Origin of Life

Thank you!

I am very disappointed that this discussion has degenerated into yet another useless religious debate That was not my intent. I merely wanted to recommend what I consider an excellent account of the current state of scientific investigation into this yet unanswered question. Pleas note (for those who have not read this book) Dr. Hazen does not make any claims of having an answer.

My scientific mind says you are wrong. It asks who created the creator?

You say evolution is a religion to discredit its scientific importance. But what you miss is that the creation loses its scientific importance with it - because it is religion.

As you might want to back off now because we want to have a scientific discussion.

Very much appreciated.

While we're asking paradoxical questions on who created the creator.... One can also ask, where does the universe end?

It doesn't. If you set off in a straight line and go very very fast (>>C) for a very long time you end up back here.

Imagine that you were a two dimensional being living on the surface of a very large sphere: you cannot perceive the curvature of the surface and you are completely constrained to it. Now just move everything up by one dimension.

Here as in the CR4 world? O gosh. If I ever was to set off to get away from here knowing I end up here again. . .

Unimaginable.

The only escape is the black helicopter it seems . . .

That's an old theory that is falling out of favor.

Then again, I thought I quit this thread awhile ago, but here I am right back where I started!

Then again. same here...

I think you're right,.... But it wasn't yesterday that you were here, it was tomorrow when I saw you here.

This is getting spooky,.... And I believe there's a theory about that.

Spooky action at a distance theory, by Albert Einstien.....

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/einsteins-spooky-action-distance-confirmed-new-quantum-experiment

Actually, Einstein famously did NOT believe in spooky action at a distance. That's why he referred to it derisively as "spooky action at a distance."

To really understand why you saw him tomorrow, I think you may need to refer to Douglas Adams and his "Restaurant at the End of the Universe", or maybe Kurt Vonnegut and "Slaughterhouse 5."

Or maybe just use lucid dreaming.

I've heard about Slaughterhouse 5, it was actually required reading. And was looking forward to reading it.

I believe?? it was required reading in high school in60's-70's (?), (heard from my older sister and brothers) by the time I was in high school, it was pulled............

I must be thinking of something else.... the publishing date is in 1991.

From Wikipedia:

Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death (1969) is a satirical novel by Kurt Vonnegut about World War II experiences and journeys through time of a soldier named Billy Pilgrim. It is generally recognized as Vonnegut's most influential and popular work.^[1] Vonnegut's use of the firebombing of Dresden as a central event makes the novel semi-autobiographical, because he was present then.

That makes sense, I was initially correct, I had looked on Amazon, unfortunately, thanks

You are not flying in a black helicopter or are you?

Can't, too much mass to even approach velocity of (>>C), the best you can do is repeat yesterday and start over..... Again, periodoxical. :-O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_e-RQZVwxg

Sure in a scientific context that is exactly what we are asking. Only because we have no answer we end up to get our believes out. So we cover for what we do not know.

This is the exact reason why scientists still can believe in the higher authority as long as it does not mingle with their respective field of knowledge.

This could be another discussion here and I bet Jorry and Ralf and some other will rock up to discuss.

It's fast approaching light speed to where Jorry et al., for them to take over from us layman....

"Life on Earth arose nearly 4 billion years ago, bursting forth from air, water, and rock."

"Written with grace, beauty, and authority, it goes directly to the heart of who we are and why we are here."

These are a couple of excerpts from the Foreword. Just a question; if we are a random mass of components without guidance of any sort, how would we have purpose or uniqueness in the midst of random chaos? We don't, because there is no basis for that purpose or uniqueness! Purpose and uniqueness come from design and a Designer because there is a reason/purpose we have been created. "Life on Earth arose nearly 4 billion years ago, bursting forth from air, water, and rock."

In regard to the 1st statement; I thought the purpose of science was to explore, gather facts and let them led to a hypothesis/conclusion. This statement says what the outcome is and then will interpret the facts to support that conclusion.

The theory of evolution came from Darwin's interpretation of the data he had collected. Long before Darwin, geologists had already concluded that evolution had happened, but they didn't have a theory about how it could have worked. That is, they knew that species changed over time, but didn't know how or why. Then Darwin simply proposed a theory that was so astonishingly obvious (in hindsight) that it immediately was adopted by most biologists. Bishops, politicians, and the general public were slower to catch on.

