose.

[cameron marical]

The problem with that approach is its impact on the outcome. Your suggestion is basically to setup the experiment in such a way that you will get the result you want, instead of setting it up based on reality and waiting to see what happens independent of your expectations.

 

i dont want it to be an any way altered to change its outcome, an experiment isnt an experiment if its done in a way to please the experimenter, what i mean is to just speed up the process. a billion and a half years is kind of alot.

 

and it still would be creating life out of abiotic things. thats really cool, and pretty revolutionary i think. it means that many would throw away the concept of creationism and look towards scienc, wich could start off a chain of events and get us to do so many more things with science and technology, itd be amazing.

[scrappy]

Just a few points of clarifcation:

 

1. We are NOT EVEN close to being able to create life from scratch; in fact, we don’t even have the first clue as to how to do it.

 

2. There is no functional equivalent to the Miller-Urey experiment that will create life from scratch.

 

3. “Primordial soup”? What “primordial soup”? There is precisely the same evidence for “primordial soup” as there is for a “Creator,” and that evidence sums to zero.

 

4. You don’t have to have a copying error to mutate a gene into another allele; you can get the same result directly from physical sources like irradiation and trama. But for it to survive (most don’t) the new allele must be replicated (copied) after it has mutated.

 

5. There is not a shred of evidence that abiogenesis happened on this planet, so the “primordial soup” myth continues to be just that.

[iNow]

Hi Scrappy - I've shared this data with you at least once already. It's truly a shame you didn't read/comprehend/incorporate it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=367962#post367962

[scrappy]

Hi Scrappy - I've shared this data with you at least once already. It's truly a shame you didn't read/comprehend/incorporate it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=367962#post367962

Hi iNow,

 

Your link provides an interesting read on the formation of “protocells,” which, for all practical purposes, could be called fancy organic bubbles. But you can make fancy bubbles from a whole lot of concoctions. Life is not about fancy bubbles; life is about communicating in recorded digital code from one generation to the next. Life is about the survival of genes, because only genetic code moves forward in time, while the chemicals come and go ephemerally.

 

What I what to know is how did a genetic language get installed inside those hopeful bubbles. All of those pre-abiogenesis chemicals and their bonding energies and thermodynamics and so forth are good for explaining only chemicals. They don’t explain biological life. Tell me how a digital language with an alphabet got in there? That’s the trick that eludes those who are preoccupied with their primordial soups and amino-acid bubbles.

 

And why did it all have to happen here on Earth, anyway?

[Kyrisch]

They don’t explain biological life. Tell me how a digital language with an alphabet got in there? That’s the trick that eludes those who are preoccupied with their primordial soups and amino-acid bubbles.

 

And why did it all have to happen here on Earth, anyway?

 

The primitive genetic material acted as the "digital alphabet". It copied spontaneously, grew too big for the lipid bubble and split off, creating a second bubble with similar 'code'. You see, it didn't function as code in the beginning; its role as a digital code for proteins came later, with the nucleic-amino acid bonding, which also occurs spontaneously.

 

And why did it all have to happen on Earth? Think about this question for a moment. Say you roll 10,000 dice. Somewhere in the middle segment, there appear 10 sixes in a row. Is it a logical question to ask, "hmm, why did those ten sixes just happen to appear in a row at positions 3 978, 3 979, 3 980... etc. ?" No. Because each section had an equal probability of repeats, that it happened somewhere is not reason to think there was a special reason for the place where it ended up happening.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Kyrisch

[Mokele]

“Primordial soup”? What “primordial soup”? There is precisely the same evidence for “primordial soup” as there is for a “Creator,” and that evidence sums to zero.

 

The reliance of life on liquid, as well as the inhospitable conditions for life's origin in air or on dry land, makes a liquid origin very, very probable. Tide pool vs. open ocean vs. deep sea vent is still unresolved, of course.

 

There is not a shred of evidence that abiogenesis happened on this planet, so the “primordial soup” myth continues to be just that.

 

Panspermia is mostly irrelevant - life must have originates *somewhere*, even if not here, so the fundamental problems of abiogenesis remain.

 

The only thing panspermia contributes to the argument is widening the possible search parameters to include environmental conditions off Earth.

 

Furthermore, panspermia is, for now, and untestable hypothesis at best. The only possible evidence for it is if we a) find that some part of abiogenesis could not have occured in the environment of early Earth and/or b) we find alien life that has the same characteristics as our own (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, same codons etc.)

 

As such, the only sensible methodology is to ignore panspermia and proceed with abiogenesis research as we are doing, and only consider it if we genuinely hit a roadblock (or suddenly find life elsewhere).

