For the alternative theorists:

[krash661]

genetics, is
" It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations. "

genetics is the verifiable fact, and it's all mathematical,
why do you think it's said to decoded it ?

genetics-
study of heredity: the branch of biology that deals with heredity and genetic variations
organism's genetic makeup: the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms

" Genetics is the study of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms
frequently with many of the life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems. "

" genetics has expanded beyond inheritance to studying the function and behavior of genes "

" Gene structure and function, variation, and distribution are studied within the context of the cell, "

" Genetic processes work in combination with an organism's environment and experiences to influence development and behavior, often referred to as Nature versus nurture. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics

and that's just what's from wikki, let alone biology journals and such.

what you described is a component,as it's called.

 

[leopold]

Objective statements ARE verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations. In the case of genetics (replicating organisms):

wiki,

All this seems very chemical in nature and therefore subject to analysis and experimentation, down to nano levels. I believe we have already identified how it all works at a general (already pretty deep) level and computer models are available to demonstrate the fundamental process.

check this out:http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology

yes, and?
this doesn't change the fact that science does not know how life came to be.
it has a theory, one that seems to "fit".
as far as i know, there are no computer models of abiogenesis.

 

[paddoboy]

yes, and?
this doesn't change the fact that science does not know how life came to be.
it has a theory, one that seems to "fit".
as far as i know, there are no computer models of abiogenesis.

But the fact remains [for the 1000th time] it did come to be. And the only scientific explanation is Abiogenesis and then Evolution.
You know you are starting to sound like chinglu don't you?
That's a worry.

Leopold, now I think you are obfuscating. I had approached this with an open mind, hoping to find you had a defensible position on this, theistic or otherwise, but from your last few contributions it seems to me you are just wriggling and being difficult.

I draw my own conclusions.

 

[Write4U]

paddoboy, one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify : which Post by this "Write W4 " are you referring to?

It was my post where I made the statement that it makes no difference where or when in the evolution of the universe "life" emerged from a set of circumstances, which have been discussed before.
My points were:
a) The oldest living fossils on earth are simple organisms, so in order to end up with hominid (among other advanced species), some evolution MUST have taken place. It is verifiable.

b) The actual location where these early simple organisms "first" appeared in some primorial soup on planet X a few billion years ago, is secondary to the question if Life emerged from complex chemical structures or if Life is a "unidentified dimension" necessary for the existence of living things anywhere.

paddoboy, other than Earth, where else in the Universe have you personally witnessed this obvious "Abiogenesis"?

How many pieces of space debris have struck the earth during its first formation? How many could have carried complex chemical structures.
The Universe is a much larger and diversified laboratory for creating and testing elements and compounds. Life could have emerged anywhere and ended up on planets and moons offering a hospitable environment. Why not earth? And more importantly why would earth be singled out as the Ideal host? Wishful thinking?

"Must have", paddoboy? Most everyone else on this Forum is certain that it has "taken" and still continues to take "place". Details...Meh!!!

That is not a fair question, IMO. The difficulty of finding usable fossils to trace the evolutionary processes on earth itself is well accepted.
Now you demand fossils from extra-wordly shards of rock that may have been expelled during cataclysmic cosmic events and some dust particles landed on earth sometime during its formation and existence AND find fossilized remains of living things inside those particles. Come on, methinks that is a little too much to expect.
The point is that it is logically possible, if not probable, that if life emerged on earth, it also emerged elsewhere and vice versa.

What in hell do we have all this universal energy for if not to Deterministically express the Implications of near infinite potential.

But Abiogenesis and Panspermia are logically and physically possible and we know that in the combination of certain chemical elements and compounds under certain circumstances lies the potential for life prior to life actually emerging from elemental materials, regardless of Location.

IMO.

 

[paddoboy]

It was my post where I made the statement that it makes no difference where or when in the evolution of the universe "life" emerged from a set of circumstances, which have been discussed before.