The important point here is that the theory emerged from the data that Darwin was looking at. There was no need for the Creator to determine every detail of the development of life, because it could evolve on its own. That does not make evolution incompatible with purpose and uniqueness. It also does not mean that the Creator did not direct evolution, but only that the evidence for such direction is not found in the fossil record. If the way that the Creator managed evolution was by sending a particular cosmic ray to hit a particular gene at a particular time, then you would have a hard time detecting that. It is indistinguishable from chance. A scientist cannot put that kind of speculation into a scientific theory without data.

The details or the history of life keep changing as scientists keep looking at data and adding vast amounts more every year, but the changes are based on the data and new theories and techniques. There is not a single piece of data that is incompatible with the theory of evolution. There is plenty that is not understood, but not understanding something is not the same as disproving it. At the same time, there are many experiments that prove without doubt that modern animals evolved from earlier ones.

It would be easy for God to disprove evolution. All it would take would be to find a fossil of any vertebrate in the Burgess Shale, whether it be a fish, dinosaur, or a rabbit. You would think that in Noah's Flood, SOMETHING would have been deposited there just by random chance. But no. Not a single fossil. Not even a trilobite.

There is nothing in the fossil record that leads one to the story of creation in the Bible. The theory has to emerge from the data. Can you think of a single example in which the data gave rise to anything in the Genesis story?

There was a recent scientific paper that shows that molecular evolution was quite different from what scientists had imagined. It appears that all of our DNA evolved from a single molecule of RNA that encoded within it all the functions that were needed for self-reproduction. The research shows that the sequence of the ribosome, an RNA structure found in all living things from bacteria to humans, which is the part of the cell that translates DNA into protein, actually contains within itself traces of the genes essential for duplicating itself, but that now are found in DNA. That is evidence that the ribosome was once self-sufficient, and able to duplicate itself, long before DNA came on the scene. Maybe even before cells existed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107101405.htm

We'll have to agree to disagree on this topic of origin of the Universe, mankind, animals and organic plants. We see things from a different perspective.

The one common thing we both know is that life is amazing and highly intricate.

Amen.

Where are these quotes from. I don't find them anywhere in the Forward to this Book.

They were at the link that was attached to the Post.

If you go to Amazon.com you can read the actual Forward (by David Dreamer) and Preface (by the Author) without purchasing the book. Click on the book image to "see what's inside".

Thanks and GA!

I'm especially intrigued by "Barbrook and Howe's genetic analysis of 58 different manuscripts of Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" to deduce the common ancestral manuscript from textual differences.

I'd like to know more about "genetic analysis", as well as the chemistry and physics of the book.

Going to weigh-in here, but mind you I am quite the novice on this topic as up until recently most of my focused learning was on topics applicable to employment productivity. It hasn't been until the down-hill side of my employed productivity (where I now know 'enough' to meet objectives ;-) that I can devote my free time to learning things akin to the topic of this post.

When I started delving in, I like to start at the basic of levels, so I looked to the Periodic Table of Elements and putting some faith in its time-tested validity - I ranked them in abundance.

In our Solar System, they are:

1. Hydrogen
2. Helium
3. Oxygen
4. Carbon
5. Nitrogen

In human beings, they are:

1. Oxygen
2. Carbon
3. Hydrogen
4. Nitrogen

Considering Helium is inert, I think it's fair to say - in my simplistic mindset - that we are not unique but rather typical to everything around us so the origin of our life is the Solar System, and it originated from the Universe. Otherwise, if we were made special, if we were made separate - we'd have a special/separate element as part of our make-up, I would think. But we're not, this also leads to the belief of 'life' elsewhere - why wouldn't it be? As common as we are to what's 'out there'.

Not getting into the 'religion' thing, as I am conflicted at times - biological life forms are one thing - spirt/soul is something else. All I know is that scientific discovery lives on the edge of the unknown and I don't want to base any 'belief' I may have regarding the origin of our species on the unknown - because that is getting smaller every day. So I keep them separate… life-forms and their origins - scientific evidence only… Spirit/Soul… and considering I've had a personal encounter with a so-called Medium that 'channeled' a person from my past and new things I never told anyone, ever… well, I try to keep an open mind. But I do not subscribe to what humanity has done regarding religion, with all the military conflicts I've been involved in, in my years… it sickens me to see firsthand, around the world, what blind religious faith does to people, to nations. Is there some divine entity out there that empowers our spirit/soul… let's just say the position I have chosen on that topic is one of open-mindedness that I will confirm upon my passing. But outside of that… science baby!

