New theory on how life began

[untermensche]

All that exists is interrelated.

They all use similar mechanisms.

Do they? You cannot know that. This planet is totally infected by life "model 1" so any new prelife forms could simply be outconcurrented by the established forms.

And if I grew legs long enough I could possibly step to the moon.

This is conjecture, not even hypothesis.

 

[Malintent]

Saying it is a bald hypothesis is not saying I don't like it.

But there may be many necessary events along the way that we cannot possibly know have happened. We cannot possibly know the odds of it happening.

It is a general notion of how life probably arose.

It is nothing scientific.

Are you saying that your statement is 'nothing scientific', or that the article we are discussing is 'nothing scientific', or that the search for the beginnings of life can be 'nothing scientific'?

You claim you are not rejecting naturalistic abiogenisis, as a possibility for the emergence of life, as a hypothesis. However, you call it a 'bald hypothesis'.. which implies you are making the same conflationary error that people make when they say things like. "Just a Theory". Are you saying that you reject the scientific method (just a hypothesis) as a means for discovering the truth?

 

[fromderinside]

Please show that it is a fact.

All that exists is interrelated.

They all use similar mechanisms.

Where are the other forms of life that have started as well?

Consider that there were many forms competing for consumables, that form that maximizes the use of those consumables will be the the one that optimizes or maximizes entropy.  Principle of maximum entropy and formation of life (rolling down a hill applies) A New Physics Theory of Life http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

Since you obviously faileed to read the article in the OP please feel free to read both of the articles I provide. At the very least you now have a substantive reference to bilby's rolling down a hill comment. I guess many of us assume others keep up with things so they feel no need to refer their points. Consider me the good guy here.

moveon. org

 

[untermensche]

Why do I have to say anything?

Others, such as Eugene Shakhnovich, a professor of chemistry, chemical biology and biophysics at Harvard University, are not convinced. “Jeremy’s ideas are interesting and potentially promising, but at this point are extremely speculative, especially as applied to life phenomena,” Shakhnovich said.

I agree.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps life-starting "events" are long, drawn-out processes that take millions of years of happy coincidences to amount to anything, and an environment devoid of pre-existing life may be the only favorable conditions for these processes.

Of course. Many things are possible.

There is no way to assign odds to the likelihood of life arising.

At least at our current level of understanding.

Life is the opposite of just letting things happen.

It is making a specific protein over and over, on purpose.

That is one hell of an assertion. Do you have any evidence that RNA plans, has purposeful intent?

Or is it possible that, like a crystal, RNA replicates itself because that is how chemistry works?

 

[Angry Floof]

What I found most interesting was this:

But 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 want to see more on these tests.

 

[fromderinside]

Why do I have to say anything?

Perhaps you failed to read the article on The principle of maximum entropy which is actually testable including for that process presented in the OP article and the SA article I provided.

More than an opinion is needed here. Some evidence to the contrary would be nice.

 

[untermensche]

Of course. Many things are possible.

There is no way to assign odds to the likelihood of life arising.

At least at our current level of understanding.

Life is the opposite of just letting things happen.

It is making a specific protein over and over, on purpose.

That is one hell of an assertion. Do you have any evidence that RNA plans, has purposeful intent?

Or is it possible that, like a crystal, RNA replicates itself because that is how chemistry works?

Is the cell doing anything?

Is there any agency contained within it?

If cellular machinery automatically does something then it is doing it on purpose.

 

[untermensche]

Why do I have to say anything?

Perhaps you failed to read the article on The principle of maximum entropy which is actually testable including for that process presented in the OP article and the SA article I provided.

More than an opinion is needed here. Some evidence to the contrary would be nice.

Nothing has been demonstrated.

It is conjecture, in terms of life.

But again if it is rolling down hill you should see it arise many times since so many pockets of isolation have been possible in the history of the earth.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is one hell of an assertion. Do you have any evidence that RNA plans, has purposeful intent?

Or is it possible that, like a crystal, RNA replicates itself because that is how chemistry works?

Is the cell doing anything?

The question was, are you asserting that the cell is planning and doing something with purposeful intent? Or is it just the way chemistry works?

Is there any agency contained within it?

WTF do you even mean?

If cellular machinery automatically does something then it is doing it on purpose.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word, "purpose".

 

[untermensche]

Is the cell doing anything?

The question was, are you asserting that the cell is planning and doing something with purposeful intent? Or is it just the way chemistry works?

You argue a strawmen since I made no assertions.

I said proteins are made on purpose.

And saying it is the way chemistry works is as explanatory as saying it is the way god intended.

Is there any agency contained within it?

WTF do you even mean?

The simplest is beyond you.

Go play in the sand.

 

[fromderinside]

The simplest is beyond you.

Go play in the sand.

Why is it necessary to say that if molecules operate IAC with chemical laws (principles) they are doing it on purpose. They have no choice. If an electron comes within critical distance and there is a place available for it it becomes part of the molecule. It did not choose to join nor did the molecule recruit (on purpose) it.

Seems you need some simple principles and some sand yourself.

 

[fromderinside]

Nothing has been demonstrated.

It is conjecture, in terms of life.

But again if it is rolling down hill you should see it arise many times since so many pockets of isolation have been possible in the history of the earth.

Well no evidence to the contrary so I presume you understand.

