Topic: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth (Read 1757 times)

I think the theory of the asteroid hitting earth containing extraterrestial lifeforms that then developed in the perfect earth conditions is a very legit theory.

When a person writes a book, almost never is the first draft also the only and final draft. Usually he rewrites it several times until it gets to the point that it is acceptable to him. This is a form of evolution.

God built into nature extremely complex, sensitive methods for plants and animals to change (evolve) so that they can be protected as a species. There is no evidence for evolution as the method that produced life from inanimate objects. The supposed evidence can ALL be shown to exist for other purposes, or it is a total lab environment fabrication.

One of the strongest evidences for this is cause and effect. There is no pure random. Random and probability are inventions of man for determining certain cause and effect actions that man is too ignorant and unable to determine by observation alone. Since the thought of man is cause and effect operated, consider the complexity of a universe that could produce such powerful cause and effect as this. Whatever the Great First Cause is, it is God Almighty, beyond understanding.

RNA is NOT how life began.

Where is the proof for common descent?

According to the latest research, to prove common descent would require:

"theories that employ a very different replicator or no replicator at all".

So, where is the evidence for such replicators?

ok Ill bite.


Ever heard of antibiotics and bacteria getting increasingly resistant to it?  
Ever seen a dog?
There is evolution for you. Back to ignore you go.

No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life.

If the availability of the Watson–Crick pairs at the start of life appears implausible, then more attention must be given to theories that employ a very different replicator or no replicator at all.

Here is Shapiro's paper on the Cytosine Problem:

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

And a discussion of Shapiro's paper can be found here:

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks

There is more discussion of all the related topics at the website of the $1M Origin of Life Prize:
http://www.us.net/life/

Ugh! Cut to the quick. My heart. Rejected (sob) by some atheists who have set themselves and their scientific leaders up as gods... gods who can't even comprehend the complexity of the universe, yet are willing to reject that there might be a real God Who made it all.

Here I am, left out in the cold again. Nobody loves me. Don't you just feel sorry for me?

I was hoping that there would have been a plausible evolution process found. Sounds strange, doesn't it, that a Christian would like to see a plausible evolution process? But if something like that were to be found, it would show just how great God made people... that they could even find a plausible process for evolution. Of course, such a process would only be a plausible one. Until we had at least a time viewer, we wouldn't be able to see for sure what happened. But think of how great of a God God would be, if He had created the universe and gave humankind such great abilities of comprehension that they could find a plausible method for evolution, even if it didn't happen like that! Wow!

Why else might I want to see a plausible evolution process? Because of this. Since scientists are having some success (extremely minor though it is) in almost starting to prove that there is no God, just think of all the success that they would have if they used the same methods, and the same materials, to prove that there IS a God... since the evidence for God abounds all around us in nature. And actually, this is exactly what the scientists are doing, if we simply apply their thinking to the evidence for God we see all around us.

And, that's were I quit reading and went directly to MFC to see if any new gals signed up today. 

This looks interesting, will watch when I get some time. I remember a BBC documentary about living cells discussing how abiogenesis may have come about, fascinating stuff.

Here's a very interesting related article in New Scientist: Synthetic enzymes hint at life without DNA or RNA

By that definition, many ordinary chemical reactions could be considered "alive".  Not that I have a better definition, but I had to point out we have no firm definition and we may not even recognize "life" if we stumbled over it on planet Y.


From the lecture, it appears extremely likely life (our variety) did not start with DNA. DNA is too complicated already to have been a starting point. RNA seems like a more likely candidate, even though that still poses lots of big hurdles and from the third lecture (much of which I admit went over my head due to a lack of chemistry knowledge), it seems researchers are focusing now on other (synthetic) molecules. Mostly to learn about the properties of the processes involved, but its not inconceivable something very different kickstarted "life". Something we may in our lifetimes create, or who knows, find on Europa.

Anyway, thats your job. Ill focus on writing a quantum model of gravity .

That looks fascinating and I think I do need to update my knowledge on this subject, thanks for sharing.

That is an excellent question. It is easy to say something about Earthlings, but do the same rules apply throughout the universe? I don't know what life is and I cant tell my students the difference between a dead bird and a live bird. They are made of the same stuff?
I think about it as a sort of state of matter, or a sustained, replicating chemical reaction. But for all I know life exists outside of our bodies and living things are able to tune in to phenomena from near dimensions. That is way out there, but since no one knows, maybe the answers are way out.

Whatever it is, a long time ago a DNA monster began as a simple form of life. It replicated and over time the offspring became more different. They radiated and diversified, building up a tree of related DNA forms. That is where we are today, but how it started is still a mystery.

Out of curiosity, how do you define "alive" ?

