CalliArcale - Hi! How are you?<br /><br />Of course, since I believe in microevolution including adaptation, and also creation - the answer would be both in respects to this earth. <br /><br />And, as I read your post again, I would say both!<br /><br />Concerning the universe:<br /><br />Consider: how could life exist in our universe if it was not fine tuned in certain ways.<br /><br />Note my above post, and also, for another example:<br /><br />"Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (10^41). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: “With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” You can imagine what that would mean for us!" - Ibid., p. 18.
- Status
If the physical laws of a universe do not allow the formation of complex structures like life, then there would be nobody around to ask the question <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />If this is the only "ever" universe to exist, then we are indeed very lucky. If this is just one in an huge or infinite number of universes with different laws of physics, then the odds are at least one of them will support life... and here we are! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
alkalin - Good post.<br /><br />Yes, terraforming is a good model - compare astronmer Fred Hoyle's (and Chandra Wickramasinghe's) book "Evolution from Space" and his conclusion of directed panspermia including seeding of earth with informational molecules (compare DNA).<br /><br />As I believe God created life on earth and in Genesis, I wonder what God's invisible energy, in Genesis 1:2, was doing on the face (surface) earth's primordial waters. I suspect something akin to what you posted.<br /><br />I am glad you note that poisonous conditions need to be modified for survival of life.<br /><br />Consider the paradox that HCN (hydrogen cyanide) is considered vital as a first step towards polymerization of polypeptide and on to proteins, while HCN is a deadly poison!<br /><br />Also, consider that while water is necessary for life as we know it, water is actually an enemy of many precursor to life molecules, partly due to hydrolysis directly, and partly due to photolysis (photodissociation) of water by light (especially UV irradiation) to produce free oxygen, which is also an enemy of chemical evolution but a friend to many forms of life.
stevehw33 - I will ignore your proselytizing comments.<br /><br />I agree this is not the best of all worlds.<br /><br />Especially since man is destroying this earth, especially destroying many species of life on earth.<br /><br />Why is it, in your opinion, that man, the highest intelligence on earth, is destroying the earth while many plants and animals, with complex, dare I say intelligent, instincts instinctively preserve the environment - and do so in concert such that biodiversity is better for earth's environment?<br /><br />In short: why is the most intelligent species doing the worst job of preserving earth's environment?
Tom_Hobbes - Perhaps we will get a televised answer during a Geico commercial?<br /><br />The theory earth was made for man is, of course, a large set of different models, not one specific theory.<br /><br />Did you have a specific model in mind that you could link to or quote from?<br /><br />I actually like the model published in our literature, which is, btw, evolving (changing in line with increased scientific data).<br /><br />In respects to Dinosaurs, it is my belief that they were an important part of terraforming this earth to become fine-tuned for human existence.<br /><br />And more generally for mammals.<br /><br />To wit:<br /><br />Early earth had a stronger greenhouse effect in part due to higher CO2 atmospheric content and in part due to other differences from today including the accretion of water.<br /><br />The result was that earth had a warmer, more uniform, climate - also wetter and generally more humid.<br /><br />The result of that was that earth had very thick jungles, much thicker than the Amazon before man starting destroying this rainforest.<br /><br />In such thick jungles, mammals and man would have difficulty.<br /><br />Also, btw, there were many more bogs, and boglike environments and these were conducive to supporting the vast weight of Dinosaurs.<br /><br />Over time (dating methods disputed) Dinosaurs ate the jungles, and compacted, with draining, the bogs. This thinning of jungles and compacting of bogs made the environment more suitable for mammals.<br /><br />That is a very brief synopsis, or summary, of one of many models, btw.
speedfreek - On your last post(?) - thank you for stating your belief.<br /><br />Now, to go from beliefs (compare philosophy) to science: what scientific pathway have you noted could have produced life in early earth's environment at the origin of life?<br /><br />I hope you all will do as SEARCH suggests and try to stay on science on this thread - variant models are welcome, btw.<br /><br />To be very specific: <br /><br />1. How hot was earth's surface at the origin of life on earth?<br /><br />2. Did photolysis of water occur on the surface of earth due to UV irradiation, or was earth's surface dark (compare Genesis 1) such that photolysis of water only occurred in earth's upper atmosphere?<br /><br />Either way, how much oxygen was on the surface of early earth at the origin of life?<br /><br />3. How much CO2 was in earth's atmosphere at the origin of life? Ballpark estimates welcome, reasons requested.<br /><br />4. Which form of life was created or evolved first? In what environment exactly?<br /><br />5. What chemical pathways were followed in what environments such as to create (or evolve) life?<br /><br />I have many other questions, but that is a start.
