Grok'd!!
wiki said:
Write4U, I brought that up in my Post #500 :
Alas, between Trippy(Post #519) and paddoboy - I MAY have suffered a BAN if I had Posted what you did!!
So, Write4U, thanks for Posting that Link!!
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Grok'd!!
Write4U, I brought that up in my Post #500 :
Alas, between Trippy(Post #519) and paddoboy - I MAY have suffered a BAN if I had Posted what you did!!
So, Write4U, thanks for Posting that Link!!
It certainly does seem a logical assumption. In fact it appears the only assumption we can come to logically.
Tardigrades, extremophiles, viruses or whatever, still all evolved from inert/non living matter.
The BB was an evolution of space and time, or space/time, plus the Superforce.......
Matter/mass itself was unable to exist until later.
Life at its most basic and fundamental had to arise from that.
If life on Earth arose through some process of Panspermia, that in itself, needed to have at its most basic structure, to have arisen from inert/lifeless matter/mass.
BTW, the Martian articles I supplied, are a result of myself being a great fan of Panspermia.
I don't believe that at all...That's just silly paranoia.
The article anyway does not refute the basic assumption, that life, on Earth, or Panspermia, or anywhere else, needed to have had a beginning...or to have arisen from something that existed previously...That something was non life matter/mass.
Wait, wut?
On the one hand, I'm not sure what you think paddoboy has to do with anything.
On the other hand, why would I ban you for posting a link that says the same thing I did?
Observe:
My post #519 in it's entirety:
Now, here's the relevant part:
Compare that to:
Really, come now old bean. Again, why would I ban you for agreeing with me.
The rest of the point that I was making was that even though it is silent on the matter, panspermia still implies that life had to arise somewhere at some point, and relativity predicts that at some point the universe as a whole was inhospitable to life, and so the two combined make the implied prediction that at some point, in at least one part of the galaxy the original life form had to evolve.
Even if we accept panspermia, we still have to ask ourselves questions like:
What was the original organism?
Where did it evolve?
How did it evolve?
What were its non-biological precursors?
Is that any clearer?
On the one hand, I'm not sure what you think paddoboy has to do with anything.
On the other hand, why would I ban you for posting a link that says the same thing I did?
Observe:
My post #519 in it's entirety:
Now, here's the relevant part:
Compare that to:
Really, come now old bean. Again, why would I ban you for agreeing with me.
The rest of the point that I was making was that even though it is silent on the matter, panspermia still implies that life had to arise somewhere at some point, and relativity predicts that at some point the universe as a whole was inhospitable to life, and so the two combined make the implied prediction that at some point, in at least one part of the galaxy the original life form had to evolve.
Even if we accept panspermia, we still have to ask ourselves questions like:
What was the original organism?
Where did it evolve?
How did it evolve?
What were its non-biological precursors?
Is that any clearer?
Hi Write4U:
Why do you believe that the article "MAY" somehow invalidate "life from non life" on a Universal scale or Panspermia.
As far as I see, it's just pushing back the inevitable question at its most basic.
Remembering that very early in the Universe, we didn't even have matter, much less life.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Oops, did I say that? Of course that would be incorrect. I am in complete agreement with you, in fact I believe we are all in agreement on this.
IMHO, it probably was inevitable that life would emerge later in the evolution of the universe. Only elementary particles were able to form at a time when it would be impossible for living organisms to exist. We know elements can combine to form compounds, we know compounds can give rise to the fundamental building blocks of life. We now know that these building blocks exist on other planets and given the near infinite natural potential of the universe, it must have been near inevitable that life would emerge on any planet that offered even the least bit of hospitality. Just Earth alone is/was host to untold number and variety of living organisms. Seems entirely reasonable that life is fairly abundant if there are other cinderella planets, which I believe we have already identified fairly nearby in the universe. The rest is/was a matter of time and opportunity.
paddoboy, introduced "panspermia" into this Thread, in his Post #496 :
paddoboy begins with a completely false statement : "...Panspermia would also naturally fall under as arising from non life......" !
That false statement is then followed up with the usual paddoboy Post Content :
I responded to paddoboy's Post #496, with my Post #500 :
The next Post by either paddoboy, yourself(Trippy) or myself(dmoe) was your Post #519 :
Yes Trippy, the "Panspermia doesn't address the origin of life, just the origin of life on earth. It offers the hypothesis that life on earth arrived from space (because life is ubiquitous) but is silent as to the origin" is the only relevant part of that Post, in response to my statement :
At this point I must point out that I only stated that : "Panspermia is NOT life arising from non-life!!"!