My physics friends all want a "unified theory" that unites the results of quantum and relativity. As a bio guy I don't think they have anything until they can explain the state we call alive. Maybe in a few years we will produce something we can call alive. If we do start a second "Genesis" it would help tremendously to understand the living things we see now. I'm not sure I will live to see that, or a time viewer. 

There is no proof Santa Claus exists.  There is no proof Santa Claus doesn't exist.  So, why believe Santa does not exist?

Answer:  You grow up and realize what fairy tales are.

Ok, I misunderstood that. Yes, it appears as if all known life on earth has common ancestry. That says it evolved from the same processes, Im just not convinced that means a single "event". If it turns out that the right ingredients under the right conditions automatically leads to primitive (probably RNA based) "life" that can mutate and start a Darwinian evolution that leads to more efficient DNA based life, one has to wonder if it wouldnt do the same "everywhere" under comparable conditions.


Id like to see how similar the DNA is. The presence of DNA itself wouldnt be enough for me to prove it couldnt have developed independently, especially since we are specifically interested in Europa because its so similar to earth (liquid water, sources of energy, temperature differences, seismic activity etc).  I think we dont know enough yet to make the claim that DNA would point to common ancestry. FWIW, it would be more thrilling to me if it wasnt DNA based. The idea that meteorites carried some primitive life form from one body to the other and it adapted and evolved there isnt nearly as exciting to me than life originating by itself. 'Its life Jim, just not as we know it"

If there is no proof that God does not exist, and someone suggests that God does not exist in atheistic fashion even though he recognizes that there is no proof, he is setting himself up as god by making such a suggestion. He is the god of his atheism religion even though he is unwilling to recognize the fact. Strange.

The videos were disappointing for me. I had hoped that there was more of an actual process for evolution that had been discovered. As I understand it, there may be some tremendous strides that have been made, but they are not really anywhere near a process. The process will have to be a lot more complex than the discoveries that have come about so far.

Part of the idea was to make the process as close to "natural" as possible. Yet there was so much "lab" production, that it is difficult to see if a lot of these things could happen spontaneously in nature.

Oh, well. Maybe in another decade or two.

I'll have to watch it when I get home. What I meant about life coming from a "single event" was the life we see on Earth. All life here is fairly easy to map and see how the DNA is related. Perhaps life is common in the universe and there are myriad trees of life based on various chemicals? I dunno?

If we ever did find life elsewhere, say Europa, my first question would be "Is it DNA based?" If it was I would tend to think it is related to life on Earth. If it was a different system then I would tend to think life is common and can start in a variety of ways.
True. We only have one example of life and that may the biggest problem with developing any theory. Is life common? Is this the only occurrence of life ever?  With just one example it is hard to say.
Oh and there is an important difference between science and religion. I think it is correct that a "Religion" has to have a God. Science for me is just the simple, logical process of determining the truth of an observation. There is nothing mystical or worthy of worship, IMO.

At the beginning of the first video, Dr. Szostak suggests that we don't have a clue about whether or not any of the planets around the various stars have life on them. Why even speculate? If we find the next planet does NOT have life, then we can say that at least half the planets do not have life. Why speculate? The speculation goes both directions.

It goes much further. It shows most of the building blocks needed for primitive, but self replicating cells that start an evolutionary arms race based on nothing but chemistry and physics. Obviously we dont have all the answers yet, we dont know exactly how our life started. But before I saw that, I was quite willing to accept the anthropic principle, that the beginning of life may be unbelievable unlikely, but given the number of stars and galaxies and the age of the universe, you'd expect unbelievably unlikely things to happen and the fact we're here just shows it has.

But the lecture pretty convincingly shows me life from chemistry appears far more plausible or possibly even unavoidable. At least to a layman like me who is surprised just to learn that for instance, semi permeable multi layered (cell) membranes that grow and divide, can and do form completely spontaneously in the right conditions.

Anyway, watch the lectures when you have the time, if its fascinating to me, Im sure you'll love it.


Im quite curious if you will think the same after having seen all three lectures. Keeping in mind there are >100 billion galaxies with >100 billion stars each, good for an estimated 10^24 stars, most of which appear to have a solar system like ours. And thats just in the observable universe.

Seems to me that atheism is a sort of primitive religion. It has most of the things that are required for something to be termed a religion. Yet, unlike most modern religions - Christianity, Buddhism - there are certain parts of atheism that aren't expressed clearly, while other parts are expressed in detail, like dogma.

I might compare the atheism religion to one of the more primitive cells in early evolution history. Christianity would be like a very specialized eye cell or brain cell.

The prerequisites for atheism being a religion seem to be there. There is no proof that God exists; there is no proof that God does not exist. So, why believe God does not exist? There is no foundation for such a belief. This makes atheism, at the very least, very similar to a religion.