For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

miller-urey already did that.
they got amino acids, a racemic blend of them.
it's impossible for life to arise under such conditions unless some kind of "filter" removes the offending acids.

Not nececssarily true - it might have been as simple as things not folding properly, rendering combinations involving multiple handedness ineffective, in which case evolution would suffice for the rest of the job.

i am not aware of any other "simple" lifeform except the living cell.
these other objects, like what is presented on the site you linked to, should be called "pseudolife" and/or "pseudocells"

Mimivirus - it shows some signs of being alive even though it's clearly a virus and clearly needs a host.

Maybe the problem is that you need to take the blinkers off.

what is represented on the site does not portray what is found on earth.
earth life is DNA based.

Again, maybe this is an issue of blinkers rather than anything in the real world.

Or do you honestly and earnestly believe that the first life that evolved on earth bore more than a passing resemblance to anything alive today?

The self replicating vesicles are a good start because they have many characteristics of cells as we see them today. They may not be the ultimate answer, however, they're a step in the right direction.

 

[paddoboy]

Part of the problem with discussing abiogenesis and evolution is that there are some questions we may never know the answer to because the evidence either was never preserved in the first place, or has subsequently been destroyed - the best we can hope for is that it simply has not been found yet. That it's still waiting on a geology student somewhere to pick up a rock and utter those infamous words "Huh, that's odd..."

And it gets harder as time progresses I would Imagine...at least with Evolution and Earth based Abiogenesis.
Perhaps as we progress beyond Earth's confines, we may eventually find something.

But irrespective, Evolution and Abiogenesis do obviously remain rock solid as always.

 

[humbleteleskop]

That makes no sense.

Your interpretation of what I said is very literal, for some reason. You missed the mark.

What is molecule of organisms? The answer is: family
What is molecule of families? The answer is: society
What is molecule of societies? The answer is: race
What is molecule of races? The answer is: ecosystem
What is molecule of ecosystems? The answer is: planet
What is molecule of planets? The answer is: solar system
What is molecule of solar systems? The answer is: galaxy
What is molecule of galaxies? The answer is: universe
What is molecule of universes? The answer is: it does not compute


Do you see what is supposed to be the meaning of the word "molecule"? Should I say "symbiosis"? What word do you suggest we should use to describe this relation between parts and their collective self?

 

[Write4U]

The question was indeed philosophical rather than related to physics, but the mechanics of it and interactions involved are obviously very physical, real and actual. Let me rephrase it. Laws of energy define what electrons and protons do, laws of electrons and protons define what atoms do, laws of atoms define what molecules do, laws of molecules define what cells do, laws of cells define what a human body does, and thus cells rule over us. It goes all the way down, so it's true that laws of energy rule over us, or we could say laws of atoms, or laws of molecules rule over us, it's always true.

But it only goes one way. We can not say the laws of atoms define what electrons and protons do, we can not say laws of molecules define what what atoms do, we can not say laws of cells define what molecules, or atoms, or electrons, do. We can never say that a "collection" rules over its parts, it's always the parts that rule over its collective self. Could it ever be the other way around, and what does it take?

Oh, that just sounds wrong to me. The earth's moon "rules" the collective self of the Solar system? Perhaps I misunderstand.

I keep hearing "irreducible complexity". No one has found an irreducibly complex system yet. Everything is reducible to its smallest "components" or "behaviors" (such as wave/particle duality of photons).

In the end there seems to come down to the Four fundamental forces.

There are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified. In our present Universe they have rather different properties. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/forces.html

Read David Bohm (physicist). In my limited fashion I use his model of "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as my baseline of metaphysics.
I feel comfortable accepting David Bohm's expertise as he was an eminent published physicist.

 

[leopold]

Mimivirus - it shows some signs of being alive even though it's clearly a virus and clearly needs a host.

Maybe the problem is that you need to take the blinkers off.

i don't think viruses (virii?) are alive.

Again, maybe this is an issue of blinkers rather than anything in the real world.

Or do you honestly and earnestly believe that the first life that evolved on earth bore more than a passing resemblance to anything alive today?

i mentioned a fact.
what it actually means remains to be seen.
the fact is, earth life is DNA based.
can the two be interchanged?
what applies to RNA life might not apply to DNA life.
so no, what is represented on the site does not represent earth life.
on the other hand, if this can happen (RNA becoming a bonifide cell) i believe it would disprove an outside lifeforce that depends on DNA to manifest itself.

The self replicating vesicles are a good start because they have many characteristics of cells as we see them today. They may not be the ultimate answer, however, they're a step in the right direction.

yes it's a good start, for no other reason than to learn about "real cells".

