Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

So, all life has a common descent?

Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, a single source caused all of life?
What are we calling the original uh.......thing?

Just curious.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 7:20:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:09:46 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
So, a single source caused all of life?
What are we calling the original uh.......thing?

Just curious.

I've heard different things. Common ancestor, universal ancestor, and my favorite, the ancestor cell.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 7:34:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:09:46 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
So, a single source caused all of life?
What are we calling the original uh.......thing?

Just curious.

imprimus anima latin for first of all life I just came up with it.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:17:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
Abiogenesis.

Common ancestor.

Best empiric theory available.

So, life has always existed? No beginning?
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:35:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:17:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
Abiogenesis.

Common ancestor.

Best empiric theory available.

Just to clarify, abiogenesis and common decent are two separate concepts.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 6:38:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 10:35:18 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/6/2014 7:17:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
Abiogenesis.

Common ancestor.

Best empiric theory available.

Just to clarify, abiogenesis and common decent are two separate concepts.

What do you think of the scientific name: imprimus anima?
It means first of all life in Latin.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 6:52:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:09:46 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
So, a single source caused all of life?
What are we calling the original uh.......thing?

Just curious.

If you consider a soup of all chemical composites of life (since life essentially breaks down to a very specific chemical composition reacting to itself in just such a way we know as life) a single source, then yes.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 2:01:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:09:46 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
So, a single source caused all of life?
What are we calling the original uh.......thing?

Just curious.

We shall call it: initium vitae as it's scientific name; it means "beginning of life"
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As has been mentioned earlier, abiogenesis and universal common descent are 2 different concepts.

Abiogenesis is the study of how chemistry can lead to the first self-replicating molecules (a very, very primitive form of life that wouldn't even resemble a bacteria), and universal common descent is the hypothetical organism that all living things are descended from that's conclusively predicted by the genetic evidence (looking at which sequences are shared amongst all lifeforms known).

There are a few things to note

1. The universal common ancestor would have had at least the tools for RNA duplication, a cell membrane and a primitive form of the Kreb's cycle (the energy producing 'engine' in our cells)

2. It lived over 600 million years ago (before the Cambrian explosion), a much better estimate is ~ 3 billion years ago

3. Abiogenesis research has approaches from all 3 of the primitive functions of the universal common ancestor, some look at RNA-first approaches, and others have looked at primitive catalysts for energy Production (such as certain clays)

If I were to add my 2 cents (for what they are worth), I would bet the first self-replicating systems on earth would have arose near geothermal vents, such places were very common in the Early earth and are a prime generator of highly reactive simple molecules and a constant source of energy/chemical concentrating mechanisms
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 2:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I've figured out a scientific name for it: simplicissima(the genus) cella(the species)

simplicissima means the simplest

cella means cells
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 4:01:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:17:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
Abiogenesis.

Common ancestor.

Best empiric theory available.

It isn't. In fact, it's the poorest since there's no basis to induct that life arose from non-living compounds. Intelligent design is more in line with observations since it is common knowledge that intelligent beings routinely design the kind of systems seen in living organisms.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 4:01:18 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/6/2014 7:17:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
Abiogenesis.

Common ancestor.

Best empiric theory available.

It isn't. In fact, it's the poorest since there's no basis to induct that life arose from non-living compounds. Intelligent design is more in line with observations since it is common knowledge that intelligent beings routinely design the kind of systems seen in living organisms.

Actually, Man was created by Prometheus and Athena, and all the other animals were just made for the amusement of the other gods. That's why humans are so smart, because Athena had an affair with Prometheus, so she breathed on his creation (man). Animals like the blob fish exist, because Poseidon has a sick sense of humor. Trees exist because Gaia was is embodiment of things that don't move.
0x5f3759df
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 5:44:27 PM, Bullish wrote:


Actually, Man was created by Prometheus and Athena, and all the other animals were just made for the amusement of the other gods. That's why humans are so smart, because Athena had an affair with Prometheus, so she breathed on his creation (man). Animals like the blob fish exist, because Poseidon has a sick sense of humor. Trees exist because Gaia was is embodiment of things that don't move.