Yep, Write4U he does know that, or at least should.
My suggestive take on his questions in general, are they are agenda driven.

That is not a fair question, IMO. The difficulty of finding usable fossils to trace the evolutionary processes on earth itself is well accepted.
.

Besides the agenda driven, closet Creationist aspect of the question, I see it as reasonable Write4U...
Abiogenesis whether it started on Earth or elsewhere is obvious.
We may not have any fossils or relics actually indicating that, but logically and common sense wise, it is the only answer...scientific answer anyway.

I think its worth noting at this point in time, that those casting doubts on science and its methodology, and consequently questioning Evolution and Abiogenesis, have been shown by yourself and others to be in gross error with your learned and detailed data.

 

[paddoboy]

I have spoken often of the near certain nature of some theories:
I obtained at one time, on another forum, a percentage certainty rating on some prominent theories:

Abiogenesis and Evolution: 100%
Special and General relativity: 99.9%
Quantum Mechanics: 99.9%
The BB/Inflationary model: 98%

Some comments by experts/professionals on another forum were as follows...
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?52362-The-Big-Bang-Theory-How-Sure-Are-We

 

[humbleteleskop]

...the same handedness that life utilizes.

- "Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids and sugars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)


The problem of chirality can not be explained with meteorites, it is innate to naturally occurring molecules. Why life tends to "choose" one chirailty over the other has nothing to do with their quantity ratio, it's a consequence of embedded properties within those molecules in themselves.

 

[paddoboy]

I obtained at one time, on another forum, a percentage certainty rating on some prominent theories:

Abiogenesis and Evolution: 100%
Special and General relativity: 99.9%
Quantum Mechanics: 99.9%
The BB/Inflationary model: 98%

The same Astronomer, once told me we had more evidence for DM then we do for BH's.
I did question him about that claim, [] and raised his ire somewhat, when I suggested that maybe possibly, he was of that opinion, because his main area of research at that time was DM.
[Inferring a bias or agenda]

It was settled however by him agreeing that the evidence for both were very substantial.

 

[humbleteleskop]

There are certain elements which cannot be naturally formed on earth. It takes a collapsing star to create gold., yet we find gold all the time, proving that we do indeed receive extra terrestial elements or compounds all the time.

Earth is made of dead stars. Don't tell me we think the gold came on meteorites only after the Earth was formed.

IMO, it sheds no light on the question of Abiogenesis. Also IMO, it makes no practical difference to universal functions.

It's about the question was this planet "seeded", naturally via meteorites, or perhaps artificially by alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords. I think meteorites are insignificant variable, kind of irrelevant as you suggest, but in the case of aliens the theory becomes pretty significant.

 

[humbleteleskop]

post 565 page 29
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?14...ve-theorists&p=3192653&viewfull=1#post3192653

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction


http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/researchVesicles.html

Self-replicating polymers inside self-replicating membranes in Szostak's experiments fit the description, so those things are actually alive. Yes?

 

[paddoboy]

How many pieces of space debris have struck the earth during its first formation? How many could have carried complex chemical structures.
The Universe is a much larger and diversified laboratory for creating and testing elements and compounds. Life could have emerged anywhere and ended up on planets and moons offering a hospitable environment. Why not earth? And more importantly why would earth be singled out as the Ideal host? Wishful thinking?

I see another reasonable speculative Abiogenesis scenario: It concerns life arising at many points in the near infinite Universe, some evolving, some going extinct, some hitching rides on asteroids/comets etc, to other parts, and seeding those.
The methodology and details we cannot be sure of, the only sure thing, which it appears we now all agree on,[other then leopold who is beginning to sound like chinglu] is that Abiogenesis and Evolution of life on Earth most certainly did occur.

 

[Write4U]

Earth is made of dead stars. Don't tell me we think the gold came on meteorites only after the Earth was formed.

