The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

[Puppet]

Im not a chemist or biologist,  and a fair bit of this went over my head, but I found this series of lectures fascinating nontheless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU

It explains how chemistry and physics could have produced simple, RNA based life.

For the record, Im a firm atheist, but what little I know of how a (modern) cell works and how extremely unlikely it appears something that complicated  "just happened", always made me think it gave good ammunition to deists or people who want to believe life was seeded by aliens or whatever. Not that either proposition explains anything, its just that I doubted science would be able to explain it in my lifetime.

Anyway, seeing the above lecture, Im stunned to learn how simple and common chemical and physical processes make it entirely plausible that cell  based life just "happened". Or even "had to happen".  So much so, that Im even taking much more serious the odds of finding life within our solar system (like on Europa moon). Given the number of stars and planets in the universe, I never really doubted there is other life out there, but within our solar system, that seemed a huge stretch to me. But now I cant wait for us to drill in Europa or land on Titan.

[BADecker]

I have watched about half of the first video so far. It isn't impressive. Throughout all of the language used, there permeates this "rope" - not a simple "thread" - that everything being talked about is uncertain. I think, so far, that the thing that they are looking for is a way to formulate a somewhat realistic idea of how life could have come about spontaneously, even though they don't have a clue if it happened this way or some other.

In other words, up until now there have been all kinds of ideas about evolution. Some of the ideas make sense, and some of the ideas don't. Science is trying to combine enough of the ideas that make sense, in such a way that they will finally have a potentially possible working method for life to have spontaneously emerged.

This working method won't be known to be the way that it happened, but rather, it will simply be one way that it almost for sure could have happened.

This is a shot of hope in the arm for the atheist religion. Up until now, atheism has been built purely on blind faith, simply because the "snippets" of science that seemed to point at evolution as being real, could never be combined in a way that could plausibly have worked. In other words, all the possible paths that evolution could have come about, building itself from inanimate material to the life that we see around us today, were so full of holes that nobody could know if any of them were even possible.

Well, it's a start. Gotta start somewhere. The first millimeter on a million mile trip.

[Puppet]

I have watched about half of the first video so far. It isn't impressive.

Having read just the above 2 sentences, I already knew you were a religious fruitcake.

Up until now, atheism has been built purely on blind faith, simply because the "snippets" of science that seemed to point at evolution as being real,

And this is where I stopped reading and clicked your ignore button.

[BADecker]

I have watched about half of the first video so far. It isn't impressive.

Having read just the above 2 sentences, I already knew you were a religious fruitcake.

Up until now, atheism has been built purely on blind faith, simply because the "snippets" of science that seemed to point at evolution as being real,

And this is where I stopped reading and clicked your ignore button.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to trample on your religion. I was simply pointing out some things in the beginnings of the first video.

Boy, some of you atheists are touchy about your religion. And I suppose I would be about Christianity as well, if Christianity were simply based on blind faith.

What I don't understand is how atheists can hang onto a religion that so constantly says "maybe," "possibly," "if," and all kinds of other limiting factors that show that nobody really has any kind of a clue about the foundations of the religion. You guys are distinctly admirable in your bravery, blind though it may be.

[BlackVista]

I have watched about half of the first video so far. It isn't impressive.

Having read just the above 2 sentences, I already knew you were a religious fruitcake.

Up until now, atheism has been built purely on blind faith, simply because the "snippets" of science that seemed to point at evolution as being real,

And this is where I stopped reading and clicked your ignore button.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to trample on your religion. I was simply pointing out some things in the beginnings of the first video.

Boy, some of you atheists are touchy about your religion. And I suppose I would be about Christianity as well, if Christianity were simply based on blind faith.

What I don't understand is how atheists can hang onto a religion that so constantly says "maybe," "possibly," "if," and all kinds of other limiting factors that show that nobody really has any kind of a clue about the foundations of the religion. You guys are distinctly admirable in your bravery, blind though it may be.

Atheism isn't really a religion but it still hinges on a sort of blind trust that all assumptions thus forth are logical and rational even if they themselves cannot rationalize it, which makes it just as contingent on this faith factor as religion.