I never at any time Stated or Implied or in any way express any thing along the lines of : (from paddoboy's Post #576) - "Panspermia, invalidated Life from non life."!
As far as what should be clear or clearer, Trippy, is that I, dmoe, never in any way shape or form Stated, Implied or Intended anything other than my Statement in my Post #500, when I pointed out to paddoboy his completely false Statement!! :
So...,Trippy, does that help to alleviate your "Wait, wut?" anxieties?
Okey dokey.....That's exactly what most of us has been saying, except for a couple of exceptions.
But I'm not wrong>
And all have agreed to that fact, except for yourself and leopold.
Either that or either you or him or both are somewhat confused.
Perhaps you need to reread all relevant posts, with a clear head.
In the context of a discussion with leopold in relation to the origin of life on earth and whether it came from a bubbling pool of primordial ooze or the divine hand of a benevolent dictator.
It's only false if you resort to the divine hand of a benevolent creator being the source of the original organism - this is the meaning behind the comment I made about it not being turtles all the way down.
You can't fool me sonny, I know it's turtles all the way down.
He was categorizing it. Whilst it might predict that life on earth originated from life elsewhere, if you follow it back far enough you reach a point where you're dealing with the original organism arising from its non living precursors.
No it isn't, the whole statement is relevant.
As far as I can recall he did not actually attribute that position to you.
The whole conversation started with this statement from Leopold:
Post #489
The point that Paddoboy and myself were making is that there is no scientific theory that predicts that life must come from life. The point that paddoboy (and subsequently) I were making is that even if we accept panspermia, which predicts that life on earth arose from elsewhere, and although panspermia is silent on the matter, if we consider panspermia in the context of relativity we are forced to conclude that at least once in the history of this galaxy (or, for that matter, this universe) life must have arisen from non-life. The only alternative to this conclusion that panspermia and relativity railroad us into is to accept that life arose through the divine hand of a benevolent creator because it can't be turtles all the way down. At some point we have to come across the first organism(s).
It seems to me you have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and come out swinging - the furphy that paddoboy was referring to was leopolds post #489.
It's an expression of confusion, not anxiety. Usually associated with a cat pic:
And the one thing I was genuinely confused by is the one thing you have not actually addressed - why you thought I would ban you for posting a link that agrees with what I was saying.
Life has never been created in the lab. They are trying to do just that. I assume one day that it will be accomplished since I do not believe there is magic involved, just science. The difficulty with creating life in the lab may give us some insight to how common life is or is not in the galaxy.
??? - Leopold's Post #489 - does not even mention "panspermia"!!!???
To Wit , Leopold's Post #489 :
So...Trippy, where does Leopold allude to "panspermia" in the ^^above quoted^^ Post???
Do tell, Trippy!!!
In this Thread #576 by paddoboy, he clearly states :
- from the ^^above quoted^^, paddoboy seems to State that the "furphy that paddoboy was referring to" was "who or what inferred earlier on that somehow Panspermia, invalidated Life from non life."!!!???
Trippy as Leopolds Post # 489 is quoted previously in this Post, and clearly says NOTHING about "panspermia", nor does it in any way, shape or form "INFER" that "somehow Panspermia, invalidated Life from non life."!!!???
So...please explain how you conclude that the "furphy" in paddoboy's Post #576 - was referring to Leopold's Post #489!!
It's an expression of confusion, not anxiety. Usually associated with a cat pic:
And the one thing I was genuinely confused by is the one thing you have not actually addressed - why you thought I would ban you for posting a link that agrees with what I was saying.
???!!!...Really...!!!???
Jeeze, DMOE you sure do get wound up easily. You wrote:
Leopold started down this road because his post says he does not believe life came from nonlife. The only point being made is that "panspermia" still implies that sometime in the past life still would arise from inanimate material. That's it. Now take a breath and calm down before you have a stroke...:bugeye:
Leopold started down this road because his post says he does not believe life came from nonlife. The only point being made is that "panspermia" still implies that sometime in the past life still would arise from inanimate material. That's it. Now take a breath and calm down before you have a stroke...:bugeye:
In reply to AIP's...the existence of the "electric" eel may help to determine the origin(s) of life. By what mechanisms did this creature's cells "learn" to adapt themselves
to manifest energy? Selective generational "Darwinism?" Darwinian evolution factors would mean that cellular components are responding to a "constant" stimulus, i.e., the
cells are aware of an ?external? stimulus...in short, the cells are aware of a pre-existent factor, the constant stimulus of a powerful force. (electricity)
How did cells "learn" to form themselves in-concert to utilize electricity? To manifest it "at will?" How did a complex life form "evolve" to form much of it's internal
sub-systems into a biologic "battery array" that comprises at least 60% of it's cellular totality!?