On the contrary. I mentioned gold only to illustrate gold is not a result of Earthly chemistry and existed in the universe long before the earth was formed. The gold in the earth is a remnant of a much larger event than the formation of the earth. I see no reason why this scenario cannot be adopted to explain Abiogenesis.

Certain cosmic events creating certain chemical structures which are able to grow in complexity or form compounds, which then spread out throughout the universe. An example would be the hydrogen atom. It's everywhere, no wonder it is part of living organisms, carbon is everywhere, acids, sugars, etc. are abundant in the universe and not "exclusive" to earth and it is no wonder they would be part of living organisms in other parts of the universe.
OTOH, it would be extremely unusual to find an unknown substance, exclusive only to life on earth and impossible to duplicate elsewhere. That would be miraculous!

It's about the question was this planet "seeded", naturally via meteorites, or perhaps artificially by alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords. I think meteorites are insignificant variable, kind of irrelevant as you suggest, but in the case of aliens the theory becomes pretty significant.

The notion of alien seeding does not meet Ockham's requirements. So where did the aliens come from? Were they spawned in the heart of a collapsing star? Seems to me that the building blocks for life may emerge in turbulence or by mutation, but for evolution a more or less stable environment is required. We cannot all be "water bears".

 

[paddoboy]

Certain cosmic events creating certain chemical structures which are able to grow in complexity or form compounds, which then spread out throughout the universe. An example would be the hydrogen atom. It's everywhere, no wonder it is part of living organisms, carbon is everywhere, acids, sugars, etc. are not exclusive to earth and it is no wonder they would be part of living organisms.
OTOH, it would be extremely unusual to find an unknown substance, exclusive only to life on earth and impossible to duplicate elsewhere. That would be miraculous!

Yep, the stuff of life being everywhere, and one of the reasons, along with the near infinite content and extent of the Universe, that ETL is also a certain.

The notion of alien seeding does not meet Ockham's requirements. So where did the aliens come from? Were they spawned in the heart of a collapsing star?

Exactly, adding complexity when it is not needed.

 

[humbleteleskop]

yes, and?
this doesn't change the fact that science does not know how life came to be.

What could possibly be the point you are trying to make:

a.) abiogenesis is unlikely to be the way how life came to be on Earth?

b.) there is a better theory than abiogenesis, we should talk about it instead?

c.) abiogenesis is not plausible enough, it should not be taught in schools?

d.) something else, what is your point?

it has a theory, one that seems to "fit".
as far as i know, there are no computer models of abiogenesis.

There is a practical model of abiogenesis as demonstrated in Szostak's experiment. They provided initial conditions and then "life" manifested spontaneously out of itself. Isn't that even better? Provided the same or similar initial conditions it would happen every time, it's not only probable, it's inevitable.

 

[Write4U]

humbleteleskop;
There is a practical model of abiogenesis as demonstrated in Szostak's experiment. They provided initial conditions and then "life" manifested spontaneously out of itself. Isn't that even better? Provided the same or similar initial conditions it would happen every time, it's not only probable, it's inevitable.

Nature now constructs proteins from amino acids, small molecules made principally of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen -- elements present when Earth first formed. Various researchers have created amino acids from combinations of these elements dissolved in sea water solutions. Stanley Miller at the University of California, San Diego, for example, passed electric discharges (to simulate lightning) through such mixtures and produced 13 of the 20 amino acids essential for building proteins.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12/CreatingLifeina.html

I have great confidence in an eventual recipe for cooking utility "stemcells" .

 

[humbleteleskop]

On the contrary. I mentioned gold only to illustrate gold is not a result of Earthly chemistry and existed in the universe long before the earth was formed. The gold in the earth is a remnant of a much larger event than the formation of the earth. I see no reason why this scenario cannot be adopted to explain Abiogenesis.

To adopt the theory of "meteorite seeding" is to believe the Earth itself could not have provided whatever it is meteorites are supposed to have brought. It is as superfluous as "alien seeding" theory, and if there is a reason to believe one, than that is the same reason to include the other.