[RodeoX]

I am a biologist, but it doesn't help. Where life comes from is one of those central issues in science that still does not have an answer. I am at work and could not watch the videos. However, it sounds like the "primordial soup" idea. That is where a mix of complex molecules start a chain reaction that leads to a replication of the original state.

That is what I learned in school, but I am no longer sure about.  I say this because, although we have been able to make organic molecules by simulating the early Earth since the 1930s, we have failed to create life. Something else is going on also. I have no clue what it is, but my guess is that it involves physics that we don't understand yet.

As far as we can tell, life on Earth is part of a single occurrence. Since then life has branched and evolved into countless varieties of the same phenomena. The differences between me and a tree are really trivial. We are just different expressions of the same molecule.

Mind blown.  

Atheism isn't really a religion but it still hinges on a sort of blind trust that all assumptions thus forth are logical and rational even if they themselves cannot rationalize it, which makes it just as contingent on this faith factor as religion.

Well, not for all of us. I do not believe in scientific theories because of faith. I can do the experiment and PROVE the truth of something. No faith, testable results are all that science entertains.

[BADecker]

I am a biologist, but it doesn't help. Where life comes from is one of those central issues in science that still does not have an answer. I am at work and could not watch the videos. However, it sounds like the "primordial soup" idea. That is where a mix of complex molecules start a chain reaction that leads to a replication of the original state.

That is what I learned in school, but I am no longer sure about.  I say this because, although we have been able to make organic molecules by simulating the early Earth since the 1930s, we have failed to create life. Something else is going on also. I have no clue what it is, but my guess is that it involves physics that we don't understand yet.

As far as we can tell, life on Earth is part of a single occurrence. Since then life has branched and evolved into countless varieties of the same phenomena. The differences between me and a tree are really trivial. We are just different expressions of the same molecule.

Mind blown.  

I have watched the full first video now. And it seems, as I said in my first post above, that there is enough of an understanding of the primordial soup idea (although I didn't use the term "primordial soup" that is what it is about), that scientists are attempting to finally put together a plausible method that the whole process could have come about.

Up until now, all the ideas that had been formulated, were ideas only. There wasn't any complete enough scientific evidence that provided a clear way that it could have happened. It seems that some scientists think that they have found a way that really might have worked, one that they can back up scientifically.

Of course, without a time viewer or time machine, nobody can tell for sure if it happened this way. That's because there are too many variables that might have made things different than the way that they think it might have happened. Perhaps someday we might have a time viewer that we can use to actually use to take a look back.

[RodeoX]

...
Of course, without a time viewer or time machine, nobody can tell for sure if it happened this way. ...

Oh man. If someone invented a "time viewer" I would give all my bitcoins and half my testicles for one!

[BADecker]

I have watched about half of the first video so far. It isn't impressive.

Having read just the above 2 sentences, I already knew you were a religious fruitcake.

Up until now, atheism has been built purely on blind faith, simply because the "snippets" of science that seemed to point at evolution as being real,

And this is where I stopped reading and clicked your ignore button.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to trample on your religion. I was simply pointing out some things in the beginnings of the first video.

Boy, some of you atheists are touchy about your religion. And I suppose I would be about Christianity as well, if Christianity were simply based on blind faith.

What I don't understand is how atheists can hang onto a religion that so constantly says "maybe," "possibly," "if," and all kinds of other limiting factors that show that nobody really has any kind of a clue about the foundations of the religion. You guys are distinctly admirable in your bravery, blind though it may be.

Atheism isn't really a religion but it still hinges on a sort of blind trust that all assumptions thus forth are logical and rational even if they themselves cannot rationalize it, which makes it just as contingent on this faith factor as religion.

Seems to me that atheism is a sort of primitive religion. It has most of the things that are required for something to be termed a religion. Yet, unlike most modern religions - Christianity, Buddhism - there are certain parts of atheism that aren't expressed clearly, while other parts are expressed in detail, like dogma.