 

[krash661]

What is molecule of universes? The answer is: it does not compute

answer: interdimensional hypothesis

 

[leopold]

One thing is true, until we succeed in making a living organism from non living materials the question is wide open for delicious speculation...

i'm sitting here trying to figure out how i can add to this.
i can reach only one conclusion:
with that one sentence you have said it all.

 

[humbleteleskop]

what is represented on the site does not portray what is found on earth.
earth life is DNA based.

Just because it's artificial only makes it "alien", it doesn't make it any less "alive". Does it?

 

[leopold]

Just because it's artificial only makes it "alien", it doesn't make it any less "alive". Does it?

i don't know.
i would assume the structure of RNA is not compatible with DNA.
this would rule out any outside life force that depended on DNA. (if RNA becomes valid that is).
there are questions about this though.
example:
what caused the wholesale transfer from RNA to DNA?

i honestly don't think it's "proof" of any kind of earth life, although it DOES have merit.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

What word do you suggest we should use to describe this relation between parts and their collective self?

Collection(!) ; Set ; Aggregation ; Caboodle ; Compilation ; Assortment ; Cluster ; Heap ; Pile ; Trove ; Whole ; Omnibus ; Muster ; Group ; etc...

 

[Trippy]

i don't think viruses (virii?) are alive.

That's your opinion nothing more. The scientific community, on the other hand, has been debating that for the last 100 years or so. They thought they had it settled and then along came mimivirus which has a size and complexity comparable to many bacteria that was also able to express its own proteins and reignited the debate.

But hey, if you're secure in your false certainty then who am I to argue?

i mentioned a fact.
what it actually means remains to be seen.
the fact is, earth life is DNA based.
can the two be interchanged?

Saying life is 'DNA based' is both wrong an meaningless. RNA ful-fils roles in the coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that without RNA life as we know it could not exist. The difference between us and most virii is that where we use DNA to encode genetic information most virii use RNA.

what applies to RNA life might not apply to DNA life.
so no, what is represented on the site does not represent earth life.
on the other hand, if this can happen (RNA becoming a bonifide cell) i believe it would disprove an outside lifeforce that depends on DNA to manifest itself.

Your stance puts you in opposition to mainstream science which considers that "It is generally accepted that current life on earth descends from an RNA world."

I mean look at what we see in nature, where we see the following progression:

Viroid: 'free floating' RNA that utilyses host cell enzymes to replicate itself. No proteins involved. Just enough RNA to cause its own replication.
RNA Virii: More complicated than a Viroid. RNA encapsulated by a protein. RNA encodes for its own reproduction and the production of proteins. The human Hepatitis D virus might almost be considered a transitional form between viroids and virii.
DNA Virii These still function as virii, however, the use DNA instead of RNA a transitional form between RNA and DNA virii may not be possible because it may not be 'that simple', but then again, nothing predicts that it should neccessarily that way. Alternatively we have the likes of Mimivirus which might represent a transitional form between virii and the simplest cells as it has some of the properties of both.

yes it's a good start, for no other reason than to learn about "real cells".

At this juncture, I'm not convinced you actually understand what that means.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

For the most part, I don't disagree with anything you have said here, it's along the same lines of the response I was formulating.

There are two things I would, however, add to what you have said here.

1. The first one is that in recent years it has become increasingly recognized that we have an important symbiotic relationship with our bacterial biome and that our bacterial biome has evolved with us. I know this doesn't directly relate to the question as it was specifically phrased, but it seemed worth mentioning regardless that although the answer was no, the human body does maintain symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms.

2. I'm fairly sure that there is a hypothesis that suggests that some of the specialist organelles in both animal and plant cells started off as single celled organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship where one of the partners evolved towards specialization and the other evolved towards generalization. The hypothesis, I think, is that, for example, mitochondria and chloropasts were originally single celled organisms that entered into symbiotic relationships with other cells. The cells they entered into these relationships with evolved towards being plant or animal cells while they evolved towards becoming the specialized structures we observe today. An analog to this might be the relationship between male and female angler fishes (at least, I think it's angler fishes).

I'm not sure I disagree with any of this either.

Seriously, Trippy.
That was stuff I learned in 9th Grade Biology, back in '69 or '70.
Heck, I even remember the "mnemonic" I utilized to Grok : gram-negative Bacteroides.
It was : hemorrhoids - ask me if I want them - answer = negative, Ergo : gram-negative Bacteroides.

Trippy, I realized decades ago that the more I learn and truly understand (Grok!), just adds to my realization that there is so very, very much more to be learned and truly understood(Grok'd!).