speedfreek - Sorry, that was not your last post. On your last post:<br /><br />Consider, for example, my post on fine tuning of gravity to the electromagnetic force involving 10^40 fine tuning. <br /><br />Add a few of these exponents and you end up with over a googol, i.e. />10^100.<br /><br />Would you consider belief in a googol universes, or an infinite number of universes, to be a scientific belief, a philosophical belief or a religious belief (or all 3, etc.)?<br /><br />Do you actually believe either? If so, why scientifically?<br /><br />BTW, I believe there are many universes, but much less than a googol universes similar in size or larger than our universe. <br /><br />I suspect somewhere around 100 billion such universes.<br /><br />My scientific reason is that this is a ballpark estimate of the number of stars in our galaxy and the number of galaxies in our universe.<br /><br />So why not a similar number of universes in a much larger universe?<br /><br />Do you have some scientific reason for estimating either a much larger or much smaller number of universes?<br /><br />As for the number of earthlike planets, currently being scientifically researched btw, it depends on how earthlike.<br /><br />I suspect very few as fine tuned as Earth at this time, perhaps only earth.<br /><br />Of course, if a planet is terraformed in a similar way 1 billion years from now in location reachable by us at that time.....
Replying to your last but one post:<br /><br />I don't know if any of the above questions can be answered by science yet, seeing as fossil evidence is a little scarce when you are looking for the simplest, earliest life-forms. They don't make much of an imprint, as it were! For instance, consider a primitive form of algae - what evidence of it could be left behind that would last millions of years? <br /><br />I don't actually think you can have a scientific discussion about the anthropic principle. It is a philosophy, which is why my replies have all, so far, been philosophical in nature.<br /><br />The anthropic principle, once again, comes back to <i> first cause </i>. Why are we here? Are we special in some way? Why does the universe seem so perfectly suited to us? I am merely suggesting that whether created by intelligent design or by a sequence of events caused purely by the laws of physics and chemistry, an intelligent life form would ask these questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
speedfreek - I personally do not like philosophy, and prefer to discuss the scientific aspects of the anthropic principle.<br /><br />Note my opening post.<br /><br />Surely you would agree that the fine tuning of the 4 forces of physics is based on scientific observations, not philosophy!<br /><br />On origin of life - there is indeed some fossil evidence that can be referenced. <br /><br />There is also a considerable body of knowledge that has been amassed by good scientists running a number of different laboratory experiments which give specific chemical reaction product proportions in different environments.<br /><br />Have you ever heard of Miller's famous experiment c. 1950?
SEARCH - Yes, religious or scientific depends on everyone's efforts. For me, btw, it is both, but I avoid philosophy when possible (compare Isaac Newton's approach).<br /><br />Interestingly, you are illustrating evolution involving intelligent design - i.e. how this thread evolves.<br /><br />I will now examine your last link.