I might compare the atheism religion to one of the more primitive cells in early evolution history. Christianity would be like a very specialized eye cell or brain cell.

The prerequisites for atheism being a religion seem to be there. There is no proof that God exists; there is no proof that God does not exist. So, why believe God does not exist? There is no foundation for such a belief. This makes atheism, at the very least, very similar to a religion.

[Puppet]

I am a biologist, but it doesn't help. Where life comes from is one of those central issues in science that still does not have an answer. I am at work and could not watch the videos. However, it sounds like the "primordial soup" idea. That is where a mix of complex molecules start a chain reaction that leads to a replication of the original state.

It goes much further. It shows most of the building blocks needed for primitive, but self replicating cells that start an evolutionary arms race based on nothing but chemistry and physics. Obviously we dont have all the answers yet, we dont know exactly how our life started. But before I saw that, I was quite willing to accept the anthropic principle, that the beginning of life may be unbelievable unlikely, but given the number of stars and galaxies and the age of the universe, you'd expect unbelievably unlikely things to happen and the fact we're here just shows it has.

But the lecture pretty convincingly shows me life from chemistry appears far more plausible or possibly even unavoidable. At least to a layman like me who is surprised just to learn that for instance, semi permeable multi layered (cell) membranes that grow and divide, can and do form completely spontaneously in the right conditions.

Anyway, watch the lectures when you have the time, if its fascinating to me, Im sure you'll love it.

As far as we can tell, life on Earth is part of a single occurrence.

Im quite curious if you will think the same after having seen all three lectures. Keeping in mind there are >100 billion galaxies with >100 billion stars each, good for an estimated 10^24 stars, most of which appear to have a solar system like ours. And thats just in the observable universe.

[BADecker]

At the beginning of the first video, Dr. Szostak suggests that we don't have a clue about whether or not any of the planets around the various stars have life on them. Why even speculate? If we find the next planet does NOT have life, then we can say that at least half the planets do not have life. Why speculate? The speculation goes both directions.

[RodeoX]

... Im quite curious if you will think the same after having seen all three lectures. Keeping in mind there are >100 billion galaxies with >100 billion stars each, good for an estimated 10^24 stars, most of which appear to have a solar system like ours. And thats just in the observable universe.

I'll have to watch it when I get home. What I meant about life coming from a "single event" was the life we see on Earth. All life here is fairly easy to map and see how the DNA is related. Perhaps life is common in the universe and there are myriad trees of life based on various chemicals? I dunno?

If we ever did find life elsewhere, say Europa, my first question would be "Is it DNA based?" If it was I would tend to think it is related to life on Earth. If it was a different system then I would tend to think life is common and can start in a variety of ways.

At the beginning of the first video, Dr. Szostak suggests that we don't have a clue about whether or not any of the planets around the various stars have life on them. Why even speculate? If we find the next planet does NOT have life, then we can say that at least half the planets do not have life. Why speculate? The speculation goes both directions.

True. We only have one example of life and that may the biggest problem with developing any theory. Is life common? Is this the only occurrence of life ever?  With just one example it is hard to say.
Oh and there is an important difference between science and religion. I think it is correct that a "Religion" has to have a God. Science for me is just the simple, logical process of determining the truth of an observation. There is nothing mystical or worthy of worship, IMO.

[BADecker]

...
I think it is correct that a "Religion" has to have a God. Science for me is just the simple, logical process of determining the truth of an observation. There is nothing mystical or worthy of worship, IMO.

If there is no proof that God does not exist, and someone suggests that God does not exist in atheistic fashion even though he recognizes that there is no proof, he is setting himself up as god by making such a suggestion. He is the god of his atheism religion even though he is unwilling to recognize the fact. Strange.

The videos were disappointing for me. I had hoped that there was more of an actual process for evolution that had been discovered. As I understand it, there may be some tremendous strides that have been made, but they are not really anywhere near a process. The process will have to be a lot more complex than the discoveries that have come about so far.