As for other forms, some examples: Neanderthals competed with Modern Humans and lost. Nothing replaced them there are no others just modern humans. Competing for the same resources whatever other forms existed were quickly eliminated because they weren't as good at processing resources as was early life. Since they had no spines or skeletons or shells there is no evidence of their existence. Even Gould would go duh on that one. While evolution is about good enough the niche demands the best. Meaning one shared resource goes to one species. The others eventually die out.

 

[skepticalbip]

The question was, are you asserting that the cell is planning and doing something with purposeful intent? Or is it just the way chemistry works?

You argue a strawmen since I made no assertions.

I said proteins are made on purpose.

:laughing-smiley-014 That is exactly what you asserted. And my question is what intelligence are you asserting is behind that purpose doing the planning to achieve the goal of copying itself. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the phrase, 'on purpose'?

 

[untermensche]

Nothing has been demonstrated.

It is conjecture, in terms of life.

But again if it is rolling down hill you should see it arise many times since so many pockets of isolation have been possible in the history of the earth.

Well no evidence to the contrary so I presume you understand.

As for other forms, some examples: Neanderthals competed with Modern Humans and lost. Nothing replaced them there are no others just modern humans. Competing for the same resources whatever other forms existed were quickly eliminated because they weren't as good at processing resources as was early life. Since they had no spines or skeletons or shells there is no evidence of their existence. Even Gould would go duh on that one. While evolution is about good enough the niche demands the best. Meaning one shared resource goes to one species. The others eventually die out.

This hand waving does not explain why there is no evidence of more than one origin of life.

If it is just like rolling down a hill.

Humans encounter Neanderthals because they came from a common ancestor.

 

[Malintent]

That is one hell of an assertion. Do you have any evidence that RNA plans, has purposeful intent?

Or is it possible that, like a crystal, RNA replicates itself because that is how chemistry works?

Is the cell doing anything?

Is there any agency contained within it?

If cellular machinery automatically does something then it is doing it on purpose.

A ball is rolling down a hill....

Is the ball doing anything?
Is there agency within the ball?
If balls accelerate down a hill, changing direction to take the path of least resistance, then it is doing it on purpose.

I hereby worship the great ball god, without which balls would be no fun to play with at all.

 

[Malintent]

The question was, are you asserting that the cell is planning and doing something with purposeful intent? Or is it just the way chemistry works?

You argue a strawmen since I made no assertions.

I said proteins are made on purpose.

And saying it is the way chemistry works is as explanatory as saying it is the way god intended.

Is there any agency contained within it?

WTF do you even mean?

The simplest is beyond you.

Go play in the sand.

No, you are misunderstanding what is meant by 'explanatory', in a scientific context.

One can 'explain' the "what for" or the "what causes" of things. Science does the latter, religion does the former.

Why do rivers form? Explain.
a) rivers are formed for boats to float on. They help deliver resources to many villages along them.
b) rivers form from low areas of land that are inundated with water, usually from snow melt in nearby mountains or other water sources located at higher altitudes.

Both explain "why rivers form". one is a scientific explanation of "why" (which is really more of a "how"), and the other is a religious or philosophical explanation of a "why".

 

[Rhea]

To dispute bad ideas I need to present other unrelated ideas?

To claim that something is not the best currently know explanation, you'd need to propose a better "best currently known" explanation.

One can say,

it may explain things partly, and be the best currently know, but it has too many gaps to satisfy me. I can't consider a proposal for step A if I don't have one for steps B, C, D and Q. (In which case you will leave the discoveries to others while you wait for Athena to spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus)

or, one can say

it explains things partly. And that is very interesting. So if I stipulate that, how would I test it? And what could then happen in step B or C? How el;se could I test this idea?

or, one could say

I don't believe it. Instead, it could have happened like this, which makes your theory less likely.

or, one could say lalalalalalalala!

 

[Malintent]

Show me the evidence of the eukaryotic revolution. There's no evidence they evolved from prokaryotes - so clearly the eukaryotes were magiced in my Jesus.

The only thing preventing small molecules, given time and energy, to produce polymers, given time and energy, to produce biopolymers, given time and energy, to produce complex biopolymers is a lack of imagination. The processes pretty well mirror genetic evolution.

Yet it only happened once.

As far as we know.

So easy, yet so hard.

Make yourself a sandwich
Now eat it.
Now eat it again.

you can't, can you?

So.. it only happened once... and once it happened, the conditions were permanently changed (the sandwich was turned into doody, by you).
But, you don't believe in sandwiches, because only being able to eat it once is just not quite convincing enough for you.

 

[Deepak]

Yet it only happened once.

As far as we know.

So easy, yet so hard.

Make yourself a sandwich
Now eat it.
Now eat it again.

you can't, can you?

So.. it only happened once... and once it happened, the conditions were permanently changed (the sandwich was turned into doody, by you).
But, you don't believe in sandwiches, because only being able to eat it once is just not quite convincing enough for you.

Not only that but he's generalizing greedily. We only know that the modern lifeforms we've genetically tested share a common ancestor. What we can't be sure of is if all of the creatures in the fossil record also do, or some wee beasties in the deep ocean don't, or if potential creatures in a tectonically isolated underground lake don't. Or for that matter that it's the only supportable molecular configuration an life on other planets also looks genetically similar to life on Earth (Hortas excluded)