When did 'LIFE" begin? (Science in relation with the Biblical description)

[SGOS]

The most fascinating question that we'll never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?

The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.

I've wondered about that too.  Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings.  According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing.  I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.

To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions.  Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.

[Baruch]

I've wondered about that too.  Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings.  According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing.  I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.

To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions.  Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.

We don't have new proto-life forming here, today, because conditions are very different (namely lots of oxygen).  Conditions in the early earth were hostile to advanced life forms ... the biosphere is a long term terraforming side effect of cooling proto-planets.  In fact 10 degrees C higher or lower, and most life today would die.  Wimps!  So is a 4 degree C rise a problem?  Duh!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.

Yep, and you're still an ape, a monkey, a mammal, a synapsid, an amniote, a vertibrate, a chordate, a deuterostome, a bilateral, a unicont, and a eukaryote. You belong to all of those taxonomic classes. Not one of your ancestors evolved out of those taxonomic classes once they evolved into them. And not one of your descendents will ever not be part of any one of those taxa, just as evolution predicts.

Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.

No, that's hybridization. New species are not produced by blending them with other. New species evolve by two similar populations diverging and developing their own traits. The last time there was a creature that was the closest thing to a crockoduck, was millions of years ago when the archosaurs diverged into Avemetatarsalia (which are birds and their extinct relatives) and Pseudosuchia (crocs and their extinct relatives), and when they were just splitting, those two groups could hardly be distinguished from each other.

There might be humans that have a mutation that makes them grow hair all over their bodies, but it's not in a pattern resembling a wolf to any taxonomic detail, and it will not make them a lupid. People may have feet resembling ostrich, but anyone with a background in taxonomy will be able to tell the difference. Your picture of an "eight-legged girl" is not an arachnid. She and your "multiple-eyed man" are actually forms of siamese twinning. It's not even clear these traits are heritable, which would be required for them to be evolutions. And your "alligator girl" does not have alligator skin â€" she has overkeritinized patches of skin with only the most superficial resemblance to an alligator's skin, and does not make her a eusuchid.

If anyone is advancing these as proof of evolution, they are idiots. Anyone who thinks that such specimins are examples of evolution toted by scientists, they are idiots. No scientist worth his salt would claim these are evidences of evolution.

I'm glad you don't take those freaks as evidence of evolution, because they aren't, not by any competent individual. Evidence of evolution lies elsewhere.

[trdsf]

I've wondered about that too.  Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings.  According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing.  I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.

To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions.  Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.

I think stating "it only happened once" goes a step too far; it happened at *least* once, and so far as we've been able to tell, only one line survived.

I'm not sure that it's possible for more than one line to survive even just to simple forms like stromatolites unless they're completely separated over geological timescales â€" and once they ultimately meet, one will be better adapted than the other, and it only takes the tiniest advantage for one to overwhelm the other.

And I agree.  I'd be shocked to learn there aren't some sort of very simple forms elsewhere even in our own solar system.  Especially around Enceladus' hydrothermal vents.  Complex thinking beasties like us are probably rare, but I strongly doubt we're unique.

[Mousetrap]

If anyone is advancing these as proof of evolution, they are idiots. Anyone who thinks that such specimins are examples of evolution toted by scientists, they are idiots. No scientist worth his salt would claim these are evidences of evolution.

I'm glad you don't take those freaks as evidence of evolution, because they aren't, not by any competent individual. Evidence of evolution lies elsewhere.

Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.

[trdsf]

Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.

Let's see, where's that font setting again?  Oh, yes.

WRONG.

You have this completely incorrect idea about how evolution works.  It isn't an all-or-nothing event where a monkey gives birth to a human, bang, new species.  Although eventually they will probably identify this new strain as a subspecies at a minimum.

You also completely ignored the last paragraph, probably so you could draw the exact opposite conclusion from what the research showed:

Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

You can't cherry-pick science, Mousie.  You have to explain ALL data, not just the bits you think you can desperately and fraudulently try to twist to support your delusion.

[Hydra009]

Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.

Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.

Years ago, I said something along the lines of "creationists are so stupid they'd expect Goro as evidence of evolution".  Apparently, I was overestimating their intelligence.

[Hydra009]

People evolves into alligators!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA

[Hakurei Reimu]

Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.

You are an idiot. The bacteria is proof of evolution, because we see what evolution predicts: a gene-based change in response to an environmental change.

The real theory of evolution does not predict what happens in Pokemon, despite the misnomer.

So far, you are acting to type, MT. Please change.

[SGOS]

We don't have new porto-life forming here, today, because conditions are very different (namely lots of oxygen).  Conditions in the early earth were hostile to advanced life forms ... the biosphere is a long term terraforming side effect of cooling porto-planets.  In fact 10 degrees C higher or lower, and most life today would die.  Wimps!  So is a 4 degree C rise a problem?  Duh!

I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today.  It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course.  There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments.  None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution.  I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in.  I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise.  Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We have a type of bacteria that lives EXCLUSIVELY on nylon. That's evolution in action.

[Baruch]

I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today.  It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course.  There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments.  None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution.  I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in.  I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise.  Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.

It certainly could happen on other proto-planets.  If it occurring today, out in the open, we would know it.  Unless of course it is life we are incapable of recognizing as life.  In which case not-a-true-microbe fallacy.

[trdsf]

I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today.  It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course.  There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments.  None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution.  I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in.  I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise.  Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.

It could, but there are actually very good reasons why it either won't, or can't take hold.

Unless it's in a really extreme environment, there's probably already something living there, and that will be taking up the most easily utilized resources, and that will already be evolved to fit that niche well.  A first generation self-replicator would be up against insurmountable odds â€" highly evolved replicators already using the available local resources efficiently â€" unless it happened to take advantage of an energy source that wasn't already in use in that environment.

The other problem is: even if we happened to spot a first-generation replicator, could we recognize it for what it is that early in its development?  It might look like a peculiar natural chemistry cycle that we wouldn't be able to recognize as a new form of life for another couple hundred million years yet, and I don't think any university is going to fund a research project for that long.

[Unbeliever]

in basic physics there is nothing that says that time must move forward,

Well, that isn't quite correct:

A time-asymmetric law is one that distinguishes between the past and future. Some time asymmetric laws are large and obvious: we always age in the one direction in time, London real estate always go up in one direction in time, etc.

But when it comes to describing the most fundamental physical systems, like quarks and electrons, one normally presumes (in both physics and philosophy textbooks) that the laws of nature are time-symmetric. That’s a curious convention, because they actually aren’t. There is a small but pervasive arrow of time that comes out of the fundamental decay processes known as weak interactions. This talk aims to correct that convention. It is about the curious little arrow of time that arises out of the weak interactions.

Weak interactions and the curious little arrow of time

[SGOS]

It could, but there are actually very good reasons why it either won't, or can't take hold.

Unless it's in a really extreme environment, there's probably already something living there, and that will be taking up the most easily utilized resources, and that will already be evolved to fit that niche well.  A first generation self-replicator would be up against insurmountable odds â€" highly evolved replicators already using the available local resources efficiently â€" unless it happened to take advantage of an energy source that wasn't already in use in that environment.

The other problem is: even if we happened to spot a first-generation replicator, could we recognize it for what it is that early in its development?  It might look like a peculiar natural chemistry cycle that we wouldn't be able to recognize as a new form of life for another couple hundred million years yet, and I don't think any university is going to fund a research project for that long.

Yes, I've already considered both of those problems, and they are heavy odds against survival that didn't exist the first time around.