Part of the idea was to make the process as close to "natural" as possible. Yet there was so much "lab" production, that it is difficult to see if a lot of these things could happen spontaneously in nature.

Oh, well. Maybe in another decade or two.

[Puppet]

I'll have to watch it when I get home. What I meant about life coming from a "single event" was the life we see on Earth. All life here is fairly easy to map and see how the DNA is related.

Ok, I misunderstood that. Yes, it appears as if all known life on earth has common ancestry. That says it evolved from the same processes, Im just not convinced that means a single "event". If it turns out that the right ingredients under the right conditions automatically leads to primitive (probably RNA based) "life" that can mutate and start a Darwinian evolution that leads to more efficient DNA based life, one has to wonder if it wouldnt do the same "everywhere" under comparable conditions.

If we ever did find life elsewhere, say Europa, my first question would be "Is it DNA based?" If it was I would tend to think it is related to life on Earth. If it was a different system then I would tend to think life is common and can start in a variety of ways.

Id like to see how similar the DNA is. The presence of DNA itself wouldnt be enough for me to prove it couldnt have developed independently, especially since we are specifically interested in Europa because its so similar to earth (liquid water, sources of energy, temperature differences, seismic activity etc).  I think we dont know enough yet to make the claim that DNA would point to common ancestry. FWIW, it would be more thrilling to me if it wasnt DNA based. The idea that meteorites carried some primitive life form from one body to the other and it adapted and evolved there isnt nearly as exciting to me than life originating by itself. 'Its life Jim, just not as we know it"

[Vod]

The prerequisites for atheism being a religion seem to be there. There is no proof that God exists; there is no proof that God does not exist. So, why believe God does not exist?

There is no proof Santa Claus exists.  There is no proof Santa Claus doesn't exist.  So, why believe Santa does not exist?

Answer:  You grow up and realize what fairy tales are.

[RodeoX]

My physics friends all want a "unified theory" that unites the results of quantum and relativity. As a bio guy I don't think they have anything until they can explain the state we call alive. Maybe in a few years we will produce something we can call alive. If we do start a second "Genesis" it would help tremendously to understand the living things we see now. I'm not sure I will live to see that, or a time viewer. 

[Puppet]

Out of curiosity, how do you define "alive" ?

[RodeoX]

Out of curiosity, how do you define "alive" ?

That is an excellent question. It is easy to say something about Earthlings, but do the same rules apply throughout the universe? I don't know what life is and I cant tell my students the difference between a dead bird and a live bird. They are made of the same stuff?
I think about it as a sort of state of matter, or a sustained, replicating chemical reaction. But for all I know life exists outside of our bodies and living things are able to tune in to phenomena from near dimensions. That is way out there, but since no one knows, maybe the answers are way out.

Whatever it is, a long time ago a DNA monster began as a simple form of life. It replicated and over time the offspring became more different. They radiated and diversified, building up a tree of related DNA forms. That is where we are today, but how it started is still a mystery.

[pedrog]

That looks fascinating and I think I do need to update my knowledge on this subject, thanks for sharing.

[Puppet]

I think about it as a sort of state of matter, or a sustained, replicating chemical reaction.

By that definition, many ordinary chemical reactions could be considered "alive".  Not that I have a better definition, but I had to point out we have no firm definition and we may not even recognize "life" if we stumbled over it on planet Y.

Whatever it is, a long time ago a DNA monster began as a simple form of life. It replicated and over time the offspring became more different. They radiated and diversified, building up a tree of related DNA forms. That is where we are today, but how it started is still a mystery.

From the lecture, it appears extremely likely life (our variety) did not start with DNA. DNA is too complicated already to have been a starting point. RNA seems like a more likely candidate, even though that still poses lots of big hurdles and from the third lecture (much of which I admit went over my head due to a lack of chemistry knowledge), it seems researchers are focusing now on other (synthetic) molecules. Mostly to learn about the properties of the processes involved, but its not inconceivable something very different kickstarted "life". Something we may in our lifetimes create, or who knows, find on Europa.

Anyway, thats your job. Ill focus on writing a quantum model of gravity .