I have always been fond of Greek myths. Reading your response here makes me want to read it again. However, if this is an attempt at sarcasm, it is a pathetic one, I suggest you try harder.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:25:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:13:42 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/8/2014 5:44:27 PM, Bullish wrote:


Actually, Man was created by Prometheus and Athena, and all the other animals were just made for the amusement of the other gods. That's why humans are so smart, because Athena had an affair with Prometheus, so she breathed on his creation (man). Animals like the blob fish exist, because Poseidon has a sick sense of humor. Trees exist because Gaia was is embodiment of things that don't move.

I have always been fond of Greek myths. Reading your response here makes me want to read it again. However, if this is an attempt at sarcasm, it is a pathetic one, I suggest you try harder.

I'm not trying harder to keep this conversation up if you don't troll harder too.
0x5f3759df
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:31:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 2:36:08 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
As has been mentioned earlier, abiogenesis and universal common descent are 2 different concepts.

Abiogenesis is the study of how chemistry can lead to the first self-replicating molecules (a very, very primitive form of life that wouldn't even resemble a bacteria), and universal common descent is the hypothetical organism that all living things are descended from that's conclusively predicted by the genetic evidence (looking at which sequences are shared amongst all lifeforms known).

There are a few things to note

So, this is the only serious attempt I see in the thread, so far, to define the actual nature of the first life form.

Is this all we have?

What was the nature of the "ancestor?"


1. The universal common ancestor would have had at least the tools for RNA duplication, a cell membrane and a primitive form of the Kreb's cycle (the energy producing 'engine' in our cells)

2. It lived over 600 million years ago (before the Cambrian explosion), a much better estimate is ~ 3 billion years ago

3. Abiogenesis research has approaches from all 3 of the primitive functions of the universal common ancestor, some look at RNA-first approaches, and others have looked at primitive catalysts for energy Production (such as certain clays)

If I were to add my 2 cents (for what they are worth), I would bet the first self-replicating systems on earth would have arose near geothermal vents, such places were very common in the Early earth and are a prime generator of highly reactive simple molecules and a constant source of energy/chemical concentrating mechanisms
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Abiogenesis could have happened more than once. We could be from an ancestry than traces back to different cells at different places and in different times.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:41:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To clarify what I'm now asking:

What did it look like?
What did it do?
If it is the minimum qualifier of life, then what is the barest minimum definition of life?
How did it diversify so greatly?
If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing that we could kill and stop all life from happening, or were there a bunch of iterations of the first form, which then each evolved differently?

If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing we could kill and stop humans from evolving, but still allow other life forms to evolve?
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 4:19:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Abiogenesis could have happened more than once. We could be from an ancestry than traces back to different cells at different places and in different times.

I'm not sure what you quite mean by the second sentence, but the first part is true. If for example today an area completely devoid of life as we know it today appeared on earth. This area has everything that the first self-replicating molecules arose from, an energy source, the catalysts and the organic material. Abiogenesis may indeed occur again, however, it will be rapidly out-competed by any bacterial/fungal life that invades from the outside.

Why? Because even the most basic of life here is radically different from those first self-replicating systems with a much greater ability to reproduce, metabolize and hence adapt.

I think this is what happened with our earliest universal common ancestor - 'life' may have arisen multiple times but the most competitive examples (for resources, ability to reproduce etc.) would have eliminated all the others.

To clarify what I'm now asking:

What did it look like?
What did it do?

Well the universal common ancestor would have been a single celled organism with a cell wall, DNA reproduction system and metabolic system. The wiki page has a good amount of detail on this although it misses out the metabolic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It would have done everything I said already, metabolize and reproduce - which si essentially what all life does

If it is the minimum qualifier of life, then what is the barest minimum definition of life?

