Originally posted by sonhouse For one thing, abiogenesis is a hypothesis and has not been 'witnessed' only hypothesised and another, you get a big kick out of poo pooing science, which is like berating a 6 year old because he is failing a calculus class.
Modern science is only a couple hundred years old, say 400 if you go back to Newton. I think you would have to agree even in human ...[text shortened]... e at least advance to the 8th grade before you diss it.
So have your fun as long as it lasts.
Come back another 400 years? By that time mankind will have destroyed himself with all his scientific breakthroughs.
Originally posted by whodey Come back another 400 years? By that time mankind will have destroyed himself with all his scientific breakthroughs.
WMD's are great, aren't they? 😵
We have already gone through more than 17 percent of that time span with no mass use of those weapons so we have a decent chance of completing the next 3 or 4 hundred more or less unscathed. The change in climate will probably be closer to doing us in than any use of WMD.
Originally posted by sonhouse We have already gone through more than 17 percent of that time span with no mass use of those weapons so we have a decent chance of completing the next 3 or 4 hundred more or less unscathed. The change in climate will probably be closer to doing us in than any use of WMD.
Climate change or WMD's. Pick your poison. Either way we are doomed!! 😲😛
Originally posted by whodey Climate change or WMD's. Pick your poison. Either way we are doomed!! 😲😛
Well, with climate change, it would have to change a lot more than the predictions to off the whole race. We will probably lose a lot of coastal cities like Manhatton, Miami, New Orleans and such and we will have a lot smaller nation, physically but we will most likely survive as a race. Whether science can continue to grow at the exponential rate it has for the last 100 years is another question given all of the above.
Originally posted by whodey Calculating probabilities and extrapolating data?
Ok, what are the mathematical probabilities that a living cell forms by itself?
As far as we know, living cells formed by themselves, or putting it differently: absent evidence of divine intervention, everything formed "by itself."
Originally posted by KazetNagorra As far as we know, living cells formed by themselves, or putting it differently: absent evidence of divine intervention, everything formed "by itself."
This is an interesting point. If something did not come about by itself it implies agency, which implies an agent which is not an external one. The basic scientific best guess involves self-assembling molecules forming by chance, so the molecules themselves could count as agents, once they've formed, depending on what one requires of an agent. So, in the case of life, in the scientific explanation there both is and is not an agent doing the creation. For theists agents are much more important than in science so their explanation roots itself around a central one.
Originally posted by whodey Ok, what are the mathematical probabilities that a living cell forms by itself?
given that it must have happened else modern life wouldn't exist, the probability that it happened is exactly 1. As for the probability that it would have still happened if the conditions for it on early-Earth was just extremely slightly different from what it was, that is currently unknown due to insufficient data i.e. that probability is currently still undefined. And, answering that question would help tell us whether the formation of life is common throughout the universe and spontaneously occurs wherever conditions are about right for it or if life is extremely rare and sparse because its formation is a freak event even in the most favorable conditions. Lets say we eventually discover the latter is true; -so?
incidentally, the first "cell" would have been an extremely simple protocell so it is hard to define whether it was "living" because that would depend on exactly what you mean by "living". Is a virus "living"? is a protocell without any complex proteins, microtubules, cell nuclei, mitochondria for respiration etc but still able to divide in two and thus reproduce exactly like those rudimentary ones that have already been produced in the laboratory "living"? I would guess most people, including scientists, wouldn't say so. I would guess most scientists would say photocells developed first but then some later incrementally evolved into living cells.
Originally posted by humy given that it must have happened else modern life wouldn't exist, the probability that it happened is exactly 1. As for the probability that it would have still happened if the conditions for it on early-Earth was just extremely slightly different from what it was, that is currently unknown due to insufficient data i.e. that probability is currently still undef ...[text shortened]... ould say photocells developed first but then some later incrementally evolved into living cells.
Originally posted by whodey In other words you are clueless.
how the hell do you interpret the statement that the probability is exactly 1 as "clueless"? It is simply impossible for a rational mind to dismiss a probability of 1 as "clueless", no matter how you look at it!
I said right from the start of that post:
" given that it must have happened else modern life wouldn't exist, the probability that it happened is exactly 1. "
You do know probability of 1 means absolute certainty i.e. 100% certainty, right?
I suppose you jumped on the latter statement in desperation of your need to dismiss the former statement: sorry, the former statement still stands as does its inference and the two statements don't contradict.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra In other words: beardy man did it.
he must have had access to a pretty impressive lab. For some reason we will never know, although he must have been pretty smug about it, he then just left without collecting his Noble prize. Strange man.
OK, that was a lame joke I think.
But, on the subject of abiogenesis, we can, from the fact that all modern life that we have analyze the codon language so far has the same codon language, deduce that at least most modern life must have originated from the same abiogenesis event. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that many other abiogenesis events occurred around the same time but the life that originated from one particular one of them became dominate over all other life. But, if that happened, it could be that some life that originated from one of the other abiogenesis still lives somewhere on Earth today in which case it would almost inevitably have a completely different codon language from all other modern life. I think it would be worth checking to see if there exists any such modern life with a completely different codon language because, if we find any such life, it would be evidence not only that abiogenesis happened more than once on Earth but powerful evidence that, given the right conditions, abiogenesis will almost inevitably happen thus is common throughout the universe and with a high probability of it at least once happened on, say, Mars. Looking at the codon language of primitive microbes in deep sea vents might be a good place to start.
But has anyone tried to do this i.e. check the codon language of many other forms of life to hunt for an example of life with a completely different codon language?
I am aware that bacteria-like microbe has been discovered that uses arsenic instead of phosphorous in its DNA and there has been some suggestion that this indicates it may have originated from a different abiogenesis event from all/most other life. But if it has the same codon language as most other life, that would prove a high probability that it originated from the same abiogenesis event as that of all/most other modern life. But if it has a completely different codon language, that would be very strong evidence that it could have come from a different abiogenesis event. Has anyone looked to check its codon language?
evidence that life started ~4.1 million years ago
26 Oct '15 10:52
Back to Top