For the alternative theorists:

[paddoboy]

i will agree it's logical and reasonable to assume life came from non life.
now for the hard evidence, where are the lab results that prove it.
so far, none has been offered.

....Logic and reason are great qualities to formulate an assumption on, are they not?
Plus, other then the deity aspect, what other means are available for life to form?

You mentioned some points earlier in the piece, one concerning that life maybe infinite and a property of the Universe....or similar?
Even if that was the case, going on the accepted model of Universal evolution, that first sign of Universal life, still by necessity, would have arisen from inert non living material.
The Universe to the best of our knowledge, came to be in stages....space, time, energy, matter and then eventually life.
That scenario to me is ample grounds to accept that all life at its most basic construct, arose from non life.

Why do you keep harping on Lab results?
Just because science cannot reproduce something in the Lab, does in no way invalidate that possibility in the Universe.
Lots of aspects of science/cosmology etc are actually assumptions based on the two qualities that you yourself agreed upon...Logic and reasonability. eg: The assumption that the Universe is Isotropic and homegenious, based on a fairly large sample size of the observable Universe.
Plus we have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[paddoboy]

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:

That's exactly how this has developed.
I'm actually still rather amazed, [ignoring religious connotations] how anyone can not see the basic logic and sensibility in that assumption.

 

[billvon]

i will agree it's logical and reasonable to assume life came from non life.
now for the hard evidence, where are the lab results that prove it.
so far, none has been offered.

There are lab results that show we can produce self-replicating long chain molecules. I know you do not consider them "life" so I will call them prelife. These prelife organisms thus start propagating through our early seas, finding plenty of raw materials with which to make new prelife organisms. They can inherit new characteristics (since they are RNA based) and eventually, through random mutation, one starts generating lipids. These lipids tend to group around the prelife organism, and the organism now has its own "environment" enclosed by a lipid membrane. This allows more complex structures with less risk of damage through oxidation or free radicals. You now have a cell, which per your definition would be the first life form.

 

[Write4U]

like i said, viruses aren't alive.

That is only a small distinction. The reason is that viruses need a host to reproduce. But as I said, it is a perfect example of the evolutionary process from non-living compound chemicals to almost living viruses to independent living organisms.

 

[Write4U]

None of these things listed prevents this so called this 'life' described from ceasing. The seeds of the eventual demise are found in the processes themselves which transition into further processes accelerating decay. These are not what constitutes 'life'. You've listed processes that characterize the state of death on earth. True Life is independent of all such processes.

I beg to differ. Life as we know it cannot exist totally independent of a host. The earth is our host, we drink it's water, we eat its other living organisms, we mine it for energy.

The closest living thing we know that can exist independent of a host for long periods are bacteria. The next higher order would be extremophiles, which can live in extreme conditions.

What would you consider True Life? A sentient but metaphysical God which does not even meet the common definition of life? Seems that by your definition there is no True Life at all.

edit: Perhaps you wish to relegate the definition of True Life to "universal potential for life"

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to "origin" and AIP's re: life.

Cheers to "origin"...do you really think it necessary to relate a "primer" to me regarding bio-chemical electrical stimulus factors? None these factors "explain" how

the Eel's cells "learned" how to "manufacture" electricity far above any "normal" metabolic threshold, and selectively use the excess at will!!! You find nothing odd with

this ability? I find it shocking! (forgive the pun)

The question at hand still remains..."how did cells "learn" that an elemental force exists, and that it can be manipulated at will?"

(you didn't understand my reference to a "constant stimulus", an a priori condition? Or you don't want to understand?)


In saying that "Bio-chemical processes serve as a mandate for the existence of electrical impulses" leaves good deal out of the scenario, such as "How did cells "know"

that certain chemical processes were beneficial, that electricity is the "best choice" for the conduction of an impulse..."

We are then left with a "chicken or egg...which was first" quandary.

I believe that electricity exists as a "potential", and serves as a "constant" influence with regard to cellular evolution.

I don't think cells "found out how to "make" electricity by some random chance.

Or perhaps I'm completely and utterly wrong...maybe it's just "magic".


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to "origin" and AIP's re: life.

