Abiogenesis - what are the chances, really?

[moonbogg]

This has a major problem as well, it would mean that there must be some completely unknown force that can counter, and even reverse, entropy. This is, in it's way, just as problematic as a uncaused effect that must be the beginning.

I don't see it that way. If you hit two stones together, they make a spark and it fades away. The stones don't go anywhere. Do you need a force to reverse the spark?
Also, I don't think there was a beginning. The rocks represent fundamental reality, and the spark represents emergent phenomenon, like this universe.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Still, panspermia doesn't solve the problems of origins,

*WHAT* origin?

it just outsources it by hypothesizing how *life* got to the planet...not how it itself came to exist. Of course, to solve this problem, life never "began".

You're welcome to demonstrate that it began.

It's the exact same type of argument put forth by theists; everything has a beginning, except God.

That does not resemble any argument I've ever made, so I have to wonder who you are arguing against.

And what's equally puzzling, how can folks like you be OK with life not having a "beginning", but demand we show "who created the creator"? Eternity is just an argument of convenience.

The latter only applies to those making an argument resembling the one you just stated.

I'd argue both sides are just full of double-speak.

You can argue that, and you will be wrong.

Then this always opens some sort of paradox; since our universe is 13 Billion years old, then it would be expected that our entire galaxy be inhabited, or nearly as so.

How in the world do you suppose that follows?

 

[norseamd]

You can argue that, and you will be wrong.

No he is speaking the truth actually.

 

[alzan]

"Life" isn't a very well-defined term in the first place, if you ask me.

Or, another way to say it is that "life" is merely a term in human language. We apply it to things in our experience that meet our fundamentally arbitrary definition.

We know that things in the world move about and interact and form patterns -- even so-called "dead" matter. There may be a point in the past where things began to make certain patterns that are particularly interesting to us. They may have begun to maintain "edges" or barriers across which they exchange things like oxygen and carbon dioxide or other matter used to carry on processes inside those barriers that we could call "metabolism" and even "reproduction."

Why and how this may have begun -- if it "began" at all -- is a valid and fascinating area to investigate. I think it is important to acknowledge, however, that 1.) the lines between "life" and "non-life" are very blurry because our definitions are fundamentally arbitrary, and 2.) just because it appears there were points in time that this didn't seem to be happening on our planet doesn't mean it wasn't happening somewhere else in the universe before it showed up on ours.

Does our language contain terms that more accurate with which to discuss subjects such as abiogenesis?

 

[moonbogg]

Does our language contain terms that more accurate with which to discuss subjects such as abiogenesis?

Maybe instead of abiogenesis, we really mean genesis. If there is no genesis, then the problem becomes a cat chasing it's tail.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No he is speaking the truth actually.

You're cordially invited to defend that assertion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Does our language contain terms that more accurate with which to discuss subjects such as abiogenesis?

I don't think the term is a problem. My point was that it is important not to become so hypnotized by it as to forget the larger picture.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't see it that way. If you hit two stones together, they make a spark and it fades away. The stones don't go anywhere. Do you need a force to reverse the spark?
Also, I don't think there was a beginning. The rocks represent fundamental reality, and the spark represents emergent phenomenon, like this universe.

Yes, if you bang the two rocks together and they spark they lose some of their mass to that spark. That spark is literally a small amount of the stones breaking off and burning away. Keep doing it long enough and you no longer have any stones.

 

[alzan]

Of course you're not convinced, because life having a "beginning" leads to a very inconvenient, and more importantly, uncomfortable hypothesis.

Hawking noted this discomfort in his book a Brief history of Time: "Many people do not like the idea that time as a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention".

Time is a dimension, a reference point. Think of it not as something with a beginning or end but something which has always been.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes, if you bang the two rocks together and they spark they lose some of their mass to that spark. That spark is literally a small amount of the stones breaking off and burning away. Keep doing it long enough and you no longer have any stones.

It was an illustration.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Time is a dimension, a reference point. Think of it not as something with a beginning or end but something which has always been.

Time has fundamentally the same ontology as latitude and longitude. It's very useful and important, but it basically doesn't exit outside of our minds.

 

[norseamd]

Time has fundamentally the same ontology as latitude and longitude. It's very useful and important, but it basically doesn't exit outside of our minds.

That is exactly what I think is possible. Time is just like mathematics in that it does not physically exist although it does exist conceptually or intellectually.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That is exactly what I think is possible. Time is just like mathematics in that it does not physically exist although it does exist conceptually or intellectually.

Latitude and longitude might be the symbols we use to think about the idea, but the thing they represent, space, is real. The same thing is true with time. We might use seconds and minutes to represent it's passing, but that which passes is real.
Just as if I have two people at different geographic coordinates there is something between them, if I have two people at different temporal coordinates, something also separates them.

Math is the same way. It represents something real, it is just harder to see what it represents.