This is actually an interesting question. Since the current definition of 'life' excludes for example viruses from fulfilling it (it does not reproduce or respond by itself). There's the MRS GREN definition which I was taught at school (Move, Respire, Sense, Grow, Reproduce, Excrete, Nutrition), which the universal common ancestor would have fulfilled.

This almost certainly is not what the first self-replicating system (from abiogenesis) would have been life, which is why I am very tentative about calling it 'life'. It would have had the ability to copy itself and not much more.

How did it diversify so greatly?

The first self-replicating system would have diversified by evolution by natural selection, as soon as you have that first system then you have everything you need for it to self-sustain. That is why finding what this system might have been is of great interest in the relatively new science of abiogenesis.

If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing that we could kill and stop all life from happening, or were there a bunch of iterations of the first form, which then each evolved differently?
If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing we could kill and stop humans from evolving, but still allow other life forms to evolve?

I already answered this question with my first couple of points, 'life' could (and would go as far as to think must have) have arisen in multiple places at multiple times. If that's the case then it's the case of what would happen if your great-grandfather was never born. The answer is you would not exist today - but maybe/probably your great grandmother would have just met somebody else and has a different set of descendants. Same for if you killed the first self-replicating system (if it did occur multiple times)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 8:56:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:41:42 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
To clarify what I'm now asking:

What did it look like?

A strand of RNA encased in a fatty acid membrane.

Here's an illustration--http://exploringorigins.org...

What did it do?

Metabolize chemicals and reproduce asexually.

If it is the minimum qualifier of life, then what is the barest minimum definition of life?

Probably having a metabolism and being able to reproduce.
How did it diversify so greatly?

Bacteria reproduce exponentially so there would be millions of mutations.
If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing that we could kill and stop all life from happening, or were there a bunch of iterations of the first form, which then each evolved differently?

There was probably multiple individuals of the first form of life in which case you couldn't kill a single living thing and prevent life from having developed..

If we could go back in time, is there a single living thing we could kill and stop humans from evolving, but still allow other life forms to evolve?

Nope, you'd have to kill every Australopithecus Afarensis
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 9:09:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ Sswdm

Abiogenesis research is hugely flawed and start on premises that go against the evidence (observations abd what they suggest).

First up, the genetic code is real and is not analogy. Same for the fact that biochemical machines abound in cells.

Next up, Perry Marshall and Stephen Meyer have both argued convincingly that natural processes have never been seen to make a code: the property crucial to making codes or machines (of the sort seen in cells) is intelligence.

Unfortunately, evolutionists ignore the fact of intelligence designing codes. Presume that living systems and their codes can arise naturally. And kill logic by hugely interfering (in ways Nature can't) in experiments which supposedly demonstrate that self-replicating molecules (and ultimately life) can evolve.

This couldn't be more disingenous.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 9:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:13:42 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/8/2014 5:44:27 PM, Bullish wrote:


Actually, Man was created by Prometheus and Athena, and all the other animals were just made for the amusement of the other gods. That's why humans are so smart, because Athena had an affair with Prometheus, so she breathed on his creation (man). Animals like the blob fish exist, because Poseidon has a sick sense of humor. Trees exist because Gaia was is embodiment of things that don't move.

I have always been fond of Greek myths. Reading your response here makes me want to read it again. However, if this is an attempt at sarcasm, it is a pathetic one, I suggest you try harder.

I don't know how much you subscribe to Genesis, but I've heard that a plausible explanation for the origin of Greek & Roman myths was the idolization of Adam & Eve's family.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 9:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:13:42 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/8/2014 5:44:27 PM, Bullish wrote:


Actually, Man was created by Prometheus and Athena, and all the other animals were just made for the amusement of the other gods. That's why humans are so smart, because Athena had an affair with Prometheus, so she breathed on his creation (man). Animals like the blob fish exist, because Poseidon has a sick sense of humor. Trees exist because Gaia was is embodiment of things that don't move.