[Psycho]

The reliance of life on liquid, as well as the inhospitable conditions for life's origin in air or on dry land, makes a liquid origin very, very probable. Tide pool vs. open ocean vs. deep sea vent is still unresolved, of course.

 

 

 

Panspermia is mostly irrelevant - life must have originates *somewhere*, even if not here, so the fundamental problems of abiogenesis remain.

 

The only thing panspermia contributes to the argument is widening the possible search parameters to include environmental conditions off Earth.

 

Furthermore, panspermia is, for now, and untestable hypothesis at best. The only possible evidence for it is if we a) find that some part of abiogenesis could not have occured in the environment of early Earth and/or b) we find alien life that has the same characteristics as our own (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, same codons etc.)

 

As such, the only sensible methodology is to ignore panspermia and proceed with abiogenesis research as we are doing, and only consider it if we genuinely hit a roadblock (or suddenly find life elsewhere).

 

There is small amount of evidence for panspermia, experiments have been done using balloons with sterile equipment to take samples of the air high in the atmosphere and organisms have been detected and there is no current known way for them to get up to that altitude by natural causes.

[insane_alien]

there is no current known way for them to get up to that altitude by natural causes.

 

no method where they have actually followed a bacteria from the ground upwards.

 

I'll show a line of reasoning that will show you how possible it is.

 

Can bacteria be airborne? yes

Are there events that would allow low altitude air to travel into the upper atmosphere? yes (thermals, volcanic activity, even hitching a ride stuck to an aircraft and then falling off)

 

so i'd genuinely be surprised if there was nothing up there.

[Psycho]

no method where they have actually followed a bacteria from the ground upwards.

 

I'll show a line of reasoning that will show you how possible it is.

 

Can bacteria be airborne? yes

Are there events that would allow low altitude air to travel into the upper atmosphere? yes (thermals, volcanic activity, even hitching a ride stuck to an aircraft and then falling off)

 

so i'd genuinely be surprised if there was nothing up there.

It was above aeroplane activity and the tests are only done after a certain period without volcanic activity (can't remember the exact amount) plus thermals don't go up high enough to account for it.

[insane_alien]

there is no reason they can't hang around up there.and all layers of the atmosphere do experience occasional mixing so they can get up that high eventually.

[cameron marical]

i agree that saying that panspermia is the cause to microbial life in the high atmosphere is like getting a pancake that looked like mother mary and becoming a die hard cristian. there are multiple other explanations that are far more realistic. i beleive that it is something along the lines of what insane alien said. and since theirs is no competition. life can spread so long until its pushed against it.

not ruling it out though... everything deserves a fair chance.

[scrappy]

If microbes in the upper atmosphere impress you then consider microbes on the moon. A colony of Streptococcus mitis survived for 30 years on the moon unprotected from thermal extremes, UV, and other radiation.

 

Here’s what Apollo 12 Commander Pete Conrad said about the little stowaways: "I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole...Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."

 

There is little doubt in my mind that NASA has flung microbes all over the solar system and probably out into deep space. This doesn’t do much to quell the speculation on panspermia.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The reliance of life on liquid, as well as the inhospitable conditions for life's origin in air or on dry land, makes a liquid origin very, very probable. Tide pool vs. open ocean vs. deep sea vent is still unresolved, of course.

Those watery soups are not exclusive to Earth. Furthermore, we don't know enough about abiogeneis to say that Earth's watery soups were (are) primordially poetent.

 

Panspermia is mostly irrelevant - life must have originates *somewhere*, even if not here, so the fundamental problems of abiogenesis remain.

So you're ready to conclude from this that abiogenesis must have happened on Earth? Fine. But then why isn't abiogenesis happening now? Why has it never been detected?

 

The only thing panspermia contributes to the argument is widening the possible search parameters to include environmental conditions off Earth.

Or parameters not know to have ever occurred on Earth, which may be the key ones we are overlooking.

 

Furthermore, panspermia is, for now, and untestable hypothesis at best. The only possible evidence for it is if we a) find that some part of abiogenesis could not have occured in the environment of early Earth and/or b) we find alien life that has the same characteristics as our own (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, same codons etc.)

 

As such, the only sensible methodology is to ignore panspermia and proceed with abiogenesis research as we are doing, and only consider it if we genuinely hit a roadblock (or suddenly find life elsewhere).

This seems like pre-Copernican geocentrism to me. Why do you think Earth is so special? Besides, there is only one form of life on Earth, only one genetic alphabet. Why are other forms not here? Maybe Earth just got the biological trash, the lowlifers, while other planets got the good stuff.

[Kyrisch]

So you're ready to conclude from this that abiogenesis must have happened on Earth? Fine. But then why isn't abiogenesis happening now? Why has it never been detected?

