Earliest forms of life

B

blobrana

Registered Senior Member
“Yale University researchers believe that the earliest forms of life on Earth were single strands of nucleotides, which performed some of the complicated cellular functions proteins are known to carry out at present.”

Read more
 
The researcher says that bacteria have a large RNA structure called riboswitch that can independently “decide”” which genes in the cell to activate, an ability once thought to rest exclusively with proteins
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks!:cool:
 
blobrana said:
“Yale University researchers believe that the earliest forms of life on Earth were single strands of nucleotides, which performed some of the complicated cellular functions proteins are known to carry out at present.”
Click to expand...
Where is the science? Where is the fossil evidence?

Metaphysical speculation is not very scientific. This belongs in the religion forum.

At least we have scientific evidence for archaea and cyanobacteria.
 
nucleotides are known to function as enzymes. ribosomes are really just bound up nucleotides that function to create proteins from reading other nucleotides. Its not as much science as it is common sense. Recall that miller's experiments were able to form basic nucleic acids, and other organic compounds under electric charges. This makes sense to me.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Where is the science? Where is the fossil evidence?
Click to expand...
Fossils are not the only evidence admissible in the "courtroom" of science. Since its discovery, DNA has sometimes provided more complete and compelling evidence than fossils. Other types of evidence including "circumstantial" are also admissible.

Since no scientific theory can be proven true (that can only be done with mathematical theories, which are based on pure abstraction and need no corroboration from reality), the best we can do in our courtroom with a scientific theory is to prove it "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

Some theories have so much evidence of so many different kinds that they rise to the level of canonical theories, cornerstones of science. There are other theories that do not have such a preponderance of evidence, even if they have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. These theories are accepted, but they do not become components of the scientific canon, at least not until they've endured for a couple of centuries without refutation.
Metaphysical speculation is not very scientific. This belongs in the religion forum.
Click to expand...
This is hardly metaphysical speculation. It's logical deduction. Not a canonical theory that serves as a cornerstone of science, but nonetheless a science theory, properly derived.
 
Blobrana, member who begins threads on interesting subjects, announces he is leaving. But Oil sticks around. It is a sorry state of affairs.
 
There is just as much scientific evidence for gods and angels as there is for Archean nucleotides as the first lifeform. When scientists discover or even speculate about some new lifeform that predates Archean nucleotides, you'll all say you knew it all along and what geniuses you are.
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
There is just as much scientific for gods and angels as there is for Archean nucleotides as the first lifeform. When scientists discover or even speculate about some new lifeform that predates Archean nucleotides, you'll all say you knew it all along and what geniuses you are.
Click to expand...


There is quite a bit of data and understanding backing up this hypothesis. Relating it to gods and angels probably is'nt the smartest thing you could do. The basic transcriptional machinery is all 'archean nucleotide'. It is also used largely in genetic identification, because it is widely conserved throughout life's history. Nucleotides can multiply too, because of their ability to be copied. So they can be copied, and they can perform biochemical processes. That sounds like a good foundation of life to me. Of course it is science, and it does need to be observable, but it is a very good hypothesis.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Right. That's what we call science.

So far it's merely a metaphysical theory based upon pure speculation.
Click to expand...



Um, I also stated that it was a hypothesis. That is how science starts, with a theory explaining natural phenomena. It then undergoes testing. It is a good hypothesis concerning the origin of life, or what we consider life at the moment. The idea is based on a scientific, biochemical understanding of basic nucleotide enzymatic reactions, as well as an understanding of the theory of evolution and genetics. I think it is a very valid scientific hypothesis.
 
dexter said:
Um, I also stated that it was a hypothesis. That is how science starts, with a theory explaining natural phenomena. It then undergoes testing. It is a good hypothesis concerning the origin of life, or what we consider life at the moment. The idea is based on a scientific, biochemical understanding of basic nucleotide enzymatic reactions, as well as an understanding of the theory of evolution and genetics. I think it is a very valid scientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...
It's mere hypothesis. I'd like to see evidence with a date attached to it, not appeal to authority fallacy because someone at Yale thinks it "might" be true. What will you say when scientists speculate about a living organism that predates archean nucleotides?
 
See, OIM is right.
We should dismiss all ideas out of hand until we have hard evidence that we are, in fact, thinking....:bugeye:
 
We have the data. It is in long conserved sequences of DNA. It is in the known environment of the early Earth. It is in the demonstrable chemistry of the early Earth.
Note that there are two posteoris at work here. We can't get much more posteori than four billion years after the event. The other one is the arse you are making of your argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top