 

[moonbogg]

Latitude and longitude might be the symbols we use to think about the idea, but the thing they represent, space, is real. The same thing is true with time. We might use seconds and minutes to represent it's passing, but that which passes is real.
Just as if I have two people at different geographic coordinates there is something between them, if I have two people at different temporal coordinates, something also separates them.

Math is the same way. It represents something real, it is just harder to see what it represents.

Lets talk about this. The first part, "that which passes is real". What is passing exactly?

The second part, "There is something between them". I agree there is something, but that's all there seems to be. An object in isolation can be moving very fast or standing still and it still looks the same. There are objects next to each other, but that's all there is. The objects are real, whether they be cars or subatomic particles. The space between is nothing but in your head.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Lets talk about this. The first part, "that which passes is real". What is passing exactly?

Time. It might be they are passing through it. It would look the same either way.

The second part, "There is something between them". I agree there is something, but that's all there seems to be.

If there is something between, then there must be something. This is axiomatic.

An object in isolation can be moving very fast or standing still and it still looks the same.

Only to another object in a similar frame of reference. In different frames of reference they can look very different. This is what is law of relativity is all about.

The space between is nothing but in your head.

If the objects are real, and they are apart, then there must be something keeping them apart. If there is something, then there is something. Tautological cat is tautological.

 

[sandorski]

"Life" could be like crystalization, just more complex and dynamic. Meaning, that under the right conditions it always occurs and is merely one more aspect of our Universe. Until we go out into our solar system or into others we will never know whether that is the case or not.

 

[DrPizza]

Still, panspermia doesn't solve the problems of origins, it just outsources it by hypothesizing how *life* got to the planet...not how it itself came to exist. Of course, to solve this problem, life never "began".

Panspermia does not suppose that life had no origin. It only supposes that it did not spontaneously begin on Earth - it began spontaneously elsewhere. There are plenty of pieces of meteorites which have reached the surface of the Earth and had they bacterial life or some other microorganisms on them, could have survived a journey through space and (more easily) a journey through our atmosphere. This is a legitimate hypothesis. Further, that hypothesis means that there are innumerable other conditions under which life may have arisen.

 

[Paratus]

"Life" isn't a very well-defined term in the first place, if you ask me.

Or, another way to say it is that "life" is merely a term in human language. We apply it to things in our experience that meet our fundamentally arbitrary definition.

We know that things in the world move about and interact and form patterns -- even so-called "dead" matter. There may be a point in the past where things began to make certain patterns that are particularly interesting to us. They may have begun to maintain "edges" or barriers across which they exchange things like oxygen and carbon dioxide or other matter used to carry on processes inside those barriers that we could call "metabolism" and even "reproduction."

Why and how this may have begun -- if it "began" at all -- is a valid and fascinating area to investigate. I think it is important to acknowledge, however, that 1.) the lines between "life" and "non-life" are very blurry because our definitions are fundamentally arbitrary, and 2.) just because it appears there were points in time that this didn't seem to be happening on our planet doesn't mean it wasn't happening somewhere else in the universe before it showed up on ours.

I'll take a shot at proving a "local" in space-time beginning to life.

Life as it currently exists can be described as non-crystalline structures that can replicate made from relatively low temperature baryonic matter.

Since the early universe was hot enough to prevent the formation of low temperature baryonic matter there must have been a start to life between then and now. Granted there could have been more than one start, but one start would have been first.

As for pan spermia, I think it's very likely that when we find life on Mars, Europa, Encladeus, etc we'll find its related to Earth organisms. The fact that we've found Martian meteorites on Earth show that transmission of matter containing life is possible between bodies in the solar system


However I think it's unlikely for it to occur between bodies seperated by more than some number of AU. If we posit that abiogenesis took place on Earth and cometary or asteroid impacts spread life containing matter it's unlikely that the meteor would ever impact a world in another solar system that had the right environment to allow it to start replicating again.

Basically I think a lot of localized abiogenesis + pan spermia events are likely.

 

[Paratus]

Like their favorite "a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and leaving a fully functional 747 in it's wake"?

What's funny is while a whirlwind can't make a 747 a large cloud of hydrogen can.

From a post of mine from a similar thread:

Saying you don't know is a sufficient answer I suppose. But, the fact that you display "faith" that it will one day be discovered is very telling I think.



The ancients weren't as naive as you believe. Mankind has been envisioning aircraft in one form or another for centuries, or even thousands of years.



I can't say for certain that no such natural force or law exists. But I can say that there is no KNOWN natural force which would allow lifeless matter to self organize itself into far more complex and orderly structures and then gain consciousness.

Also, circumstantial evidence is on my side. Life forms are very distinct from regular inorganic matter.

Why does that distinction exist? Surely if there was a natural force capable of such feats, then it would affect inorganic matter much more readily as it wouldn't discriminate, since natural forces act upon both organic and inorganic matter alike.



Nothing material comes from nowhere. Everything in material existence has a source. On the other hand, if there is a Divine Creator, then It has always existed.

It would be the Immaterial Primal Cause from which all Existence originated, and thus would by necessity be beyond causality.