I know I will be seen as contradicting myself here, but whilst I believe that any intelligence, anywhere would ask the same questions, whatever their origin - <br /><br />I don't <i> believe </i> in any definition of anything outside our own universe, be it a googol or an infinite number of other universes. How can I <i> believe </i> anything that isn't provable somehow? We could, one day, find out that every intelligence in this universe asks the same questions as we do, but we can't find out there are other universes out there. If we find something, it becomes part of <i> our </i> universe!<br /><br />I would look at how plausible the idea is, and then rate it according to my experience. I don't <i> believe </i> in theories until they are provable (I didn't say proven!).<br /><br />I usually analyse a theory thus - does this sound like it could happen? How likely is that? Is there any reason why it cannot happen? Can we possibly prove this, now or in the future?<br /><br />I agree that a planet like earth doesn't seem likely to be a very common occurance in this universe. The combination of distance and composition seems to be one that would be quite rare. But with the number of stars in the universe, I doubt it is unique.<br /><br />I reckon Earth like planets are probably just rare. And I reckon that the chemical processes involved with the evolution of living organisms are pretty rare too. But again, with all the possible planets out there, it is plausible to think that life exists elsewhere in this universe.<br /><br />I would think it plausible that life can form in many different environments. The earth is an obvious candidate for life, but we may also find unexpected forms of life on very different planets.<br /><br />I do not agree on any "fine tuning" of the 4 forces being based on scientific observation. I believe you are using a philosophy to impart the action of "fine tuning" onto the 4 forces we have found scientifically. The 2 ideas are very different from each ot <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
SEARCH - Rather like whether the sum of precursor molecules could turn towards life!<br /><br />I will bias towards science (compare amino acid sequence biased towards chirality, specififcally L-amino acids).<br /><br />Excellent link, though it will take some time (not today) for me to study all 16 pages (on my Word document copy).<br /><br />Thank you for the link.<br /><br />An excerpt showing its relevance to thread theme:<br /><br />Title: The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory<br /><br />Author: L. Susskind<br />Department of Physics<br />Stanford University<br /><br />Concerning the landscape of String theory, L. Susskind states:<br /><br />"Based on the recent work of a number of authors, it seems plausible that the<br />lanscape is unimaginably large and diverse. Whether we like it or not, this is the kind<br />of behavior that gives credence to the Anthropic Principle. I discuss the theoretical<br />and conceptual issues that arise in developing a cosmology based on the diversity of<br />environments implicit in string theory."<br /><br />OK, I already knew there was scientific bases for the anthropic principle, but this line of evidence is new to me - thank you for researching it.<br /><br />Another research inciting excerpt:<br /><br />"However the continuum of solutions in the supermoduli–space are all supersymmetric<br />with exact super–particle degeneracy and vanishing cosmological constant. Furthermore<br />they all have massless scalar particles, the moduli themselves. Obviously none of these<br />vacua can possibly be our world. Therefore the string theorist must believe that there<br />are other discrete islands lying off the coast of the supermoduli–space. The hope now<br />is that a single non–supersymmetric island or at most a small number of islands exist<br />and that non–supersymmetric physics will prove to be approximately unique. This view<br />is not inconsistent with present knowledge (indeed it is possible that there are no such<br />islands) but I find it completely
speedfreek - Note my above response to SEARCH for one of many non-philosophical ways of discussing this.<br /><br />Meanwhile, do you believe that earth "just happens" to have the specific parameters required for life is a scientific view?<br /><br />For me, determining the details as to how it happenned is far more scientific.<br /><br />I.e.: searching for cause and effect is more scientific than just saying "it just happened."<br /><br />On the fine tuning of the 4 forces, please note the details which I posted. They are scientific observations, not philosophical musings.
Of course, you can discuss certain scenarios thrown up by the anthropic principle in a scientific way, but I dont think you can analyse the principle itself, scientifically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow"> Meanwhile, do you believe that earth "just happens" to have the specific parameters required for life is a scientific view? <br /><br />For me, determining the details as to how it happenned is far more scientific. </font><br /><br />I think you are missing my point here. I don't think I am missing yours. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I know how finely balanced all the forces are. I have known about the anthropic principle for years (and have often mentioned it in past discussions here) and I have read every post in this thread.<br /><br />All I am saying is that we are <i> not special </i>, we are just lucky to be the ones asking this question! <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> On the fine tuning of the 4 forces, please note the details which I posted. They are scientific observations, not philosophical musings. </font><br /><br />Yes I know we have scientifically observed that if the forces were slightly different the universe could not exist in the way it does, and life could not have formed. But I do not attribute this to "fine tuning". I attribute it to the idea that this universe is a stable one, and thus the forces are balanced. We <i> happen </i> to be in a universe stable enough to support life. We are lucky. We can probably, with enough time, work out exactly how our planet and ourselves formed, and maybe eventually understand everything in this universe.