Is life a gamble? Scientist models universe to find out

[Catastrophe]

We are here, whether as the result of a combination of small organic molecules dreaming, or as a result of some multidimensional Drake equation, or whatever.
So. if our existence is a given we have not to worry about if. but where else.
We have plenty of choices to investigate.

 

[dfjchem721]

The two obvious options for the appearance of life on earth, or anywhere else it might arise :

1) Abiogensis (the scientific rationale) - life from chemicals by natural processes.

2) Supernatural (the creationist rationale) - life from "The Magic Wand" processes.

1) Scientific rationale has proven many aspects of the natural world by experimental evidence and its reproducibility. The more complex a phenomena, the more difficult it is to explain. (Difficulty of explanation is not a reason to deny rational proposals.) Which is why there is so much debate about abiogensis, and the Big Bang, etc. With scientific rationale, facts and evidence from many observations are usually required for a consensus view among scientists, which is of course how science progresses. Without consensus view, science lacks confidence, and thereby validity: "We see, therefore we believe."

So, for some of us "Seeing is believing."

2) Supernatural rationale is a cake walk. Just call up your god or gods and ALL answers are immediately provided (best part - no proofs required!). For this approach, reality is not only irrelevant, it is often scorned as blasphemy. Only faith matters. Faith tends to deny scientific realities because they must be wrong if they do not conform to the supernatural dogma (they usually don't). The supernatural rationale validation: "We don't care what science says, it must be wrong."

So, for others of us: "You don't have to see anything, just keep the faith and it must be true."

What a quandary we all face.

Hmmmm.............I am going with option 1.

 

[Catastrophe]

7 of 1
Hurrah! Both of us would have been burnt at the stake long ago by those of a different persuasion. Don't mention the R word for somethingwhatever's sake.

Shame I can only give it one Like!

Catamorphobiogenetically

 

[rod]

"So, for some of us "Seeing is believing." My thinking, no one has observed abiogenesis at work in the fossil record, life on Earth today arising via abiogenesis, and neither did Louis Pasteur. You have believing without seeing here too

 

[Joe Brooks]

"Totani's model uses the most conservative method of RNA polymerization, where each monomer is attached randomly one-by-one until a chain of monomers is formed. Scientists have suggested that polymers (each made up of multiple monomers) could attach to each other to speed up the process, but Totani said such a process is "highly speculative and hypothetical." "

There is nothing in nature that would preclude multiple monomers, or even polymers, attaching to each other. Ruling this out of your model greatly decreases the likelihood of life forming in your model in what I think is an unrealistic way. It can be thought of like this. You have monomers A, B, C and D. To make an RNA chain, you need them to connect A-B-C-D. So, monomer A connects to monomer B, giving the polymer A-B. Monomer C connects to monomer D, giving the polymer C-D. Rather than having to add one monomer at a time to these two chains, giving either A-B-C or B-C-D, why can't A-B connect directly to C-D to make A-B-C-D? I'm guessing this time-saving process happens all the time in nature, at both this level an higher levels, such as A-B-C-D connecting to E-F or E-F-G or even E-F-G-H, to make A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H from A-B-C-D and E-F-G-H in one step instead of using 4 steps to separately add E, F, G and H to A-B-C-D. I think that if this were taken into account, the odds of abiogenesis in the observable universe would increase dramatically.

 

[dfjchem721]

rod, no one has observed abiogenesis at work in the fossil record because such proto-life and initial life forms were extremely weak structurally. They had membranes and were made up almost entirely of flimsy molecules. They did not have the heavy armor of a horse-shoe crab, etc.

In order to form fossils, the life form must be sturdy enough for minerals to "take its place.", and stable enough for such a long process to occur. When a life form is ~ "at the molecular level", its lifeless body cannot be fossilized, or leave any trace that it even existed. Absence of a proof does not rule out sound postulates. But something else might, to a lot of us (see below).

There have been notations of biogenesis. That is proven everywhere you look. It means of course, life-from-life. It does not define how it starts. Please refer to my post on the options for the origin of life. Biogenesis as the start of life must fall under option 2 since it provides no mechanism for life to arise in any other way.

 

[dfjchem721]

7 of 1
Hurrah! Both of us would have been burnt at the stake long ago by those of a different persuasion. Don't mention the R word for somethingwhatever's sake.