 

The environment now is much, much different than it was on early earth. Also, any stray biotic matter is gobbled up by microorganisms. In a way, the extant life is out-competing any viable protobionts.

 

This seems like pre-Copernican geocentrism to me. Why do you think Earth is so special? Besides, there is only one form of life on Earth, only one genetic alphabet. Why are other forms not here? Maybe Earth just got the biological trash, the lowlifers, while other planets got the good stuff.

 

I explained why, once it is concluded that abiogenesis is possible, it is only logical to assume that it occurred on Earth because we're here. It's a logical fallacy to scrutinize the winning lottery ticket as to why it happened to belong to the winner. Each ticket had an equal chance; it's only logical to conclude that the person to whom all the money went possessed the winning ticket.

[MM6]

i see. and its really too complicated to just form this simple rna strand, and then just wait to see if it mutates even a little bit over time? or maybe mutate it yourself and speed up the evolution process? well, i guess that isnt that simple either, but still.

 

thanks.

 

It's not a bad idea for an experiment. In fact what you've described is a virus, and they mutate and evolve all the time. It would be interesting to see if a virus (a controversial "organism") could evolve into a bona fide cell.

 

Your idea of speeding up the mutation rate is not contrary to the scientific process either, as long as you induce random mutations (e.g. by irradiation) rather than mutating specific genes. But remember that the environment is selecting for beneficial RNA mutations. You would need to design your environment in such a way that cellular structures would be beneficial or necessary for the virus' survival. I'm not sure what that environment would be--viruses are already successful in a multitude of environments. Perhaps a "cell free" environment? They would survive but not be able to reproduce.

 

Maybe you could mix some liposomes into the virus bath and see if any encapsulate themselves in them and find a mechanism to reproduce.

 

I'm just thinking out loud and I have to finish something else now. I may have to come back and modify this post after I've ruminated on your idea.

[Mokele]

Those watery soups are not exclusive to Earth. Furthermore, we don't know enough about abiogeneis to say that Earth's watery soups were (are) primordially poetent.

 

A) I never suggested such soups were exclusive to Earth and

 

B) We *do* know enough to say that it's both highly likely that early Earth had a wide variety of complex chemicals floating around and that such cocktails can come about in a wide variety of different conditions.

 

So you're ready to conclude from this that abiogenesis must have happened on Earth? Fine. But then why isn't abiogenesis happening now? Why has it never been detected?

 

Strawman. I never said "must", I said there's no evidence to the contrary.

 

And as Kyrisch pointed out, any modern day biochemicals quickly get devoured.

 

Or parameters not know to have ever occurred on Earth, which may be the key ones we are overlooking.

 

What makes you think we need those parameters? You're giving up *way* too easy, assuming failure because a tiny field hasn't made incredible progress in a few short decades.

 

This seems like pre-Copernican geocentrism to me. Why do you think Earth is so special? Besides, there is only one form of life on Earth, only one genetic alphabet. Why are other forms not here? Maybe Earth just got the biological trash, the lowlifers, while other planets got the good stuff.

 

You're completely off-base. I posit that life evolved on Earth because it is the simplest explanation, and because there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

That's how science works. We don't add complexity to theories without evidence that such additions are necessary.

 

I'm NOT saying panspermia is wrong. I'm saying there's no evidence for it, and that all it does is allow a wider set of environmental parameters.

 

What if it *was* right, scrappy? Then what? You *still* have to explain the origin of life. The only change is that maybe now, you're doing experiments assuming a different rock composition. It doesn't solve the questions of how replication began, or what the first genetic material was, or how cells learns to eat through a membrane. In fact, it barely really does anything except alter the parameters for the part of the problem that we've already solved, the origin of complex chemicals.

 

 

Discussing panspermia is like discussing sea serpents - it may well have merit, but until there's evidence, it's nothing but a pretty idea.

[scrappy]

The environment now is much, much different than it was on early earth. Also, any stray biotic matter is gobbled up by microorganisms. In a way, the extant life is out-competing any viable protobionts.

1. Please explain how the difference between early Earth conditions and modern conditions account for an Earthly abiogenesis. Do you know of even one condition that made a difference?

 

2. Other than speculation, what evidence do you have that "any stray biotic matter is gobbled up by microorganisms" and that "the extant life is out-competing any viable protobionts." What you are saying has only bold assumptions to back it up.

 

I explained why, once it is concluded that abiogenesis is possible, it is only logical to assume that it occurred on Earth because we're here. It's a logical fallacy to scrutinize the winning lottery ticket as to why it happened to belong to the winner. Each ticket had an equal chance; it's only logical to conclude that the person to whom all the money went possessed the winning ticket.