<br /><br />But I find it totally implausible that the universe has been finely tuned in order to allow life to form. This implies intelligent design. Which I find slightly plausible but highly unlikely! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I do find it plausible that we exist because this universe just happens to have the right conditions for us. Why it happens to have those conditions, we cannot know. To know that, we would need to know what was behind the origins of this universe. But we can only ever find out information about what has happened during this u <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On the cosmic lottery - can you explain what you mean?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, the IDer argument I've seen so many times essentially consists of 'We were lucky to get this universe.'. My refutation essentially consists of 'No, it's the other way around: This universe was lucky to get us.'. In other words, whichever universe gets lucky and is able to support life, that's the one we experience. We're the prize, not the players. The same thing goes to a lesser extent for the Milky Way, the Sun and the Earth. Unfortunately, it looks like lots of the people in the this thread still don't understand my point...<br /><br />Keep in mind, this doesn't imply that the Universe is intelligent. It's just an analogy.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Can you post more on digital life forms? I have never heard of this!!!!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, obviously it's quite a new field. I think the first recorded digital life program was made back around 1970, when some people played a game called DarwinBots, which quickly culminated when one player made an unbeatable evolving program. More recently we've seen more people delving into the field. First, there's the obvious case of computer viruses, which many people consider to be life forms: They consume disk space, they reproduce, and the more advanced ones even evolve. But aside from viruses, computer scientists have done work with other kinds of digital life forms, usually in specially designed environments such as Avida or Tierra (I even made a couple of my own in Excel 4.0 
). Some cellular automata have also exhibited patterns with life-like characteristics. At any rate, the basic idea is simple: You somehow get a program or pattern which, within whatever environment you're using, is capable of reproducing and mutating, and let it go. After experimenting with advanced digital life programs, computer scientists have found two main things <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
). Some cellular automata have also exhibited patterns with life-like characteristics. At any rate, the basic idea is simple: You somehow get a program or pattern which, within whatever environment you're using, is capable of reproducing and mutating, and let it go. After experimenting with advanced digital life programs, computer scientists have found two main things <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>Newtonian<br /><br />I have to say that you do something many (including myself) are not able which is always answer back which is good.<br /><br />Now praises aside and back to the subject:<br /><br />Some brief notes regarding what you said so far:<br /><br />You started this thread stating the dual nature of the anthropic principle (AP): philosophical and scientific. <br />Newtonian: ("The anthropic principle, which is part philosophy and part scientific observation")<br /><br />Later you said that you do not like philosophy and prefer to stay on the scientific nature of the AP. <br />Newtonian: ("I personally do not like philosophy, and prefer to discuss the scientific aspects of the anthropic principle." )<br /><br />Now some notes and correction on what I said and how it could have been percieved:<br /><br />1. Neither AP nor any of AP variants I posted reflect my opinion.<br />2. My reference to "digital life" was only in reply to a comparison between the Universe and a program called AVida.<br />3.The reason I said "If it will turn religious or scientific dependes on everyones efforts" was because first I know (and you said it before) you believe in God and make it clear many times in your posts and there was some religious references in previous posts. (regarding the link do not worry to much since its a long piece on AP and String Theory and it was a "diversion" the main thing is were to go from now). <br /><br />It was clear that you did not want to discuss the philosophycal side of AP and want to stay on the scientific side. However it is also obvious that you are interested in discussing the religious side and in this case not religious but Christian (correct me if I am wrong) side.<br /><br />Sorry but that is going to be very difficult: the dual nature of AP is philosophic and sciencific and like philosophy, most religious studies are not experimental. Parts of theology, including questions about the existence and nature of gods, clearly overlap with philosophy of religion