Shame I can only give it one Like!

Catamorphobiogenetically

By that R word, do you mean, re,ah, rel, ah, reli, oh my-----Jeeez, I can't even get it out, Cat!

Not to worry, mate!

 

[Catastrophe]

Pardon my ignorance, I am not a biochemist.
Are they arguing about van der Waals forces?

 

[dfjchem721]

Pardon my ignorance, I am not a biochemist.
Are they arguing about van der Waals forces?

Who is "they"? My guess is yes, if they are talking about biochemistry. Electron orbitals is almost the all and everything in biochemical interactions.

 

[Catastrophe]

By that R word, do you mean, re,ah, rel, ah, reli, oh my-----Jeeez, I can't even get it out, Cat!

Not to worry, mate!

Errrrr . . . . . . . . . I fink err warrrss ree ah leee e t eee dunno

 

[Catastrophe]

Who is "they"? My guess is yes, if they are talking about biochemistry. Electron orbitals is almost the all and everything in biochemical interactions.

"Who is they" Errrrr I guess one of em must 'ave bunked orrfff.

 

[rod]

rod, no one has observed abiogenesis at work in the fossil record because such proto-life and initial life forms were extremely weak structurally. They had membranes and were made up almost entirely of flimsy molecules. They did not have the heavy armor of a horse-shoe crab, etc.

In order to form fossils, the life form must be sturdy enough for minerals to "take its place.", and stable enough for such a long process to occur. When a life form is ~ "at the molecular level", its lifeless body cannot be fossilized, or leave any trace that it even existed. Absence of a proof does not rule out sound postulates. But something else might, to a lot of us (see below).

There have been notations of biogenesis. That is proven everywhere you look. It means of course, life-from-life. It does not define how it starts. Please refer to my post on the options for the origin of life. Biogenesis as the start of life must fall under option 2 since it provides no mechanism for life to arise in any other way.

Rod's observation. The fossil record now has many examples of soft tissue finds documented, like the list of living fossils that are documented that total more than 3200 since 2013. Various groups are reporting this, others are documenting and cataloging so the argument that we do not have the first living cell ancestor fossil, common to all life necessary for evolutionary biology, is a hand waving method I feel. Abiogenesis cannot appeal to natural selection either like the interpretation of the fossil record where one type is said to evolve into another type and natural selection plays a critical role. There is no fossil ancestor for that first living cell that shows it evolved slowly, from non-living matter and the claim of various nodes on the evolutionary tree of life from Precambrian, Cambrian explosion, through Cenozoic does not show ancestors for trilobites as an example, were non-living matter or non-living matter is the ancestor of fossils in the Triassic strata. The scientific method is based upon observation, testing, and falsifying claims that is why the geocentric solar system is no longer taught or the earth is flat despite some efforts today to claim this. If this was followed, Louis Pasteur eliminated abiogenesis as a scientific basis for explaining the origin of life but deep, philosophical issues arise and cause trouble. At the present, I cannot test and falsify the claim that the first living cell on Earth, arose via abiogenesis, and we have no fossil record evidence to support this either so there is no historical witness to this event for the origin of life. As far as I know, observations of abiogenesis at work today in nature, e.g. Darwin's warm little pond is not shown to be true by the scientific method. Various soft tissue reports continue to mount, Cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA preserved in 75 million-year-old baby duck-billed dinosaur

Dave, as you point out, the origin of life has two options (panspermia is not an option, just a method of spreading life around perhaps). 1. abiogenesis 2. special creation

Both are thorny issues for society and philosophy when it comes to what I call, origins science.

 

[dfjchem721]

Well rod, my answer goes back to the fragility of the first life forms. You seem to have a requirement for something to see before you believe it. Very understandable. Why should you be any different from me and almost everybody else?

In your post your say "There is no fossil ancestor for that first living cell that shows it evolved slowly, from non-living matter and the claim of various nodes on the evolutionary tree of life.". And I submit that no such fossil will ever be found because its very nature would not allow geological processes to capture a "copy" of it, much less preserve it for >4 billion years. After all, that is what a fossil is. A facsimile of the life form we all love looking at. But when one studies the process of fossilization, there can be only one conclusion regarding very delicate life forms- sadly, they almost never leave fossils!