Whew! With the evidence you have available you could just as easily conclude that God made life out of His special genesis mud. Just because we're here doesn't prove that life originated here. Maybe it originated on Mars and slopped over to Earth by way some interplanetary space vehicle. You do know about the Murchison meterorite, don't you?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

B) We *do* know enough to say that it's both highly likely that early Earth had a wide variety of complex chemicals floating around and that such cocktails can come about in a wide variety of different conditions.

But that doesn't necessarily get you abiogenesis; it only gets you cocktails of floating complex chemicals.

 

And as Kyrisch pointed out, any modern day biochemicals quickly get devoured.

Pure speculation. Show me the evidence.

 

What makes you think we need those parameters? You're giving up *way* too easy, assuming failure because a tiny field hasn't made incredible progress in a few short decades.

We don't even know what parameters we need. Abiogenesis is as mysterious to us as the Big Bang (actually, it's much more mysterious).

 

You're completely off-base. I posit that life evolved on Earth because it is the simplest explanation, and because there is no evidence to the contrary.

I never said life didn't "evolve on Earth"; I said we don't know it abiogenesis ever happened on Earth.

 

That's how science works. We don't add complexity to theories without evidence that such additions are necessary.

I'm good for that, but then how do you assume something as seemingly complex as abiogenesis happened here on Earth? Where's your evidence?

 

I'm NOT saying panspermia is wrong. I'm saying there's no evidence for it, and that all it does is allow a wider set of environmental parameters.

You mean to say that the evidence for an Earthly abiogenesis is greater than the evidence for panspermia?

 

What if it *was* right, scrappy? Then what? You *still* have to explain the origin of life. The only change is that maybe now, you're doing experiments assuming a different rock composition. It doesn't solve the questions of how replication began, or what the first genetic material was, or how cells learns to eat through a membrane. In fact, it barely really does anything except alter the parameters for the part of the problem that we've already solved, the origin of complex chemicals.

So then we just assume the origin of life occurred here on Earth because we don't know how it happened? We don't even know what the essential conditions were. Please, "the origin of complex chemicals" doesn't get us very far.

 

Discussing panspermia is like discussing sea serpents - it may well have merit, but until there's evidence, it's nothing but a pretty idea.

Well, if you've got better evidence for an Earthly abiogenesis then I'd like to see it.

[iNow]

Pure speculation. Show me the evidence.

I find it interesting how you keep ignoring my post which brought forth evidence in support of the abiogenesis hypotheses, information which I've now shared with you more than once.

[Mokele]

1. Please explain how the difference between early Earth conditions and modern conditions account for an Earthly abiogenesis. Do you know of even one condition that made a difference?

 

Very low Oxygen levels

 

2. Other than speculation, what evidence do you have that "any stray biotic matter is gobbled up by microorganisms" and that "the extant life is out-competing any viable protobionts." What you are saying has only bold assumptions to back it up.

 

Because you can find decomposers of some sort on EVERY scrap of organic material on the planet, even methane clathrates.

 

So great is the thirst of life for any biological molecules that there's even a fungus which has evolved to tolerate formaldehyde in order to live of the animals in museum specimen bottles (I encountered this one myself, and let me tell you, nothing smells worse than formalin + fungus + rot).

 

Consider the lengths we have to go to for preserving food - freezing it, sealing it in airtight cans, lacing it with antibacterials, washing it...

 

Find me an example to the contrary, a biologically useful molecules that nothing eats, even given the opportunity.

 

Every rotting deer on the side of the highway is my evidence.

 

But that doesn't necessarily get you abiogenesis; it only gets you cocktails of floating complex chemicals.

 

Which is a necessary precursor.

 

We don't even know what parameters we need. Abiogenesis is as mysterious to us as the Big Bang (actually, it's much more mysterious).

 

So why are you adding *more* unknowns, without reason?

 

I'm good for that, but then how do you assume something as seemingly complex as abiogenesis happened here on Earth? Where's your evidence?

 

You. Me. trees. Birds. Fungi. Every living thing is my evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Look, it's very, very simple - Occam's razor. The simplest theory that accounts for the data is most likely to be correct.

 

Geospermia - inorganic mess becomes complex chemicals becomes proto-life becomes life.

 

Panspermia - as above, plus a ride through space.

 

Panspermia involves an extra step, therefore is less likely.

 

In order to consider this extra step, there needs to be evidence which at the very least cannot be explained by the simpler theory. Just finding evidence that it *could* have happened is insufficient - lots of things *could* have happened, but didn't.

 

 

This goes to the very core of the scientific method, and is a basic precept. If you're going to cast it aside, you're doing pseudoscience.