I have always been fond of Greek myths. Reading your response here makes me want to read it again. However, if this is an attempt at sarcasm, it is a pathetic one, I suggest you try harder.

Also, I enjoyed them a lot too, especially when I was little.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 9:46:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 9:09:35 PM, Iredia wrote:
Unfortunately, evolutionists ignore the fact of intelligence designing codes. Presume that living systems and their codes can arise naturally. And kill logic by hugely interfering (in ways Nature can't) in experiments which supposedly demonstrate that self-replicating molecules (and ultimately life) can evolve.

This couldn't be more disingenous.

I know right! They try to prove that intelligence is not required to design a code by designing a code with intelligence. -.-
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:18:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 9:46:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/9/2014 9:09:35 PM, Iredia wrote:
Unfortunately, evolutionists ignore the fact of intelligence designing codes. Presume that living systems and their codes can arise naturally. And kill logic by hugely interfering (in ways Nature can't) in experiments which supposedly demonstrate that self-replicating molecules (and ultimately life) can evolve.

This couldn't be more disingenous.

I know right! They try to prove that intelligence is not required to design a code by designing a code with intelligence. -.-

They aren't even doing the code bit. That's way too hard. They hope to get a good enough self-replicating molecule and use that to show that life (and its genetic code) can develop naturally.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:30:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 9:43:29 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


I don't know how much you subscribe to Genesis, but I've heard that a plausible explanation for the origin of Greek & Roman myths was the idolization of Adam & Eve's family.

I don't subscribe to Genesis. As for the myths, I doubt it but it's not impossible. Jews were one of the first people to widely adopt a monotheism. Greeks OTOH were ardent polytheists.

And I did enjoy their myths while I was little.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 4:00:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ Iredia

Perhaps you should be more specific about your concerns with Abiogenesis research?

Let me clarify/lay out some important points about it:
1. It's a relatively new science
2. We may never exactly know how the first self replicating system came about - the researchers are only attempting to find plausible systems and environments that could have done this
3. Scientists do not have 200 million years and an entire planet to do the experiment with - so they will test only the environments and conditions they think will most likely be successful

It is quite likely that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule - and would have instead been a later evolutionary outcome. Furthermore the genome - while today it acts mostly as a code for amino acid sequences - is still just a polymeric molecule. A molecule that can bend, stick, deform, react etc.

It's precisely that reason why I would place my money on the self-replicating molecule to be the first and most important step in abiogenesis (the jury and research is still out on it however). The 'random' sequences of oligomeric primitive genetic material would SPF-replicate - with some sequences being more successful than others based purely on the shape/chemistry of the genetic molecule - which will lead to a cumulative effect called natural selection.

I'll restate - natural selection is a cumulative process, we need only topple the first domino for it to take off
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 7:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 4:00:28 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
@ Iredia

Perhaps you should be more specific about your concerns with Abiogenesis research?

Let me clarify/lay out some important points about it:
1. It's a relatively new science
2. We may never exactly know how the first self replicating system came about - the researchers are only attempting to find plausible systems and environments that could have done this
3. Scientists do not have 200 million years and an entire planet to do the experiment with - so they will test only the environments and conditions they think will most likely be successful

It is quite likely that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule - and would have instead been a later evolutionary outcome. Furthermore the genome - while today it acts mostly as a code for amino acid sequences - is still just a polymeric molecule. A molecule that can bend, stick, deform, react etc.

It's precisely that reason why I would place my money on the self-replicating molecule to be the first and most important step in abiogenesis (the jury and research is still out on it however). The 'random' sequences of oligomeric primitive genetic material would SPF-replicate - with some sequences being more successful than others based purely on the shape/chemistry of the genetic molecule - which will lead to a cumulative effect called natural selection.

I'll restate - natural selection is a cumulative process, we need only topple the first domino for it to take off
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 7:05:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 4:00:28 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
@ Iredia

Perhaps you should be more specific about your concerns with Abiogenesis research?