There is also mention of those great times like the Cambrian, etc. Yet before that, all we have are what look like worm tracks, maybe going back a few billion years, give or take. And no worm fossils for all that time, or trace if at all. Where are all the fossils through billions of years of what is believed to be a time when some animals or algae existed? They are very poorly represented for billions of years because they were very delicate.

The ages for ancient stromolites, an easily fossilized algae formation date back well over 3 bya. Clearly this is long after the first life form arose, since photosynthesis would have appeared much later from the original life forms. That they have left no record is actually not true. Evolution tells us that life evolved from a single cell, and I am not aware of any 4 billion year old single cell fossils. So most of what we see came long after that one cell form kick-started it all. The diversity that began 500-600 mya resulted from geological events that allowed the whole planet to provide vast niches for life to evolve. Or a major event in evolution provided an innovation so extraordinary that it enhanced the rate of evolution by orders of magnitude. (The appearance of bilateral symmetry in the animal line is believed responsible for much of the diversity.) That is when those great hard fossils begin to be found in abundance. Looking for fossils in 4 billion year old rocks, at the microscopic level, is not likely to lead to the successful discovery of that first life form.

If you reject Option 2, than you must accept abiogensis.

We cannot see quarks and gluons, or even protons and neutrons, but I believe they exist.

Because I cannot accept Option 2, I must continue to investigate and consider how Option 1 came about. As a real scientist, that is the only option : Abiogensis.

 

[rod]

dfjchem721 said, "If you reject Option 2, than you must accept abiogensis. We cannot see quarks and gluons, or even protons and neutrons, but I believe they exist. Because I cannot accept Option 2, I must continue to investigate and consider how Option 1 came about. As a real scientist, that is the only option : Abiogensis."

Good comments . *If you reject*, *Because I cannot accept Option 2*, shows this is a philosophical issue and comparing abiogenesis to quantum mechanics that has much math and particle experiments verifying the Standard Model of particle physics since at least the 1920s or so, including the development of nuclear weapons is not the same as accepting abiogenesis at work in the present or 4 billion years ago on Earth or some place else in the universe. Hand waving about no evidence for abiogenesis in the fossil record or no evidence for abiogenesis at work throughout the fossil record strata just confirms that in science, there is no historical witness for option 1 that shows it is true. Using the same standard of testing that was used to verify the heliocentric solar system and overthrow the geocentric solar system where the Sun moved around the Earth, Option 1, abiogenesis is not confirmed using those standards of testing and verification. Abiogenesis does not have the same secure footing in science verification as what Galileo showed in astronomy about the solar system that helped to overturn the geocentric teachers, my opinion. It is presently, a philosophical choice concerning origins.

 

[dfjchem721]

To repeat my definitive post which has no other reasonable option that I can determine:

The two obvious options for the appearance of life on earth, or anywhere else it might arise :

1) Abiogensis (the scientific rationale) - life from chemicals by natural processes.

2) Supernatural (the creationist rationale) - life from "The Magic Wand" processes.

Take your pick, or provide another option.

Biogensis is not an option as it must be the end result of one of the above. If you think Option 1 is a bunch of "hand waving" without foundation, then you are left with Option 2. No problem with that. You would be joining a lot of people!

 

[rod]

dfjchem721, I like your two point summary, very concise When it comes to defining *the scientific rationale*, Galileo showed the way. He and others could see the lights moving around Jupiter and not the Earth using the telescope. That is the essence of the scientific method

 

[David-J-Franks]

dfjchem721, I like your two point summary, very concise When it comes to defining *the scientific rationale*, Galileo showed the way. He and others could see the lights moving around Jupiter and not the Earth using the telescope. That is the essence of the scientific method

Hi rod, isn't there another method science uses? Take the following;

1. Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed

2. Cause and effect always works

3. The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

4. Others I can't think of

There is no absolute conclusive proof that any of the above are 100% true, but they are all taken as 'rock-solid' - ( I've used that word as I know it winds you up from many Jupiter moons ago). What category/ levels of proof do these come under?

