Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Kx000: Of course knowledge can be subjective. Then why bothering with reference frames in physics? Physical laws and measurements depend largely on who is the reference frame (e.g. relativity of speed, time intervals etc). Don’t confuse with the term knowledge that we use in everyday life (e.g. learning) that is a human made definition. I use it in a more scientific way.
Fraggle Rocker: How possible is the spontaneous creation of a system that always accumulates decreases in entropy by messing up the environment, in terms of energy levels?
Creationists: How can one directly fit god into pure mathematical or physical equations? This was attempted many times in the history of mankind and always creationists were proven wrong (with sometimes disastrous consequences).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I can imagine something new to be beheld by knowledge. That would influenced by self.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another thing necessary for life, is life occurs within the liquid state. Liquid state physics is quite different from both gas and solid phase physics, with most of modern particle and astral physics modeled on solid and/or gas state analogies.

A gas cannot be placed under tension, but rather a gas is defined by pressure or partial pressure. A gas that is near vacuum conditions is still measured in terms of near zero pressure and not tension. A solid can be under tension or pressure (pull or push), but at steady state it can't exist with both at the same time. If we push and pull a solid it moves and can't reach a steady state. A liquid can exist in both tension and under pressure at the same time, and unlike a solid a liquid can reach steady state with both active at the same time. For example, air pushing down on a glass of water creates surface tension at the same time it create pressure on the water. Life takes advantage of this liquid state duality.

A gas has high entropy and therefore does not have the net attraction between gas molecules to allow tension. A solid is under very low entropy, allowing tension and pressure, but lacks entropy needed to go both ways at steady state. The liquid state has lower entropy than a gas, allowing tension, but because its entropy is higher than a solid, this allows tension and pressure to exist side-by-side yet independent of each other. When life was forming, gas, solid and liquid was like the beds of three bears; one was too hard and the other too soft, but liquid was just right.


The liquid state also brings another force of nature to the table; entropic force. This is not one of the four attractive forces within physics, but rather is a fifth force, connected to entropy, that is somewhat unique to liquid state physics. The lack of the entropic force in contemporary physics is an artifact of physics limiting itself to gas and solid state analogies, where this force is not very evident. Physics could benefit by liquid physics analogies it adds a few properties to the table that current models lack.

The entropic force, found within liquids, can be observed with osmosis. Osmosis is a colligative property of matter, which is defined below. Colligative properties are not dependent on the type of solute particle; EM wave functions, but only on the concentration. Colligative properties are connected to entropy with the number of solute particles allowing a way for entropy to increase in proportion to the number.

In the diagram below the water flows in the direction of higher solute concentration because this direction will allow entropy to increase which is favored but the second law. The result is a pressure head building on the left, with this pressure=entropic force (Fs)/area. This force is spontaneously generated and is not dependent on any of the other four forces of nature, but only on an entropy drive to randomize around the solute particles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The entropic force and liquid state physics is always left out in favor of random magic tricks using gas and solid state analogies. It would be useful for physics to think in terms of liquid state analogies so it can up its life game.

 

This will never be achieved. This is as silly as believing the universe emerged out of nothing by natural causes. From nothing (false) you end up nowhere in human reasoning and logic. I have no idea why there is even a theory proposing this impossibility

Likewise, if life is naturally emergent from chemicals, then we would expect it to be occurring today, which it is not. For example, NASA looks for water based planets to look for life. Well we have one right here and life does not naturally emerge in this environment.

Of course, some may argue life is not emerging today because the conditions are wrong, whatever that means.

So, we then ask specifically what are the conditions and prove life is emergent in those conditions. Well none are known and none are provable.

Therefore, we basically know very little.

 

Re your question to Fraggle Rocker, my take on it would be a little different from his, in that I would start by saying spontaneous creation of a system that always accumulates decreases in entropy is impossible.

Life of course does not do any such thing, however. As Fraggle Rocker, Aq Id and I have in our various ways pointed out, "life" does not constitute a "system", in which entropy continuously decreases or order increases.

It is true that every time an embryo grows, the order within it increases, at the expense of a greater degree of disorder (entropy increase) in its environment, due to its metabolism. But once the embryo stops growing, no further change in order occurs, though metabolism continues and entropy increase in its environment continues. At this point, in fact, the organism's metabolism is continually increasing the entropy of its surroundings just in order to maintain the order in the organism. And when it then dies, disorder again increases. If it procreates, then the new fertilised egg once more starts to gain order as the next generation embryo develops. But this new generation organism constitutes a different "system".

One can I suppose define a colony of coral polyps, or something like that as a single "system", taking in nutrients from the water and releasing waste products of higher entropy as the colony grows, but defining "system" so as to encompass a group of living individuals, existing over a long enough time to show any evolutionary change, is a bit problematic.

 

Life's many structures are defining lowering entropy with respect to starting the materials. However, this is offset, within the cell, by an entropy increase that is created by metabolic and recycle reactions, as larger molecules are broken down into higher entropy small molecules like CO2. As long as the net is increasing there is no violation of the second law.

As such, to form life, while also maintaining the second law, pre-life would have benefited by some simple form of protein based metabolic reactions appearing, first, to help locally amplify the entropy, so pockets of order can appear without violating the net entropy balance. The idea of replicators first has an entropy lowering problem if not coupled to local metabolic entropy gain to offset such high levels of order.

Another key to form life, is connected to the analogy of water and oil (organic). If we begin with water and oil and blend these, we increase the entropy of the system into an emulsion. Although the entropy is made higher in favor of the second law, the system entropy becomes too high for this particular system, with the oil-water system wanting to spontaneously lower entropy back into two layers. If we mix lipids (oil) with water and blend well, the entropy will increase due to the energy added. But this is not stable but will lower entropy to form the order within the lipid bilayer membrane. Water and organic systems bring this phase separation to the table, which has the capacity to reverse randomizing due to entropy.

Another key variable to help form life is the entropic force, which is an entropy based force common to the liquid state, as demonstrated by osmosis. Osmosis is a colligative property of the liquid state, that is not dependent on the type of solute in the water but only on the amount. The entropic force is not connected to the EM force, but is driven by entropy increasing. The phase separation of water-oil provided membrane material, which then made the entropic force become active further helping the needs of life.

With reverse osmosis, we apply pressure to push water in the opposite direction, through the membrane, with the water lowering entropy as it moves in the direction of pure water. If we have one osmotic device spontaneously increasing entropy, generating an entropic force, this force can be linked to drive another device in reverse osmosis, thereby forcing entropy to lower in the second system.

Water is everywhere in life, with the entropy level within the water, inducing an equilibrium by the organics. If we tweak the aqueous entropy, with the entropic force vis osmosis and reverse osmosis, the equilibrium organics will follow in terms of entropy. At the DNA, if we tweak the osmotic pressure across the nuclear membrane we can control the amount of higher entropy defects via equilibrium.

Near the end of cell cycles, many internal structure dissolve such as the nuclear membrane and Golgi Apparatus. This is implicit of forming higher entropy versions with this same material. All you need to do is alter the entropy of the water with the entropic force. Ancient pre-life, by making use of coupled entropic force via oil-water-protein membrane, would causes internal shapes to ebb and flow toward steady state structures.

I have discussed the entropic force as a topic in the physics area, but this force appears to be unknown, because physics does not use liquid state analogies when it models matter at micro and macro levels. This variable is critical to life ,yet it gets left out due to lack of understanding. The other reason this variable is not given its relative weight is water is not given enough emphasis. The entropic force is connected to water more than to organic-centricity of current biology, where random takes it place. I have to wait for everyone to catch up.

 

Silliest of all is attacking what you never bothered to study, and trying in vain for . . .years? . . . to discredit the work of scholars.

Yes. You have no idea.

Three errors:
(1) Conditions then were nothing like they are now
(2) It only needed one naturally formed molecule in approx 1 billion years
(3) By process of elimination, this is the only plausible explanation

Yes life emerges all the time from spores and zygotes. No one knows how often an RNA strand forms out of mineral constituents, but since conditions are not the same now, it doesn't matter.

It means the chemistry of the water, soil and atmosphere is entirely different. The energy sources are different. Volcanism was more active then.

Incorrect, several scenarios are known and proved and they all lead to abiogenesis. The current state of science involves deciding which one is the most likely.
Abiogenesis is the answer. By process of elimination, no other plausible answer exists. The facts that are proven, or nearly proven (one of several alternatives) are \

.
No, you mean you know very little because you have no scientific curiosity whatsoever.

Here is the short list of what the world knows. When you get through reading them come back and tell us what "very little" means.

Sorry, I only have time and space to post a fraction of what the world knows.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biology_journals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals_in_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences

http://journals.asm.org/

http://www-jmg.ch.cam.ac.uk/data/c2k/cj/alpha.html

http://evolution-textbook.org/content/free/notes/box_journal_list.html


A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529 (15th May 1953)

A Rigorous Attempt To Verify Interstellar Glycine by I. E. Snyder, F. J. Lovas, J. M. Hollis, D. N. Friedel, P. R. Jewell, A. Remijan, V. V. Ilyushin, E. A. Alekseev and S. F. Dyubko, The Astrophysical Journal, 619(2): 914-930 (1st February 2005) {Also available at arXiv.org]

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Activated Acetic Acid By Carbon Fixation On (Fe,Ni)S Under Primordial Conditions by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächetershäuser, Science, 276: 245-247 (11th April 1997)

An Asymmetric Underlying Rule In The Assignment Of Codons: Possible Clue To A Quick Early Evolution Of The Genetic Code Via Successive Binary Choices by Marc Delarue, The RNA Journal, 13(2): 161-169 (12th December 2006)

Attempted Prebiotic Synthesis Of Pseudouridine by Jason P. Dworkin, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 27: 345-355 (1997)

Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Chemistry for the Synthesis of Nucleobase-Modified Peptide Nucleic Acid by R. H. E. Hudson, R. D. Viirre, Y. H. Liu, F. Wojciechowski and A. K. Dambenieks, Pure Appl. Chem., 76(7-8): 1591-1598, 2004

Computational Models For The Formation Of Protocell Structures by Linglan Edwards, Yun Peng and James A. Reggia, Artificial Life, 4(1): 61-77 (1998)

Conditions For The Emergence Of Life On The Early Earth: Summary And Reflections by Joshua Jortner, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1877-1891 (11th September 2006)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Early Anaerobic Metabolisms by Don E Canfield, Minik T Rosing and Christian Bjerrum, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1819-1836 (11th September 2006)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Evolution Of Amino Acid Frequencies In Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order Of Introduction Of Amino Acids Into The Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk and Mona Singh, Molecular and Biological Evolution, 19(10): 1645-1655 (2002)

Formation Of Bimolecular Membranes From Lipid Monolayers And A Study Of Their Electrical Properties by M. Montal and P. Mueller, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 69(12): 3561-3566 (December 1972)

Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

Hyperthermophiles In The History Of Life by Karl O. Stetter, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1837-1843 (11th September 2006)

Implications Of A 3.472-3.333?GYr-Old Subaerial Microbal Mat From The Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa, For The UV Environmental Conditions Of The Early Earth by Frances Westall, Cornel E.J de Ronde, Gordon Southam, Nathalie Grassineau, Maggy Colas, Charles Cockell and Helmut Lammer, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1857-1876 (11th September 2006)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Interstellar Glycine by Yi-Jehng Kuan, Steven B. Charnley, Hui-Chun Huang, Wei-Ling Tseng, and Zbigniew Kisiel, The Astrophysical Journal, 593: 848-867 (20th August 2003)

Kin Selection And Virulence In The Evolution Of Protocells And Parasites by Steven A. Frank, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 258: 153-161 (1994)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

"Living" Under The Challenge Of Information Decay: The Stochastic Corrector Model Versus Hypercycles by Elias Zintzaras, Mauro Santos and Eörs Szathmáry, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 217: 167-181 (2002)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

Molecular Dynamics Simulation Of The Formation, Structure, And Dynamics Of Small Phospholipid Vesicles by Siewert J. Marrink and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 15233-15242 (2003)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution Of The Biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Nutrient Uptake By Protocells: A Liposome Model System by Pierre-Alain Monnard and David W. Deamer, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 147-155 (2001)

Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

Peptide Nucleic Acids Rather Than RNA May Have Been The First Genetic Molecule by Kevin E. Nelson, Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller, Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA., 97(8): 3868-3871, 11th April 2000

Peptides By Activation Of Amino Acids With CO On (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications For The Origin Of Life by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser, Science, 281: 670-672 (31st July 1998)

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Materials From On And Off The Early Earth by Max Bernstein, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Cooper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

Replicating Vesicles As Models Of Primitive Cell Growth And Division by Martin M. Hanczyc and Jack W. Szostak, Current Opinion In Chemical Biology, 8: 660-664 (22nd October 2004)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA Catalysis In Model Protocell Vesicles by Irene A Chen, Kourosh Salehi-Ashtiani and Jack W Szostak, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 127: 13213-13219 (2005)

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey[/i], FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Assembling Amphiphilic Molecules Synthesis In Simulated Interstellar/Precometary Ices by Jason P. Dworkin, David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(3): 815-819 (30th January 2001)

Self-Assembly Of Surfactant-Like Peptides With Variable Glycine Tails To Form Nanotubes And Nanovesicles by Steve Santoso, Wonmuk Hwang, Hyman Hartman and Shuguang Zhang, Nano Letters, 2(7): 687-691 (2002)

Self-Assembly Processes In The Prebiotic Environment by David Deamer, Sara Singaram, Sudha Rajamani, Vladimir Kompanichenko and Stephen Guggenheim, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce[/i], ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Simulation Of The Spontaneous Aggregation Of Phospholipids Into Bilayers by Siewert J. Marrink, Eric Lindahl, Olle Edholm and Alan E. Mark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 8638-8639 (2001)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

Synthesising Life by Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel and P. Luigi Luisi, Nature, 409: 387-390 (18th January 2001)

Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, [/b]418:[/b] 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Emergence Of Competition Between Model Protocells by Irene A Chen, Richard W. Roberts and Jack W. Szostak, Science, 305: 1474-1476 (3rd September 2004)

The Generality Of DNA-Templated Synthesis As A Basis For Evolving Non-Natural Small Molecules by Zev J. Gartner and David R. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 6961-6963 (2001)

The Lifetimes Of Nitriles (CN) And Acids (COOH) During Ultraviolet Photolysis And Their Survival In Space by Max P. Bernstein, Samantha F. M. Ashbourne, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola, The Astrophysical Journal, 601: 3650270 (20th January 2004)

The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment by Adam P. Johnson, H. James Cleaves., Jason D. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 322: 404 (17th October 2008)

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Prebiotic Molecules Observed In The Interstellar Gas by P. Thaddeus, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (7th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

Toward Synthesis Of A Minimal Cell by Anthony C. Forster and George M. Church, Molecular Systems Biology (2006) doi:10.1038/msb4100090

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

Two Step Potentially Prebiotic Synthesis Of α-D-Cystidine-5'-Phosphate From D-Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate by Carole Anastasi, Michael A. Crowe and John D. Sutherland, Journal of the American Chemical Society (Communications), 129: 24-24 (2007)

 

OK, can you show me specifically where we both can prove life naturally originates from chemicals on this planet? I mean, it should be everywhere since that is a chemical fact.

That way, we can show biological science is not simply a collection of opinions but is based on proven verifiable facts.

 

Because other than "Panspermia" it is the only possible answer.....Abiogenesis and Evolution are the only possible scientific answers.
There is no other possible scientific answer.

 

Years ago, I took an unorthodox approach toward cosmology/evolution, where I assumed each step, in the overall process, would set the potentials for the next step. It is not just random but there is a push into and out of previous steps. Picture a giant helix of time, that is winding upward to the future. The future set of potentials, within the helix, has different foundations below it to build upon. Life might appear at a certain place in the helix, based on universal potentials, but after that the foundation is set, the helix of change progresses to the future, building on that, not repeating the past. There is only one big bang with the helix building on the aftermath of new potentials.

As an analogy say we begin urban development on a large strip of open land. We lay the foundation for a large number of roads, utilities and skyscrapers in the center of town. The next year, we will build upon these foundations, upward to the sky. At this point in time, it is way too late to add new foundations in that same area, since that we are too far up the helix. It does not contain the same staging potentials to make this easy like before. Rather the next easy step higher in the helix is about adding the finish to those buildings.

As a practical example, when human civilization appears on earth about 6000-10,000 years ago, humans never went back to the paradise of natural instinct. The new advanced humans may have wiped out that previous stage. The helix of change built upon this new civilization foundation, which then set the next stage for new potentials. Humans don't just keep starting from zero, because the helix keeps going forward, never to repeat itself the same way. Evolution shows this, with repeating the past; new dinosaurs appear, is not the rule.

One would need to use ingenuity to recreate the earliest winds of the helix, to come up with the same potentials. The experiments of abiogenesis try to go back in time to recreate what may have been around. Nobody would use the present ocean to try this, because a foundation of single cellular life would eat the experiment like any other food.

 

There are many things which we still don't know, the origin and nature of life being one of them. The nature of consciousness is another one.

I think that the origin of life (and life itself) is clearly supernatural which means it is not explainable by chemistry and biology alone.

Consciousness is also another mystery in itself. Perhaps quantum physics will solve the mystery of what consciousness really is.

 

Neuron design plays a major role with respect to consciousness. Neurons pump and exchange cations to form a membrane potential. This cationic pumping and exchange process places the neuron at highest potential. Firing the neuron lowers this potential. The rest neuron potential defines high energy (charge and cationic gradient) and lowered entropy (segregated cations).

The natural push of the universe is to lower energy and increase entropy, with the firing neurons doing just that. The neuron is designed to move opposite the normal direction of energy and entropy (gain energy and lower entropy), until there is a need to spontaneously discharge, to maintain the first and second laws. The need for increasing entropy, is implicit of more options and randomizations constantly appearing.

Computer memory begins at lowest energy so the memory is stable. Neural memory starts at highest potential and is designed to be subject to spontaneous change; entropy increase, so it can adapt to changing potentials. Picture a fountain that pumps to a great height, only to cascade downward; fire and discharge the potential. The neurons continue to add energy, while lowering entropy causing continuous fountain operation. Memory is like the bowls and obstacles that divert the flow of water as it free falls back to the bottom of the fountain.

Computer memory changes, in the image of neurons, could make it easier to create intelligent computers. Picture if computer memory began at highest potential. This would be unstable and therefore subject to spontaneous change, which appears counter productive. However, such changes carry the seeds of free thought. To make this work better, you would also need to re-write the changing memory, to replace most of original data. Through filtering algorithms, one would allow certain changes to persist. It would create through entropy and learn via a rewrite using selective filtration.

 

Although you are correct that there are many things we don't know, we do though know for certain, that Evolution did occur, and so to obviously did Abiogenesis.

What you "clearly" see as supernatural, is actually beliefs stemming from long ago, when we climbed down out of the trees, and needed to explain the awe and wonder of the Universe around us.
This was well before the advent of science.
Science is now doing that, and has done that in a progressive manner, over extended periods of time here on Earth, and in doing so, has shown explicitly that any supernatural being and the like is just not needed.

 

Good post.

But, since life does not emerge from chemicals in our experience anywhere, do you also rate this as a fairytale?

 

Invisible supernatural universe? Well you must be talking about the imagination. Free your mind of transgression; no hate, no danger, no death and Heaven is a very palpable place. I have seen an angel in the mirror, and spawned fire. All thanks to my imagination, I have no reason to doubt what I see neither do you.

 

There is another explanation connected to consciousness, the unconscious mind and unconscious projection. There is no rule in science that requires the calibration of the mind if the unconscious is intruding in a collective way. This is why theory comes and goes like fads. If unconscious projection is impacting thought, one will assume this movie overlay is part of the equation.

As an analogy, say you were wearing red colored glasses that you forget you have on. One can still collect data, but what we see and cannot see, will be biased by the filtering effect of these red glasses. We may not be able to see any red roses and the blue sky will always look purple. The theory we develop will be consistent with what we appear to see, which others will also see, due to the same glasses programmed by traditions. Since we don't have to calibrate the mind, (remove the glasses) the consensus will see the wrong thing, relative to no glasses, and call it right.

Relative to science and the formation of life, science displays what appears to be sound logic, yet no direct evidence of other life???? How can that be? One explanation is the red glasses effect, still allows one to collect data and define the logical connections that can be seen. But something is missing due to the filter, such that the inferences do not stack up to hard reality, which is not cooperating.

As an analogy, say you assume the sky is purple, due to the red glasses of projection. We know water plays a role in the color of the sky, therefore the logical inference is this purple light is coming from the water. But we can't find this wavelength on the spectrum printout, even though this sounds logical because reality does not include the red glasses of uncalibrated projection.

I always come back to water, which was there before amino acids and still represents 70% of life. The organic centric glasses of biology, with its built in spherical aberrations for random, makes it hard for science to see all the data. There is not enough weight given to this global variable of life; water. The question I would ask, is why is the majority component of life not getting most of the attention so there is weighed average theory? Bias of traditions act as a filter that allows one to ignore the main component in favor of what the glasses allow one to see. This system appears to add up but does not execute properly in reality. In spite of that, nobody even considers removing these old fashion glasses.

 

From WellWisher Post #99

For at least 300-400 years the above is misleading, if not outright erroneous. Science has had a reasonably smooth transition from Newton’s era to modern times.

The Newton’s equations are still an excellent approximation to modern Special & General Relativity when extreme masses & velocities are not involved. They are still used for many of NASA’s projects.