In my mind, I see two "possibilities" to explain the reality of the electric eel.
(1) Some "creational deity" endowed the Eel with the ability to manifest electricity.
(2) A group of cells got together and voted that the ability to create electricity "at will" was a swell idea, and henceforth worked tirelessly to achieve the goal, and never
mind it will require billions of generations of cellular evolution to achieve the ability of a God! (The "game is worth the candle")
(3) Some "aberrant" cells responded to a constant stimulus...a metric of "possibility". (refer to my "post" in the cesspool regarding energy)
(Thanks for reading!)
to manifest energy? Selective generational "Darwinism?" Darwinian evolution factors would mean that cellular components are responding to a "constant" stimulus, i.e., the
cells are aware of an ?external? stimulus...in short, the cells are aware of a pre-existent factor, the constant stimulus of a powerful force. (electricity)
How did cells "learn" to form themselves in-concert to utilize electricity? To manifest it "at will?" How did a complex life form "evolve" to form much of it's internal
sub-systems into a biologic "battery array" that comprises at least 60% of it's cellular totality!?
In my mind, I see two "possibilities" to explain the reality of the electric eel.
(1) Some "creational deity" endowed the Eel with the ability to manifest electricity.
(2) A group of cells got together and voted that the ability to create electricity "at will" was a swell idea, and henceforth worked tirelessly to achieve the goal, and never
mind it will require billions of generations of cellular evolution to achieve the ability of a God! (The "game is worth the candle")
(3) Some "aberrant" cells responded to a constant stimulus...a metric of "possibility". (refer to my "post" in the cesspool regarding energy)
(Thanks for reading!)
Seems like you gave 3 possibilites, but anyway, here is another more likely scenario not requiring God or sentient cells.
Electric Eel evolution.
Original article
I didn't say he mentioned it, or even alluded to it, what I said was that the conversation started with that post. Paddoboy's initial comment about Panspermia does not exist in a vacuum. It has context. That context is provided by the thread of this conversation initiated by leopold in asserting that life can only arise from life.
I already have.
On the one hand, you could ask paddoboy as the author of the sentiment rather than asking me.
On the other hand, you might be horribly surprised at how many people seemed to think that panspermia provides a way of getting around life from non-life. To some extent it comes down to how narrowly you want to define the question. Panspermia provides an explanation to the origin of life on earth, but not the origin of life.
In reply to "origin" and AIP's re: "life".
Thanks for the link! Interesting.
I think perhaps I was not clear enough with regard to the cellular "adaptations" as a reaction to a stimulus. The article "link" speaks of genetic memory...all well and good.
My question was "How did cells become "aware" of energy? What served as an ab initio causation? (no, I don't think any deity was involved, nor do I believe that cells of
their own volition decided it would be nice thing to make "electricity")
Yes...I did add an "extra". Thanks for pointing it out. I only wish you understood the implications of the existence of the electric Eel.
(Thanks for reading!)
Thanks for the link! Interesting.
I think perhaps I was not clear enough with regard to the cellular "adaptations" as a reaction to a stimulus. The article "link" speaks of genetic memory...all well and good.
My question was "How did cells become "aware" of energy? What served as an ab initio causation? (no, I don't think any deity was involved, nor do I believe that cells of
their own volition decided it would be nice thing to make "electricity")
Yes...I did add an "extra". Thanks for pointing it out. I only wish you understood the implications of the existence of the electric Eel.
(Thanks for reading!)
You realize that the muscles in your body are activated by an electric current. Your muscles also produce an electric current. Sharks for instance can detect these electric currents and use them to find food.
It is no stretch to imagine that the ability to find a mate in turbid waters would be enhanced by a strong ability to detect a current and the ability to create a current. Electric eels and other fish that can create currents such as electric rays are simply an extension or refinement of what your muscles already do. There is no need for the cells to become aware of energy - whatever that means.