speedfreek - OK, I agree we are not special - just specs of dust on a spec of dust in this universe.<br /><br />However, I do not believe our existence is a matter of luck either.<br /><br />By this I assume you mean chance, mathematically described as probability. Is this what you mean?<br /><br />How lucky, btw? And why, i.e. why was a specific pathway selected, etc.? [How and why are both necessary for me to accept the model.]<br /><br />OK, we agree the 4 forces of physics are _________ [what words would you substitute for fine tuned?}.<br /><br />However, I do not agree our universe is stable. Entropy tends towards the most stable state. However, life is characteristically unstable. This is essentially at the root of the difference between life and death and also why it is so hard (for us) to resurrect the dead.<br /><br />Again you use the phrase "happen to be."<br /><br />I believe you are missing a very crucial point: how did this happen to be?<br /><br />In other words, by what mechanism were the values for the 4 forces of physics selected over the googol+ possibilities?<br /><br />That is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.<br /><br />[If one believes in God, this would be asking how God created; if one is an atheist, this would be asking how; either way seeking the answers is a scientific pursuit for cause and effect.]<br /><br />Why do you find intelligent design highly unlikely? To me it is the other way around, to wit: the probabilities are better if the various factors are intelligently manipulated.<br /><br />Compare, for example, that every house has a builder - a house is so unlikely to come about without intelligent design that such a notion would be rejected by most logical thinking people.<br /><br />Now, why would we exist just because the universe could support our existence?<br /><br />To me that is like saying that you are posting on space.com just because you can post here. In other words, that nothing caused you to post here - it just happened.<b></b>
SEARCH - Thank you. I try.<br /><br />However, at some point it become mathematically impossible for me.<br /><br />My post inspires 4 posts which respond with 4 posts which then inspire 16 posts.....<br /><br />I think you see why I don't always succeed in my intention to respond to everyone!<br /><br />On the religious, philosophic, scientific comparison - you should note that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is not your typical or average religion. My signature, a Biblical quote, is how I pursue answers to questions - and I do love research - as I perceive you also do.<br /><br />My religion is not tradition bound. Rather, like science, my faith changes with increased knowledge and we make corrections when needed. That requires humility, to admit when one is wrong or mistaken.<br /><br />You probably have in mind religions that involve blind faith without proof - but that is not a good way for determining truth either in religion or in science.<br /><br />My signature, I beleive, is a good way of searching for truth.<br /><br />The reason why I do not like philosophy is that it usually involves speculations that have no observational evidence behind them - in short: no proof.<br /><br />Isaac Newton wrote more on Biblical research than on scientific research - and he approached both in a scientific manner, rejecting popular religious beliefs for the same reason as rejection popular scientific beliefs: the evidence or proof. <br /><br />The above was just so you can understand my position. There is no need for you to agree with me - I will listen to you either way.<br /><br />Now, on your list:<br /><br />1. Yes, researching without committing to a specific model. I do this often also. To me that is part of being open minded.<br /><br />2. Need to research that.<br /><br />3. See above. I will examine that link further, since it makes an effort to determine scientifically how various 'fine tuned' factors became what they are.<br /><br />That is much more valuable than mere op
<font color="yellow"> However, I do not believe our existence is a matter of luck either. <br /><br />By this I assume you mean chance, mathematically described as probability. Is this what you mean? </font><br /><br />Yes, I mean <i> we </i> are here by chance. Seeing how the universe works, it seems inevitable to me that life will form in it. We are an example of that life.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> How lucky, btw? And why, i.e. why was a specific pathway selected, etc.? [How and why are both necessary for me to accept the model.] </font><br /><br />I do not know the odds of life forming in the universe, because I don't know how many planets there are that are capable of supporting life, or what other forms of life there may be out there. I would think that on a planet like earth, life has a good chance of forming (due to processes similar to the Miller-Urey experiment).<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> OK, we agree the 4 forces of physics are _________ [what words would you substitute for fine tuned?}. </font><br /><br />I would say "The 4 forces of physics have the characteristics which allow a universe that is stable enough for galaxies, stars, planets and life to form". If the forces had different values, maybe stars wouldn't have formed, maybe gravity wouldn't have let the complex structures we see around us form, maybe chemical reactions wouldn't happen.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> However, I do not agree our universe is stable. Entropy tends towards the most stable state. However, life is characteristically unstable. This is essentially at the root of the difference between life and death and also why it is so hard (for us) to resurrect the dead. </font><br /><br />Well yes, if the universe was 100% stable then maybe nothing would happen at all! But the way the forces work mean the universe is stable <i> enough </i> to allow the complex structures we see around us to form due to the physical laws governed by those for <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