Cheers to "origin"...do you really think it necessary to relate a "primer" to me regarding bio-chemical electrical stimulus factors? None these factors "explain" how

the Eel's cells "learned" how to "manufacture" electricity far above any "normal" metabolic threshold, and selectively use the excess at will!!! You find nothing odd with

this ability? I find it shocking! (forgive the pun)

Your misunderstanding of evolution is what makes it seem so amazing. Your comments about cells learning something is way off the mark.
Lets look at some facts.
Muscles produce a small amount of electricity.
Animals nerves can detect electrical current.
There is a random variation in the amount of current produced in muscles and there is a random variation in the threshold of current an animal can detect.

The evolution part.
In an environment (water) that conducts electricity in conjuction with an environment that it is difficult to locate other of your species (turbid water) an individuals who's variation in the ability to dectect electrical current that is higher will tend to locate a mate to reproduce. Individuals who's variation results in a larger amount of electrical current produced by the muscles will have a higher probability of finding a mate to reproduce. That leads to individuals tending to have a higher amount of current in their muscles over time. There cells don't know anything.

The question at hand still remains..."how did cells "learn" that an elemental force exists, and that it can be manipulated at will?"

(you didn't understand my reference to a "constant stimulus", an a priori condition? Or you don't want to understand?)

Again with the learning cells, that is crazy talk.

In saying that "Bio-chemical processes serve as a mandate for the existence of electrical impulses" leaves good deal out of the scenario, such as "How did cells "know"

that certain chemical processes were beneficial, that electricity is the "best choice" for the conduction of an impulse..."

We are then left with a "chicken or egg...which was first" quandary.

I believe that electricity exists as a "potential", and serves as a "constant" influence with regard to cellular evolution.

I don't think cells "found out how to "make" electricity by some random chance.

Or perhaps I'm completely and utterly wrong...maybe it's just "magic".

Yes, you are utterly wrong and magic is pretend.

So we ended with a species that had muscles that had a higher than normal amount of electrical current produced in their muscles. Some of the individuals that could produce the highest amount of current, even though it was still weak may have been able to have a slight advantage over individuals with lower current producing muscles in disorienting prey that was susceptable to electric current. So these individuals had a slight advantage over the others and they reproduced. This simply continues in this way were more and more current is produced. I am going to stop wasting my time at this point.

I know that you will not accept any of this because your are one of these anti-evolution guys. You should move your discussion to the Denial of Evolution threads of which there are several.

 

[leopold]

There are lab results that show we can produce self-replicating long chain molecules. I know you do not consider them "life" so I will call them prelife. These prelife organisms thus start propagating through our early seas, finding plenty of raw materials with which to make new prelife organisms. They can inherit new characteristics (since they are RNA based) and eventually, through random mutation, one starts generating lipids. These lipids tend to group around the prelife organism, and the organism now has its own "environment" enclosed by a lipid membrane. This allows more complex structures with less risk of damage through oxidation or free radicals. You now have a cell, which per your definition would be the first life form.

and without a single shred of lab results to back ANYTHING you've said.

i've read somewhere that small colonies of RNA quickly become "nonviable" due to harmful mutations.
i think i have this paper bookmarked, not sure though.

 

[billvon]

and without a single shred of lab results to back ANYTHING you've said.

From Wiki:
=================
Cell membrane

The cell membrane (also known as the plasma membrane or cytoplasmic membrane) is a biological membrane that separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment.
. . .
Lipid bilayer

Diagram of the arrangement of amphipathic lipid molecules to form a lipid bilayer. The yellow polar head groups separate the grey hydrophobic tails from the aqueous cytosolic and extracellular environments.

Lipid bilayers form through the process of self-assembly. The cell membrane consists primarily of a thin layer of amphipathic phospholipids which spontaneously arrange so that the hydrophobic "tail" regions are isolated from the surrounding polar fluid, causing the more hydrophilic "head" regions to associate with the intracellular (cytosolic) and extracellular faces of the resulting bilayer. This forms a continuous, spherical lipid bilayer. Forces such as van der Waals, electrostatic, hydrogen bonds, and noncovalent interactions all contribute to the formation of the lipid bilayer. Overall, hydrophobic interactions are the major driving force in the formation of lipid bilayers.

(translation - once you create lipids they tend to self-assemble.)
=========================

Next is from Scripps:
======================
The Immortal Molecule: Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology

Findings Could Inform Biochemical Questions about How Life Began

LA JOLLA, CA, January 8, 2009—One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
=================================

i've read somewhere that small colonies of RNA quickly become "nonviable" due to harmful mutations.
i think i have this paper bookmarked, not sure though.

Not in the above case. Note that they may indeed see errors introduced through mutations - but that's how evolution works.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin and AIP's re: life.

In response to your #607 reply...I'm "one of those anti-evolution guys". How did you arrive at this conclusion? It is NOT true...far from it.

No, I never stated that cells learn, at least not in the traditional meaning of the word...but they can and do follow the dicta of "action/reaction" in response to an external

stimulus, such as phototropism. If you want to deride and discredit me...fine. I'm used to it. If you want to engage in some form of honest discourse, that's fine also.

All I have done is present a "possibility" with regard to cellular adaptation in regard to the presence of a constant stimulus.

Thus far, I don't see any effective refutation to the idea of cells adapting to a "presence" which may exist, and utilizing this "presence" to the advantage of the

entire organism. ( this is a perfect example of evolution by circumstance, rather than "intelligent" design)


If you don't "like" what I wrote...at least tell me why!


As for my education, I was a student of Dr. Raymond Rawson, a course instructor of cellular biology, pathophysiology, and anatomy for 2yrs. as a nursing student in the

mid 80's in Las Vegas, Nv. (he is something of a genius, and VERY strict...10 seconds late for class? Too bad) Rawson was invited to speak at Oxford more than once, so

at least my tuition was from a "master") I have no formal education in theoretical physics of any kind, other than study on my own...but I do learn.

I mention the above only so you know that I too know "something" with regard to cellular biology and theory.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Write4U]

and without a single shred of lab results to back ANYTHING you've said.

i've read somewhere that small colonies of RNA quickly become "nonviable" due to harmful mutations.
i think i have this paper bookmarked, not sure though.

From the Scripps link provided by billvon;

Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that is a very efficient replicator, something that many research groups, including Joyce's, had struggled for years to obtain. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20090112/joyce.html

And an abstract,

enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.

IMO, this entire procedure may be called "forced" evolution and selection, iow, where it may take a billion years and trillions of trials by natural evolution (natural selection), the process was speeded up in the lab, but does not negate the assumption that this was entirely possible to begin with by purely natural means. If anything, it confirms it.

The fact that small colonies of RNA undergo spontaneous mutations would indicate that given enough time one mutation might well be beneficial and it takes just one successful mutation to get to the next step on the ladder to life. Though most mutations are harmful, not all mutations need be harmful. If we can do it in a lab, you bet nature can do it somewhere in the universe. After all, humans evolved from a beneficial mutation of earlier hominid ancestor DNA

IMO, this provides much more than a shred of evidence.

 

[origin]

In reply to origin and AIP's re: life.

In response to your #607 reply...I'm "one of those anti-evolution guys". How did you arrive at this conclusion? It is NOT true...far from it.

OK

No, I never stated that cells learn, at least not in the traditional meaning of the word...but they can and do follow the dicta of "action/reaction" in response to an external

stimulus, such as phototropism.

I do not see how that applies to the evolution of the Electric Eel.

If you want to deride and discredit me...fine. I'm used to it. If you want to engage in some form of honest discourse, that's fine also.

You are use to being discredited? Why do you think that happens often enough for you to be use to it? I thought I did give an honest discourse.

All I have done is present a "possibility" with regard to cellular adaptation in regard to the presence of a constant stimulus.
Thus far, I don't see any effective refutation to the idea of cells adapting to a "presence" which may exist, and utilizing this "presence" to the advantage of the
entire organism. ( this is a perfect example of evolution by circumstance, rather than "intelligent" design)

Sorry, I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. What constant stimulus? What presence? How does this apply to the evolution of the electric eel?

If you don't "like" what I wrote...at least tell me why!

I thought I did. I will say it again. You stated

None these factors "explain" how the Eel's cells "learned" how to "manufacture" electricity

The cells did not learn how to manufacture electricity. That is an absurd thing to say.

As for my education, I was a student of Dr. Raymond Rawson, a course instructor of cellular biology, pathophysiology, and anatomy for 2yrs. as a nursing student in the mid 80's in Las Vegas, Nv. (he is something of a genius, and VERY strict...10 seconds late for class? Too bad) Rawson was invited to speak at Oxford more than once, so at least my tuition was from a "master") I have no formal education in theoretical physics of any kind, other than study on my own...but I do learn.
I mention the above only so you know that I too know "something" with regard to cellular biology and theory.

That's nice. Did any of the courses you took explore evolution?

 

[leopold]

IMO, this entire procedure may be called "forced" evolution and selection, iow, where it may take a billion years and trillions of trials by natural evolution (natural selection), the process was speeded up in the lab, but does not negate the assumption that this was entirely possible to begin with by purely natural means. If anything, it confirms it.

the ONLY thing the above confirms is that a specific type of RNA can replicate itself indefinitely.
it IS NOT proof that life arose from the elements.

The fact that small colonies of RNA undergo spontaneous mutations would indicate that given enough time one mutation might well be beneficial and it takes just one successful mutation to get to the next step on the ladder to life.

see, this is the typical evolution argument, ASSUMPTIONS.

If we can do it in a lab, you bet nature can do it somewhere in the universe.

i don't think this is true.
we can manufacture things in a lab that will not be found in nature.

After all, humans evolved from a beneficial mutation of earlier hominid ancestor DNA.

more assumptions.

if you people look at this, you will find a great many assumptions associated with it.

IMO, this provides much more than a shred of evidence.

RNA is not life, not even close to it.

 

[origin]

see, this is the typical evolution argument, ASSUMPTIONS.

Don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution. It is a fact that evolution occurs. It is only an obvious inference that abiogenesis occurred. We can observe evolution occurring but we cannot (yet) observe abiogenesis.

RNA is not life, not even close to it.

Replicating RNA is not life - but it is actually pretty damn close....

 

[Write4U]

the ONLY thing the above confirms is that a specific type of RNA can replicate itself indefinitely.
it IS NOT proof that life arose from the elements.

No one claims certainty, but you seem to ignore the proofs that non-living structures can replicate and "mutate". Two of the required universal potentials for life

we can manufacture things in a lab that will not be found in nature.

But again that is an assumption from ignorance. We know almost nothing of what is in the universe except for what we see on earth. We could not make gold until we knew the conditions under which gold forms. I am convinced that if we can make it in a lab, it is available somewhere in the universe.

if you people look at this, you will find a great many assumptions associated with it.

I can only speak for myself as layman, but IMO, if the assumptions are logical and based on some evidence, I see nothing wrong with starting there and working toward confirmation or falsification.

RNA is not life, not even close to it.

No one said it was, but it is a promising start.

 

[leopold]

It is a fact that evolution occurs.

it's a fact that ADAPTATION occurs.

It is only an obvious inference that abiogenesis occurred.

yes, another assumption.

We can observe evolution occurring . . .

we can see ADAPTATION occuring.

Replicating RNA is not life - but it is actually pretty damn close....

it's, you guessed it, another assumption to state "RNA is pretty damn close" to life.

 

[billvon]

it's a fact that ADAPTATION occurs.

It's a fact that both evolution and adaptation occur. Both have been observed in the lab.

 

[leopold]

No one claims certainty, but you seem to ignore the proofs that non-living structures can replicate and "mutate". Two of the required universal potentials for life

so?
science can probably replicate on demand almost any DNA you choose.
the fact still remains that science has not been able to recreate life from the elements.

But again that is an assumption from ignorance. We know almost nothing of what is in the universe except for what we see on earth.

isn't that what we are talking about? life on earth?
nature as on earth.
yes, science can create compounds not found in nature, as in here on earth, our nature.

We could not make gold until we knew the conditions under which gold forms.

the only way i know of to "make gold" is with the use of "atom smashers".

I am convinced that if we can make it in a lab, it is available somewhere in the universe.

that may be true, but we are talking about a specific place, er, planet

I can only speak for myself as layman, but IMO, if the assumptions are logical and based on some evidence, I see nothing wrong with starting there and working toward confirmation or falsification.

yes i will agree, a reasonable and logical conclusion would be a good starting point.

 

[Write4U]

It's a fact that both evolution and adaptation occur. Both have been observed in the lab.

And if we can do it in a lab, it is possible. And if it is possible, it most probably exists somewhere in the universe. To think otherwise is vanity.

 

[leopold]

It's a fact that both evolution and adaptation occur. Both have been observed in the lab.

okay.
this i gotta see.