Then I highly recommend that you get this book

Too bad it was deleted as it may have been or is good information worthy of review and consideration.

I like reading and studying the many theories but I believe our current focus really needs to be more on where we as humans and stewards of this planet are going in the future and how our actions are affecting everything around us, rather than argue the moot point of where and/or how all life started.

To me science and religion are not that far apart as pretty much everyone knows there is an unidentified but very powerful force that controls life and everything else around us.

Despite billions of dollars being wasted on searching for answers to this argument none have successfully proven any theory as absolutely true.

In my opinion the money would be better spent on solving our current pollution issues without decimating our way of life and to eradicate world hunger.

I am pretty certain that if the theory of evolution were absolutely true, there would be no other species other than humans existing in this world.

After all; Why would any organism willingly make the conscious decision to not be at the top of the food chain in their environment?

And if initially they did so, then surely all would instantly change direction once they realized their mistake and then start evolving into human form.

If, as we believe this planet and the life on it has been in existence for millions of years, then every organism on it has had more than enough time to make the change to human form and migrate to the top of the food chain.

Simple logic and sound reasoning dictates that there is a very meticulous, powerful force in control of all laws of physics and life that is not within our ability as a human nor as any other form of life currently existing on this earth to fathom or understand even in it's smallest detail.

We absolutely cannot control where we came from but we certainly can control where we are going if we collaborate and focus on the important challenges and obstacles facing us.

Rant over.

I agree that whether or not we believe in evolution, we need to be stewards of this planet.

"I am pretty certain that if the theory of evolution were absolutely true, there would be no other species other than humans existing in this world."

"After all; Why would any organism willingly make the conscious decision to not be at the top of the food chain in their environment?"

I think that might be a joke, but if not I think you may need to read more about evolution. Organisms don't "willingly decide" whether or not to be at the top of the food chain. Does plankton get to choose to be a whale when it gets tired of being eaten? Does a gazelle decide that it has had enough running away from lions and wants to be a lion instead? How would it accomplish that? Or in your view does the entire species of gazelle decide to be a new species of lion?

On the other hand, it is conceivable (not actually possible, but I could imagine it in a science fiction scenario) that all organisms on earth will become human someday, in the sense that gazelles can become lions by being eaten by the lions.

I too agree with your first sentence.

I don't believe that the quotes were intended as a joke. Unfortunately, I suspect the poster really believes what he/she is saying.

As you indicate, there is no willfulness involved in evolution.

On the other hand, it is NOT conceivable that all organisms could eventually become human, because we are TOTALLY dependent on many other organisms for our survival. For example, without bees, we would have essentially no fruit and fewer vegetables. Without the myriad microorganisms all throughout our bodies, we would not be able to digest most of our food, and would not have sufficient of the many chemicals necessary for motion and thought. Virtually all our food originates as plants, and virtually all plants make use of microorganisms to put nitrogen into a usable form, among other things.

You are right, of course, about humans depending on many other organisms for survival.

I did say it was not actually possible. It is only conceivable in a science fiction sense in which humans start living on synthetic food, move underground or into domes or into space, and slowly devour all the remaining organisms, converting the ecosystems on earth into more humans. Conceivable, but not possible. (I hope.)

You are also correct that we are dependent on the microbes in our bodies in all kinds of ways, but I suggest we grant them honorary human status, as being a necessary part of a human body.

We humans evolved and live in an ecosystem where all life depends directly or indirectly on all other life.

In addition to Canary's comments. Unfortunately being at the top of the food chain is not one of the best strategies as far as survival of the fittest is concerned: compare the number of gnus (wildebeests) to the number of lions.

Or consider that the total biomass of all the ants on earth matches the biomass all the human; 10,000 trillion ants compared to a measly 7 billion humans.

Like humans,.... ants are lazy

by the way,..... when ones on top of the food chain,....... there is only one way to go...... and its not up.