The notion of alien seeding does not meet Ockham's requirements. So where did the aliens come from? Were they spawned in the heart of a collapsing star? Seems to me that the building blocks for life may emerge in turbulence or by mutation, but for evolution a more or less stable environment is required. We cannot all be "water bears".

Aliens are just artificial counterpart to meteorites. If you suppose one is possible then you can not exclude the other is possible as well. I do not see any good reason to involve meteorites and I do not see any good reason to involve aliens, equally so. I believe there was, and that there still is to this day, plenty of diverse activities all around and inside the Earth to give rise not only to one, but perhaps many different pathways for abiogenesis and spontaneous emergence of life.

 

[Trippy]

- "Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids and sugars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)

Correct. And that's the problem. 'Nature' produces racemic mixtures, however, the life we observe around us is homochiral.

The problem of chirality can not be explained with meteorites, it is innate to naturally occurring molecules.

I'm not sure that you even understand what 'the problem of chirality' is.

Chemical reactions produce racemic mixtures that contain equal amounts of both enantiomers. racemic mixtures, when reacted, produce more racemic mixtures. In order to produce homochirality, as observed in life, from a racemic mixture you need some kind of refractory method to enrich one or deplete the other.

Why life tends to "choose" one chirailty over the other has nothing to do with their quantity ratio, it's a consequence of embedded properties within those molecules in themselves.

There's no magic involved. Chemistry doesn't somehow 'know' to react L-enantiomers with L-enantiomers and D-enantiomers with D-enantiomers. L-enantiomers react just as readily with D-enantiomers as they do other L-enantiomers (give or take the occasional steric consideration). The most parsimonious explanation is that life is homochiral because the mixture of amino acids life evolved from was homochiral or maybe heterochiral.

 

[Trippy]

Earth is made of dead stars. Don't tell me we think the gold came on meteorites only after the Earth was formed.

This is a strawman of what has been said.

 

[Trippy]

as far as i know, there are no computer models of abiogenesis.

Really? Because I have seen computer simulations of the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayers, and I have provided you with a link to a youtube video showing a computer simulation of evolution behaving as a blind watchmaker.

 

[paddoboy]

To adopt the theory of "meteorite seeding" is to believe the Earth itself could not have provided whatever it is meteorites are supposed to have brought. It is as superfluous as "alien seeding" theory, and if there is a reason to believe one, than that is the same reason to include the other.

I do not see that as viable or correct.
The early solar system was a very violent and busy place. We may have had meteorites serendipitiously boosting Abiogenesis, before it had any chance of arising in relation to the Earth itself.
What I'm saying is even if the process was not via Panspermia, it still could have arisen on Earth, and in relation to local conditions and chemical reactions. Panspermia though may have delivered a early example of life from elsewhere.

And Alien seeding is certainly complicating the matter beyond reason.

Aliens are just artificial counterpart to meteorites. If you suppose one is possible then you can not exclude the other is possible as well. I do not see any good reason to involve meteorites and I do not see any good reason to involve aliens, equally so. I believe there was, and that there still is to this day, plenty of diverse activities all around and inside the Earth to give rise not only to one, but perhaps many different pathways for abiogenesis and spontaneous emergence of life.

The first sentence is pseudoscience and the comparison between them irrational and null and void. Meteorites are/were debris left over after the Sun and planets formed.
Again, whether you chose to listen or not, :shrug: whether life arose on Earth or whether some meteorite delivered and sparked the process is debatable and as yet unknown. Both are possible, as the stuff of life was everywhere.

Again, also we have the scenario of life arising at many areas throughout the Universe around the same time, some becoming extinct in short time, some probably hitching rides on comets and such.
These are details of of Abiogenesis and Evolution, that we are not sure of as yet.
Much the same as although we are near certain re the BB, we are unaware of the how and why.