Origin of life Thread: Chemistry of seabed's hot vents could explain emergence of life

[alang1216]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

 

[alang1216]

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.

Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution. The first life was infinately simpler. It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.

Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution. The first life was infinately simpler. It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.

You mean there was something directing the molecules, proteins and amino acids to form a cell? Fascinating. Can you elaborate?

 

[Muhammed]

This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth. This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life. Feel free to contribute other examples.

Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily

This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.

More at the link.

Think life starts pretty easily where ever chemistry is favorable to it. Intelligent life on the other hand using Earth's example is exceedingly rare.

I suspect planets are teeming with life all over the universe. But intelligent life seems something of an accident. Of course the law of large numbers is on our side and even a freak occurence as happened here could happen millions of times across the whole universe.

Example of life being created from non living things?

Stay tuned.

I just researched it. Turns out it hasn't happened. That's so scientific of you to believe in something that has never actually been observed. You logical people you not believing in magic.

You zealots are a scary lot. What's interesting about the fundamentalists profound hatred for science is that "the gawds did it" is rendered more pointless by the day.

Undersea vents and the life that sprung up around them were a "watershed" discovery in that life can thrive absent photosynthesis.

Secondly, the likely discovery of life off this planet will be devastating to the fundies as there is really no way to resolve that phenomenon via the religious articles.

And btw, we know with absolute certainty that life came from non-life. That fact that life exists proves that. Either life was magically proofed into existence by one or more gawds (which does nothing to negate biological evolution), or life began in completely natural ways, clearly the most likely.

Actually, from a strictly non-religious standpoint, the book of Genesis implies that life came from within the Earth.

 

[alang1216]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.

 

[alang1216]

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.

Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution. The first life was infinately simpler. It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.

You mean there was something directing the molecules, proteins and amino acids to form a cell? Fascinating. Can you elaborate?

The "something" was evolution. The non-celluar life that existed before there were cells as we know them was still subject to evolution by natural selection.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.

What formed them? Living proteins?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.

Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution. The first life was infinately simpler. It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.

You mean there was something directing the molecules, proteins and amino acids to form a cell? Fascinating. Can you elaborate?

The "something" was evolution. The non-celluar life that existed before there were cells as we know them was still subject to evolution by natural selection.

Sure. If a cell has 2,000 proteins, the odds of it evolving randomly to have all the proteins fit perfectly together are E 5,700-1, that's a number with 5,700 zeros after it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for cells to form as you suggest. Either the proteins were self-aware and knew EXACTLY where they'd have to fit or your theory fails

And remember, only left-handed amino acids are used on Earth, the right handed ones are "Evolutionary" dead ends

 

[Dot Com]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

welcome to the thread and good observation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

welcome to the thread and good observation.

Good observation that met reality 5 posts later

 

[alang1216]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.

What formed them? Living proteins?

If a single molecule were capable of reproduction it would be subject to the forces of natural selection. That is all it took for life to begin. There are plenty of molecules capable of self assembly so it is not wild speculation IMHO.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think you have no idea how complex and intricate proteins must be in order to have a cell function properly. I think it's another small = simple fallacy.

 

[alang1216]

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.

Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution. The first life was infinately simpler. It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.

You mean there was something directing the molecules, proteins and amino acids to form a cell? Fascinating. Can you elaborate?

The "something" was evolution. The non-celluar life that existed before there were cells as we know them was still subject to evolution by natural selection.

Sure. If a cell has 2,000 proteins, the odds of it evolving randomly to have all the proteins fit perfectly together are E 5,700-1, that's a number with 5,700 zeros after it. It's IMPOSSIBLE for cells to form as you suggest. Either the proteins were self-aware and knew EXACTLY where they'd have to fit or your theory fails

And remember, only left-handed amino acids are used on Earth, the right handed ones are "Evolutionary" dead ends

That is exactly NOT what I'm suggesting. Non-living matter randomly combining to form a cell is YOUR suggestion/strawman, something we both agree is absurd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.

What formed them? Living proteins?

If a single molecule were capable of reproduction it would be subject to the forces of natural selection. That is all it took for life to begin. There are plenty of molecules capable of self assembly so it is not wild speculation IMHO.

Maybe, but to have it all happen randomly you're taking that process and multiplying it by E5,700 to have it make the first cell.

 

[alang1216]

I think you have no idea how complex and intricate proteins must be in order to have a cell function properly. I think it's another small = simple fallacy.

I do appreciate the complexity of cells and understand why they likely took billions of years to evolve to where they are today. I don't think you appreciate how simple life can be to become subject to evolution. You need to realize that the cell was not the first living thing to exist on earth.

 

[alang1216]

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.

What formed them? Living proteins?

If a single molecule were capable of reproduction it would be subject to the forces of natural selection. That is all it took for life to begin. There are plenty of molecules capable of self assembly so it is not wild speculation IMHO.

Maybe, but to have it all happen randomly you're taking that process and multiplying it by E5,700 to have it make the first cell.

Quite right but I'm not suggesting it was a random process. That is your strawman.

 

[chikenwing]

Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros

 

[alang1216]

Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros

You might want to check your math or at least stop listening to those that don't know any more than you do.

 

[orogenicman]

The math destroys that fictional narrative

I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process. Why do people continue with these strawman arguements? Very sad.

We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?

Are you suggesting that single cells are self-aware?