Newtonian<br /><br />(N) Can you specify how philosophy is wrongly used in theological references on this forum? <br /><br />Its a common speech habit and sometimes people respond to theological comments by saing "stop being philosofic"<br /><br />(N) Man is special in certain ways - one obvious one being that we do not have chimps posting on this forum. <br /><br />Beware if what you say is incorrect or not scientific because there is one jumping from thread to thread in a rage spree and might just come on you or me.<br /><br />(N) Did you realize how low CO2 concentration was? Have you wondered why such a precise balance exists on earth?<br /><br />From<br />http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-30258/atmosphere<br />"The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has risen steadily over the past 140 or so years, from about 280 parts per million in 1850 to about 350 parts per million. The change is due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels. Since the Industrial Revolution, nearly 1.5 ´ 1011 metric tons of organic carbon have been mined and consumed in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas."<br /><br />From:<br />http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugte133/courses/environs/5warming.pdf#search="CO2%20concentration%20primordial%20earth"<br /><br />Table 1. The present-day composition of the earth’s atmosphere <br />compared with what it might have been before life evolved: <br /><br />Gas Present day Earth % / Early Earth % <br />oxygen 21 / 0 <br />carbon dioxide 0.03 / 98 <br />nitroge 79 / 1.9 <br /><br />The balance exists now but did not existed in the past and may not exis
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Compare, for example, that every house has a builder - a house is so unlikely to come about without intelligent design that such a notion would be rejected by most logical thinking people.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />True. However, the difference between life and a house is that houses can't reproduce on their own, whereas life can.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That such a delicate balance exists at all is one of many cases that fits in to the anthropic principle.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not really. For one thing, the balance isn't <i>that</i> delicate, as has been proved by numerous meteors and ice ages. It's just that people are really good at messing things up, and in entirely new ways. For another thing, it was the life here that created that balance for itself through the processes of its evolution; the early Earth was pretty much as hostile to humans as Venus is now, that is to say, both of them would probably kill us in a few seconds. It took hundreds of millions of years for life to get our atmosphere and oceans and so on to the way they are now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>
speedfreek - I am extremely short on time 'till Friday, so please excuse the incomplete response. <br /><br />I will zero in on the Miller-Urey experiment to help you have some scientific basis for determining the probability of the origin of life.<br /><br />There are many sources on this - I am taking the following from the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, by Charles B. Thaxton et al. This is from the chapter entitled "Simulation of Prebiotic Monomer Synthesis," the subheading "Survey of Prebiotic Simulation Experiments," and the sub-sub heading "Electrical Discharge Experiments." [pp. 22-41]<br /><br />The simulated atmosphere Miller and Urey used was:<br /><br />methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen and water (H2O) vapor.<br /><br />So, my first question is: is this the atmosphere you believe early earth had at the origin of life?<br /><br />They used a boiling flask with water, a spark discharge chamber with tungsten electrodes, a condenser and a water trap.<br /><br />In 1974 Miller reported the amino acids he had obtained in electrical discharge experiments.<br /><br />This is found in "The Origins of Life on the Earth" by Miller and Orgel and other sources. Do you want me to reference other sources (e.g. Proc. Nat.Acad.Sci, 69, p. 765, etc.).<br /><br />Very important is the list of amino acids Miller reported.<br /><br />Most are not useful to life, and none are selected for chirality [life uses L-amino acids only while Miller's results were racemic rather than chiral, to wit: 50% L-amino acids; 50% D-amino acids (L=left hand polarized; D= right hand polarized). <br /><br />If you add further experiments by others, and include amino acids disputed by Miller, then there are about 10 of the 20 amino acids in life synthesized but mixed with about 30 non-proteinous (hence non-life) amino acids.<br /><br />The primary product, btw, is not an amino acid but rather formic acid.<br /><br />Note also that amino acids are relatively easy to synthesize
SEARCH - Thank you again on those links. <br /><br />I agree early earth atmosphere was mostly CO2 [your link states 98%] like Venus - note I doubt the Orphaeus (sp?) hypothesis for origin of moon - but if you believe that would I assume early earth was after said impactor producing moon?<br /><br />Considering how much CO2 was removed, I consider it remarkable that enough was left for survival of plants - and the resulting balance is precise (aka fine tuned) for current life on earth's surface, including us humans.<br /><br />Frankly, photosynthesis alone is an amazing creation absolutely required for this balance.<br /><br />Add so many other factors, notably the geologic carbon cycle.<br /><br />I will respond better in a couple of days.<br /><br />One more point: chemical evolutionists often consider early earth's atmospheric carbon to be largely methane (CH4) rather than carbon dioxide (CO2). The evidence is indeed for the latter - and one of these evidences is the fact that oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust! {CH4 is anoxic; CO2 is oxidized}<br /><br />Thank you again for your research.
I know that life like that on earth needs quite specific conditions for it to arise. The environments needed seem far too specific to happen by chance huh?<br /><br />But with all the billions upon billions of possible planets in the universe, I still hold that it is <i> bound </i> to happen by chance.<br /><br />And here we are, here by chance! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />You can analyse carefully all the conditions required for as long as you like, but you can bet once you work out what conditions are needed, there will be more than a few places in the universe that satisfy those conditions.<br /><br />The earth is such a place. We are very lucky to be here wondering about this. As are all the intelligent creatures in the universe whom I would be willing to bet ask themselves exactly the same questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram