New theory on how life began

[Angry Floof]

Doesn't look good for creationists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.

But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.

 

[Kharakov]

Hear that, Mr. Anderson?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Start > Run > All Programs > Sim Life 3000
Start New Game > Planet: Earth

 

[rousseau]

The common counter-argument to atheism in this vein seems to be: "yea, but you can't explain how life got here"

No, we're not certain exactly how life originated, but most reasonable, scientific people would agree that some sort of process occurred that transformed inorganic molecules into organic ones, and so forth. In fact, that some similar process occurred is pretty much certain, but knowing precisely what happened isn't trivial.

This isn't really that new of a concept, theories about abiogenesis have been around for a long time, this article from the independent is just not good reporting.

 

[untermensche]

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is a bare hypothesis.

 

[Angry Floof]

What makes this interesting to me is:

England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test.

(Emphasis mine)

I'm looking forward to it being put to the test and all related details.

 

[bilby]

Doesn't look good for creationists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.

But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable event if the conditions are correct.

This wasn't particularly world shaking or novel when the article was published a year ago; It is even less novel today

Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin Thursday 26 February 2015

(my bold)

 

[Angry Floof]

Doesn't look good for creationists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html

This wasn't particularly world shaking or novel when the article was published a year ago; It is even less novel today

Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin Thursday 26 February 2015

(my bold)

Well, where are the tests?

 

[fromderinside]

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is a bare hypothesis.

Read some papers on self organizing molecules and minimum total potential energy principle in scholar or some other research search engine. Or scan  Molecular self-assembly and  Minimum total potential energy principle.

Or you could just say "Yeah, that's the ticket".

 

[untermensche]

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is a bare hypothesis.

Read some papers on self organizing molecules and minimum total potential energy principle in scholar or some other research search engine. Or scan  Molecular self-assembly and  Minimum total potential energy principle.

Or you could just say "Yeah, that's the ticket".

Nobody doubts that electrically charged entities like atoms will have organizational capacities under the right conditions.

But to say this is how DNA arose is a bare hypothesis.

 

[Underseer]

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is a bare hypothesis.

Molecules combine to form bigger molecules. Yes, there is evidence for this. If you need help, you can always re-take high school chemistry.

 

[untermensche]

This is not an explanation of anything.

It is a bare hypothesis.

Molecules combine to form bigger molecules. Yes, there is evidence for this. If you need help, you can always re-take high school chemistry.

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

 

[skepticalbip]

Molecules combine to form bigger molecules. Yes, there is evidence for this. If you need help, you can always re-take high school chemistry.

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

Covalent bonding.

What do you think the chances are that a lightning bolt will create nitrous oxide?

 

[untermensche]

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

Covalent bonding.

What do you think the chances are that a lightning bolt will create nitrous oxide?

You need something self replicating hearty enough to survive and able to "evolve". And it has to lead to DNA if it an explanation of life on this planet.

Of course a hypothesis is that time and chance events like lightning strikes are the cause. Most likely there were no aliens involved.

But saying the magic phrase "covalent bonding" doesn't explain anything.

 

[skepticalbip]

Covalent bonding.

What do you think the chances are that a lightning bolt will create nitrous oxide?

You need something self replicating hearty enough to survive and able to "evolve". And it has to lead to DNA if it an explanation of life on this planet.

Of course a hypothesis is that time and chance events like lightning strikes are the cause. Most likely there were no aliens involved.

But saying the magic phrase "covalent bonding" doesn't explain anything.

Certainly not an explanation that would convince anyone who rejects chemistry.

 

[fromderinside]

Covalent bonding.

What do you think the chances are that a lightning bolt will create nitrous oxide?

You need something self replicating hearty enough to survive and able to "evolve". And it has to lead to DNA if it an explanation of life on this planet.

Of course a hypothesis is that time and chance events like lightning strikes are the cause. Most likely there were no aliens involved.

But saying the magic phrase "covalent bonding" doesn't explain anything.

I'm sure given the number of quarks, leptons, etc, underlying energy and matter, there are a number of possible ways for atoms to organize. Yet what we see is one organization, the one most efficient with respect to entropy. Then when atoms organize into molecules again we see such as the model skeptiicalbip presented. Now when molecules get large like complex organic models we now see certain principles of 'self' organization appear. So I'm thinking covalent bonding is very meaningful when it comes to evolution of matter and energy. There are usually reasons why things happen in particular ways in an an entropic world. Modern physicists are on the job.

 

[Malintent]

You need something self replicating hearty enough to survive and able to "evolve". And it has to lead to DNA if it an explanation of life on this planet.

Of course a hypothesis is that time and chance events like lightning strikes are the cause. Most likely there were no aliens involved.

But saying the magic phrase "covalent bonding" doesn't explain anything.

I'm sure given the number of quarks, leptons, etc, underlying energy and matter, there are a number of possible ways for atoms to organize. Yet what we see is one organization, the one most efficient with respect to entropy. Then when atoms organize into molecules again we see such as the model skeptiicalbip presented. Now when molecules get large like complex organic models we now see certain principles of 'self' organization appear. So I'm thinking covalent bonding is very meaningful when it comes to evolution of matter and energy. There are usually reasons why things happen in particular ways in an an entropic world. Modern physicists are on the job.

What is being explained is that "complex organic molecules" are not that complex.. .that their behavior is actually demonstrated as 'mundanely simple, and inevitable, given what we know about the laws of chemistry".

The imaginary line between 'simple non-life" and 'complex life' is an artificial barrio creatd by man's ignorance. Our moden knowledge is showing that this line does not exist and that the laws of nature are both simple and inevitable.

 

[Underseer]

Molecules combine to form bigger molecules. Yes, there is evidence for this. If you need help, you can always re-take high school chemistry.

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

Are you sure you know what a hypothesis is?

We can't build a time machine to actually observe abiogenesis events, but the work cited in the original post involved actual evidence.

Is it your argument that unless we go back in time and actually observe the origin of life that therefore any conclusions about the origin of life is automatically a hypothesis?

 

[fromderinside]

I'm sure given the number of quarks, leptons, etc, underlying energy and matter, there are a number of possible ways for atoms to organize. Yet what we see is one organization, the one most efficient with respect to entropy. Then when atoms organize into molecules again we see such as the model skeptiicalbip presented. Now when molecules get large like complex organic models we now see certain principles of 'self' organization appear. So I'm thinking covalent bonding is very meaningful when it comes to evolution of matter and energy. There are usually reasons why things happen in particular ways in an an entropic world. Modern physicists are on the job.

What is being explained is that "complex organic molecules" are not that complex.. .that their behavior is actually demonstrated as 'mundanely simple, and inevitable, given what we know about the laws of chemistry".

The imaginary line between 'simple non-life" and 'complex life' is an artificial barrio creatd by man's ignorance. Our moden knowledge is showing that this line does not exist and that the laws of nature are both simple and inevitable.

...and you posted this bit because ... there are reasonable consequences from the existence of the second law of thermodynamics ......

 

[Shake]

Molecules combine to form bigger molecules. Yes, there is evidence for this. If you need help, you can always re-take high school chemistry.

Yeah sure, time and chance.

As I said a bare hypothesis.

Whatever. It does seem to make sense, and as others have pointed out, it is backed by testable mathematics.