I'm afraid in this case I would call dfjchem721's reasoning rock solid

 

[dfjchem721]

Some apparently need observational proofs to establish absolute facts. Here are two examples how reality can be inferred by observation, logic and deductive reasoning without direct observation:

We know that humans are made from the fusion of sperm and ova (by direct observation in a dish), and its further development into a blastula, gastrula, etc. But we cannot prove that it happens in the woman to produce children because it has NEVER BEEN SEEN! By the logic of "must see it to be true", there is no evidence that fertilization occurs inside the woman, or even results in babies. Any notions that it does is mere "hand-waving" since it has never positively, absolutely and unequivocally been observed.

The earth has a molten core. This is inferred by all the volcanic activity on the surface, etc., but no one has seen the molten core so the suggestion it is there is based on hand-waving. All other evidence is like fertilization - secondary observations generating hand-waving to suggest the core is molten.

A large book could be filled with all this "hand-waving", and it would constitute a great deal of what we know as facts in science. Inferences are not hand-waving when sufficient evidence demonstrates no other logical alternative.

Again, you are left with two options. You have failed to chose. What are we to make of this reluctance? Do you reject No.1? Go with No.2, or do you propose a third option? That is the real issue here, not your well-crafted but misleading notions that it has to be "seen" to true.....

 

[dfjchem721]

Hi rod, isn't there another method science uses? Take the following;

1. Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed

2. Cause and effect always works

3. The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

4. Others I can't think of

There is no absolute conclusive proof that any of the above are 100% true, but they are all taken as 'rock-solid' - ( I've used that word as I know it winds you up from many Jupiter moons ago). What category/ levels of proof do these come under?

I'm afraid in this case I would call dfjchem721's reasoning rock solid

You are really piling on there David. I was hoping for a prolonged, drawn out battle with rod. We both like these!

Oh well..........

 

[David-J-Franks]

It is presently, a philosophical choice concerning origins.

Last-minute thought, The options presented by dfjchem721 are not equally balanced. In option 1, There are mountains of circumstantial evidence going back billions of years. In option 2 there's zero evidence. In a legal system the 'balance of probabilitys' method would be overwhelmingly in favour of option 1. So it need not be a matter of total blind faith or tossing a coin for each option, there's a strong bias towards one option. Just as there's a strong bias for things like the big bang model

 

[David-J-Franks]

You are really piling on there David. I was hoping for a prolonged, drawn out battle with rod. We both like these!

Oh well..........

Well I did try and rub him up with my hallmark term 'rock solid' (You see, he's teased me about using that in past posts)

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks said, [Hi rod, isn't there another method science uses? Take the following;

1. Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed

2. Cause and effect always works

3. The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

4. Others I can't think of

There is no absolute conclusive proof that any of the above are 100% true, but they are all taken as 'rock-solid' - ( I've used that word as I know it winds you up from many Jupiter moons ago). What category/ levels of proof do these come under?

I'm afraid in this case I would call dfjchem721's reasoning rock solid]

Okay David-J-Franks and dfjchem721 the biochemist Starting wth 1. Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. This today is shown by E=mc^2 and nuclear weapons. Einstein united the conservation of matter and conservation of energy into E=mc^2. There is no abiogensis formula like this. Mixing things up here in observation and math that is tested and proven, my opinion.

2. Cause and effect always works - I agree. Abiogenesis has not be shown as an *adequate cause* to explain the origin of life and the genetic code, and the history of biogenesis documented in the fossil record. Natural selection cannot be used on non-living matter to model and explain abiogenesis. A good example is the origin of plants, even Charles Darwin considered this a serious problem in the fossil record against his theory, still is today along with the Cambrian explosion and other fossils. Louis Pasteur work showed spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was not observed using the scientific method. Charles Darwin had the warm little pond for abiogenesis in his work to create life's first living cell, the last common ancestor, even though both were contemporaries.

3. The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. Problem here, these laws are observed and documented in astronomy like the laws of motion, gravity, Kepler's elliptical planetary orbit laws, here in the solar system and other locations like binary star orbits or exoplanet studies. This is well documented in astronomy but not abiogenesis working throughout the universe. Today we have more than 4200 exoplanets confirmed. So far, zero are reported as showing abiogenesis took place on them or abiogenesis is at work on the exoplanets today like the orbital laws that can be observed. Big difference between physical law observed operating in other parts of the universe, and observing abiogenesis at work throughout the universe.

dfjchem721 asked me, "Again, you are left with two options. You have failed to chose. What are we to make of this reluctance? Do you reject No.1? Go with No.2, or do you propose a third option? That is the real issue here, not your well-crafted but misleading notions that it has to be "seen" to true...."