Most abiogenesis researchers use poor logic. Experiments to demonstrate the plausibility of natural processes creating life MUST simulate those natural processes in the lab. However, OOL researchers outrightly design molecules or intefere heavily (in a way that Nature doesn't) and pretend they've shown plausible processes. Till date, the Urey-Miller experiment is the best OOL experiment (and the first). It followed the path of simulating a natural environment to see what it could do. Now reesearchers actually engineer RNA replicases and pretend they've shown 'plausible means' for life to have evolved. This is dishonest.

Rebuttals I won't accept from you are:

Pretending their interference is needed for the experiment: this is wrong because I state they interfere in ways Nature can't. Miller stopped the spark discharge in his experiment at a point; this is a reasonable interference since thunder (that the spark discharge simulated) stop, and can stop WHEN necessary by chance. Expecting multiple purifications by chance is a different ball game.

We need it since Nature was different then: Good. Because Nature didn't use brains then. Simulate the natural world as you think it was and let's see what it can do.


Let me clarify/lay out some important points about it:
1. It's a relatively new science
2. We may never exactly know how the first self replicating system came about - the researchers are only attempting to find plausible systems and environments that could have done this
3. Scientists do not have 200 million years and an entire planet to do the experiment with - so they will test only the environments and conditions they think will most likely be successful

Thanks for the info. That said, planets lack intelligence and the ability to fine-tune processes and forces to create life.


It is quite likely that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule - and would have instead been a later evolutionary outcome. Furthermore the genome - while today it acts mostly as a code for amino acid sequences - is still just a polymeric molecule. A molecule that can bend, stick, deform, react etc.

Please ! I find the reference to DNA being 'just' a polymeric molecule (to pretend the genetic code is a metaphor) silly. And you should. If I stated music CD's are 'just solids' that break and refract light; would you stop believing it has a code ? The genome is a code (that resides on a DNA molecule) within a cell, period.


It's precisely that reason why I would place my money on the self-replicating molecule to be the first and most important step in abiogenesis (the jury and research is still out on it however). The 'random' sequences of oligomeric primitive genetic material would SPF-replicate - with some sequences being more successful than others based purely on the shape/chemistry of the genetic molecule - which will lead to a cumulative effect called natural selection.

Your final point is of interest to me. But first, please answer whether you think codes are made strictly by physicochemical laws.


I'll restate - natural selection is a cumulative process, we need only topple the first domino for it to take off

Agreed. Tho' I understand NS differently.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 7:23:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rebuttals I won't accept from you are:

Pretending their interference is needed for the experiment: this is wrong because I state they interfere in ways Nature can't.

Yes... that tends to be the whole point of doing things in a lab.. so you can narrow down the variables and see things as they occur more precisely and in a timescale a human can observe in

It is quite likely that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule - and would have instead been a later evolutionary outcome. Furthermore the genome - while today it acts mostly as a code for amino acid sequences - is still just a polymeric molecule. A molecule that can bend, stick, deform, react etc.

Please ! I find the reference to DNA being 'just' a polymeric molecule (to pretend the genetic code is a metaphor) silly. And you should. If I stated music CD's are 'just solids' that break and refract light; would you stop believing it has a code ? The genome is a code (that resides on a DNA molecule) within a cell, period.

You miss the point, DNA is fundamentally just chemistry as is all of biochemistry (which is why they keep stealing the chemist's nobel prizes). The DNA is just a strand of different nucleic acid molecules covalently linked together to form a much larger molecule.

Abiogenesis is looking at how natural chemical processes can lead to the first self replicating systems and as such it's more important to understand the chemistry of the first DNA oligomers as opposed to any function it would have had as a genetic code. It's perfectly conceivable that certain arrangements of nucleic acids would have functioned as better templates for self-replication based on their large-scale chemical properties alone than other arrangements. Which is a plausible first domino for natural selection to take off from
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...