 

[Trippy]

You made up your own sentence, which is not true. It's always plural, it's always parts that rule over their collective-self entity. The Earth's moon does not have the total rule of what solar system does, it's just a part of it, it's all the planets and moons in symbiosis that rule or define what solar system does. Just like electrons and protons rule or define what atoms do, and so atoms rule or define what molecules do, and so molecules define what cells do, and so on to societies, ecosystems, planets and galaxies.

Actually, molecules can control what atoms do.

Unless you think that the oxygen atom in tert-butanol is somehow magically different from the oxygen atom in n-butanol? While they might have some chemistry in common, there are some reactions that can be done with one that can not be done with the other.

Likewise, atoms exert at least some control over how electrons behave - this is related to factors like which orbital the electron is and things like effective nuclear charge. Likewise, molecules can influence what an electron does - for example, when a bond becomes delocalized (eg benzene).

Likewise individual planets have had significant impact on the evolution of the solar system. On the face of it, what you're saying is simply wrong at every level.

 

[Trippy]

Seriously, Trippy.
That was stuff I learned in 9th Grade Biology, back in '69 or '70.
Heck, I even remember the "mnemonic" I utilized to Grok : gram-negative Bacteroides.
It was : hemorrhoids - ask me if I want them - answer = negative, Ergo : gram-negative Bacteroides.

Trippy, I realized decades ago that the more I learn and truly understand (Grok!), just adds to my realization that there is so very, very much more to be learned and truly understood(Grok'd!).

And that's fine. I wasn't suggesting you didn't understand those points, however, not all of the participants in this conversation have the level of understanding of biology that you and I have. I was simply making them explicit for those that might not otherwise have been aware of them.

 

[humbleteleskop]

I've made it quite clear, I am attracted to Panspermia, and like humbleteleskop I see it as a natural logical consequence that the Universe is full of life at various stages of evolution, due to the near infinite extent, the near infinite content, and the stuff of life being everywhere.

I agree with everything about Panspermia except about "transportation" of life via meteorites and such. If a planet does not have what it takes on its own then I don't think any meteorites could change that, unless the "meteorite" was not a whole planet by itself or something like that, but otherwise I find it as insignificant since many planets are already supposed to be teaming with life anyway.

 

[Trippy]

I agree with everything about Panspermia except about "transportation" of life via meteorites and such. If a planet does not have what it takes on its own then I don't think any meteorites could change that, unless the "meteorite" was not a whole planet by itself or something like that, but otherwise I find it as insignificant since many planets are already supposed to be teaming with life anyway.

Then you demonstrably do not understand panspermia.

 

[humbleteleskop]

2. I'm fairly sure that there is a hypothesis that suggests that some of the specialist organelles in both animal and plant cells started off as single celled organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship where one of the partners evolved towards specialization and the other evolved towards generalization. The hypothesis, I think, is that, for example, mitochondria and chloropasts were originally single celled organisms that entered into symbiotic relationships with other cells. The cells they entered into these relationships with evolved towards being plant or animal cells while they evolved towards becoming the specialized structures we observe today. An analog to this might be the relationship between male and female angler fishes (at least, I think it's angler fishes).

Very interesting. It must be true, at some level at least. We see cells tend to organize in aggregate of cells where they are usually better off because of it. It's just a matter of choosing words then to describe their collective interaction as "symbiosis", and that just fits the description.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Then you demonstrably do not understand panspermia.

And so you say. In any case, if I do not understand panspermia then please forget I compared my opinion with it.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

And that's fine. I wasn't suggesting you didn't understand those points, however, not all of the participants in this conversation have the level of understanding of biology that you and I have. I was simply making them explicit for those that might not otherwise have been aware of them.

Whoa...Trippy, please do not misunderstand what I Posted, please...please!
I was merely expressing my incredulousness that what I Grok'd nearly 45 years ago earned me a "nod in agreement".

I have not gotten a lot of them in the past 10-months or so on SciForums.

So...I completely understood that you were explicitly stating that I did understand!

Not a Biggie!
Cool Beans, aye!!

 

[paddoboy]

I agree with everything about Panspermia except about "transportation" of life via meteorites and such. If a planet does not have what it takes on its own then I don't think any meteorites could change that, unless the "meteorite" was not a whole planet by itself or something like that, but otherwise I find it as insignificant since many planets are already supposed to be teaming with life anyway.

That depends on the meteorite/comet, and what basic ingrediants it has to start the necessary chemical reactions to bring forth life from non life.
It is not Impossible.
You forget, that it only needs to start reacting in one spot. The hard part with life is the beginning...life from non life...Once life is established and has a foothold, it is pretty hardy and will spread and take hold.