I would think by now both of you should realize I am a creationist, the worst type according to dfjchem721, the biochemist in this discussion. While biology and biochemist believe they accumulated an abundance of evidence to show life on Earth originated via abiogenesis, my opinion about the claims and history of scientific observations is very different. Louis Pasteur effectively abolished abiogenesis as something that is working today on Earth. The fossil record is a record of biogenesis and complex, genetic code information at work, along with death, sometimes massive death in the fossil record featuring abrupt and rapid burials of life that perished. So when I look at the history of geocentric astronomy from Claudius Ptolemy through Tycho Brahe observations and compare to abiogenesis teaching today, geocentric observations used to support that the Sun moved around the Earth were more justified by their direct observations than abiogenesis today or abiogenesis at work 4 billion years ago for example.

This is my opinion, you do not have to agree or accept anything I said here---Rod

 

[dfjchem721]

There was no other conclusion - you being in Option 2 due to your refusal to accept abiogenesis.

FYI, Louis Pasteur only proved that life could not arise from his experimental approach, which was very weak to say the least. To suggest it disproves abiogenesis is simply not correct.

As I mentioned before, he did not have the time to see abiogenesis at work. He was not a god, after all. And it was "Spontaneous Generation", not "Combustion" he was dealing with. At least get the facts straight even if you don't believe them.

 

[Catastrophe]

" The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe"

How ON EARTH do you justify than one?
Pun brilliantly unintended.

Solar System Mmmm OK Galaxy? Stretching it a bit.
Distant galaxies? Well . . . 'I ask you' as the song goes . . .

This is the most anthropomorphic piece of ...
We, the one and only greatest brain in the Universe decree that the Universe will be good and do what it is told.

Take expansion. Far away units of length may cause our perception of expansion to be in error.

Remember Laplace. and now we are sitting here choosing between Big Rip . . . Big Crunch . . . Big Slurp . . .

Any, to another matter.

Let us look at one change in like.
It is not as awe shattering as development of consciousness but it may bear examination.
Look at the first amphibians. From a life in water for millions of years some fish develop into proto-amphibians.
This is fully comparable albeit on a different level to development of 'intellectuality'. Fish had some comprehension of where to feed etcetera.

My main point (remember Laplace) is that, only a very few years ago, we were doing a 'Laplace' on the Universe.
Now we find our wonderful anthropomorphic empire is inhabiting a puny 5% of the Universe.
We are in comparison with the dawning of acceptance that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.

We know nothing of how our matter might be influenced by dark matter and / or dark energy other than gravity. This change, this discovery of life on our planet may well have influences outside our 5%. Now you will say this is an unfounded assertion, a proposed new religion based only on acceptance of unfounded propositions.

Life may be another gamble outside the understanding of a developing species. Maybe we are about to discover that there is more outside our knowledge

Rien ne va plus . . . nichts geht mehr
Faites vos jeux . . . machen Sie Ihr Spiel

The wheel is spinning with possibilities . . . . . . . . .

 

[dfjchem721]

Cat, you must realize that rod may be an outlier for creationists. There is not one box fits all sizes here. But just to review, their Central Dogma is that The Bible is the literal interpretation of all things.

Most creationists peg the age of the earth at ca. 8,000 years. This is counting back through all the events of their bible and "old testament", with countless Mulligans along the way. But rod talks about all this cosmology stuff like he really believes it. I suspect he has been playing some kind of game all along.

Trying to debate such people is the definition of "an exercise in futility". Drawn out proofs as you are trying will have no impact on creationists. They have an out for everything you throw at them. Carefully honed responses like "there are no fossils of any original cell from 4 billion years ago, so origin of life must be supernatural". Total nonsense, of course, which gave me my answer before he officially came out of the closet.

And be careful of what you read from them as their commentary must be guided by a powerful Hand beyond anything we can imagine, or debate. That is the glory of creationists:

No proofs required.

Some of them attempt to cling to facts, however much these facts might deny the supernatural. Real nature has no place in their logic stream.

One thing is certain : they are a remarkable study in denial.