How can I say this? Because infinite regression is logically unsound and ridiculous. Questions like who or what created God, and who or what created that God and so on and so forth into oblivion is nonsensical..



At least you can admit it.

By known you mean other than abiogenesis and it's follow on evolution, right?

And as to your pile of metal rubber making an air plane:

Did you know if you leave a whole bunch of hydrogen sitting around its gravity will condense and heat it becoming a star?

Did you know that that star will fuse that hydrogen into helium, then lithium and berilyium, all the way up to iron?

Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?

And then the gravity of all these atoms will coalesce again into a star and planets. Where all 92 of those elements will combine in a quadrillion quadrillion different reactions over the next billion and a half years to form huge numbers of chemicals including the basic organic building blocks of RNA & DNA.

And then trillions of organic chemical reactions across millions of different environmental factors will eventually lead to single cell life. Life made from inanimate materials that came from a star.

And that life will evolve though the non-random process of natural selection of organisms with inheritable traits until 3 billion years later humans mine a bunch of aluminum created by a star and build an airplane.

You were wrong about a pile metal becoming an airplane. You needed to start with hydrogen.

Edit. Also what DrP said.

 

[moonbogg]

What's funny is while a whirlwind can't make a 747 a large cloud of hydrogen can.

From a post of mine from a similar thread:



Edit. Also what DrP said.

You see, this is exactly what has me thinking. Stuff like this. I think about these things and I think about the religious when they say "silly" things like the 747-whir wind thing, or God creating humans from clay or dirt. I used to write those things off as silly, but at the same time I believed things like what you said above, a cloud of hydrogen giving rise to all we have now.
I know there are explanations, physical explanations for these things. But that doesn't make me any less suspicious that I might have been missing something really big.
If taking the universe at face value today and comparing our experiences to a cloud of hydrogen, you see an amazing contrast between the two. Using time as an excuse, and chance as a magic wand, the creation somehow seems less impressive, but not to me. I look at the two pictures side by side and I realize that there is something I've been missing. There is something alive about reality. There is something conscious and intentional happening. Dead matter isn't dead. If you take "time" out of the equation and take things at face value, then that cloud of hydrogen has all the handiwork of God.
It would all be matter in motion and nothing but chance happenings if not for my ability to speak on the contrary. These things are special because I say they are. A creation that speaks to itself, sings to itself, thinks about itself and loves itself is not a dead creation. It is alive...all of it.

 

[BudAshes]

Of course you're not convinced, because life having a "beginning" leads to a very inconvenient, and more importantly, uncomfortable hypothesis.

Hawking noted this discomfort in his book a Brief history of Time: "Many people do not like the idea that time as a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention".

Why would someone not want to find god? What greater scientific achievement could there be than to meet a creator?

 

[Retro Rob]

Why would someone not want to find god? What greater scientific achievement could there be than to meet a creator?

Scientifically, it would be a fabulous discovery, but not philosophically because humans would have someone to answer to besides themselves, if that "god" is of the personal variety who actually cares about what humans do.

I'm much more inclined to believe that if we had a real, legitimate shot at proving this personal god scientifically, we'd balk at it. I think its much more preferable for us to make up our own rules than to be told what to do. The implications are HUGE.

 

[moonbogg]

Scientifically, it would be a fabulous discovery, but not philosophically because humans would have someone to answer to besides themselves, if that "god" is of the personal variety who actually cares about what humans do.

I'm much more inclined to believe that if we had a real, legitimate shot at proving this personal god scientifically, we'd balk at it. I think its much more preferable for us to make up our own rules than to be told what to do. The implications are HUGE.

I don't think they are actually. This whole "avoiding God accountability" thing is nonsense IMO. It doesn't bother me one way or another. If someone is brain washed into thinking God is a mean guy who will burn you forever, then I can understand why you would act like a scared little animal.

 

[inachu]

Salt water tank owners are more aware of biogenesis when they have a sterile tank then putting in ocean sand(dry) Once you put in water then get the sea salt added then pour in the purified water then once everything is close as perfect you add live rock. then all the regular filters and oxygen making stuff. Without adding anything else you will start to see lil tiny life forms in the sand then other life growing and competing for nutrients in the rock face. A healthy tank then starts getting purpled up! which means its a healthy tank.

Life explodes at that point and it amazes first time salt tank owners how life evolves so fast from seemingly nothingness.

 

[Paul98]

Lets talk about this. The first part, "that which passes is real". What is passing exactly?

The second part, "There is something between them". I agree there is something, but that's all there seems to be. An object in isolation can be moving very fast or standing still and it still looks the same. There are objects next to each other, but that's all there is. The objects are real, whether they be cars or subatomic particles. The space between is nothing but in your head.

the space between them isn't nothing. Speed is purely relative, moving very fast or standing still are the same things it just depends on the frame of reference. Sitting at my computer I am not moving, moving at 25 mph, and moving at .99c, which just depends on the frame of reference. Space time is real