Origin of Life

Damocles said:
I love the concept of Panspermia. It would even make Star Trek (with all aliens looking pretty much human, two legs, face on top of neck/torso, two arms, etc.) make sense as nearly all life would have the same origin.
Click to expand...
I love movies where the alien arrives by meteor.

Space is very hostile to life :(
 
Whatever the origin, can we at least agree that it was a fucking disaster?

Who would fuck up a perfectly peaceful infinite void? It makes no sense to the rational person.
 
Damocles said:
I love the concept of Panspermia. It would even make Star Trek (with all aliens looking pretty much human, two legs, face on top of neck/torso, two arms, etc.) make sense as nearly all life would have the same origin.
Click to expand...

All life whether physical or Spiritual has a common origin!
It's the creation timeline that loses peoples understanding.
If the Spirit world predates the physical universe created by the big bang.
Then what Spiritual event caused an action to cause the reaction the big boom?
 
Celticguy said:
its fair to say most on Team Science are not active in pursuing their side (unless they are not scientists).
But there is still a bias however slightly manifested.

Best if both sides could come to understand that there really isnt anything to take sides over.
Click to expand...

Hamlet summed it up best:

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
 
Cypress said:
I currently lean towards number two (life is exceedingly rare in the galaxy), but keep an open mind.
It would be nice if we had more intel on emergence: the transition from non-life to life. There is zero chance something as mind boggling complex as even a single eukaryotic cell just appeared on the scene without an incredible sequence of interim events. Unless we were seeded from another planetary body.
Click to expand...

This study suggests the range of stellar systems that could potentially host life just got a whole lot smaller.


The hunt for habitable planets may have just gotten far more narrow, new study finds

(CNN)The hunt for planets that could harbor life may have just narrowed dramatically.

Scientists had long hoped and theorized that the most common type of star in our universe — called an M dwarf — could host nearby planets with atmospheres, potentially rich with carbon and perfect for the creation of life. But in a new study of a world orbiting an M dwarf 66 light-years from Earth, researchers found no indication such a planet could hold onto an atmosphere at all.

Without a carbon-rich atmosphere, it's unlikely a planet would be hospitable to living things. Carbon molecules are, after all, considered the building blocks of life. And the findings don't bode well for other types of planets orbiting M dwarfs, said study coauthor Michelle Hill, a planetary scientist and a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Riverside.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...rld/exoplanets-search-narrowed-scn/index.html
 
Cypress said:
This study suggests the range of stellar systems that could potentially host life just got a whole lot smaller.


The hunt for habitable planets may have just gotten far more narrow, new study finds

(CNN)The hunt for planets that could harbor life may have just narrowed dramatically.

Scientists had long hoped and theorized that the most common type of star in our universe — called an M dwarf — could host nearby planets with atmospheres, potentially rich with carbon and perfect for the creation of life. But in a new study of a world orbiting an M dwarf 66 light-years from Earth, researchers found no indication such a planet could hold onto an atmosphere at all.

Without a carbon-rich atmosphere, it's unlikely a planet would be hospitable to living things. Carbon molecules are, after all, considered the building blocks of life. And the findings don't bode well for other types of planets orbiting M dwarfs, said study coauthor Michelle Hill, a planetary scientist and a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Riverside.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...rld/exoplanets-search-narrowed-scn/index.html
Click to expand...

Spiritual life controls physics!
 
Cypress said:
I currently lean towards number two, but keep an open mind.
It would be nice if we had more intel on emergence: the transition from non-life to life. There is zero chance something as mind boggling complex as even a single eukaryotic cell just appeared on the scene without an incredible sequence of interim events. Unless we were seeded from another planetary body.
Click to expand...

Well considering we will never know with any degree of certainty cause no one has ever been there to observe it.

I myself lean towards #3 as opposed to #2 as #2 is a logical fallacy. It’s not an improbable event because it has happened. That much is certain. We have also empirically observed that the organic chemistry required for life can originate from inorganic chemistry. We also know for a fact that without the right environmental conditions, that has a narrow range, life as we know it on this planet could not exist.

So based on empirical evidence than I believe #3 has the greater probability of being correct.
 
Cypress said:
That is a good one - a tornado blows the junkyard into a 747 jet.

We are obviously missing almost all the details of what happened before primitive archea and primitive eukaryotic cells.

We can synthesize amino acids under laboratory conditions. But that is still one thousand light years away from synthesizing something as complex as a cell.
Click to expand...

True but we know two things about this that are indisputable facts. Both have happened.
 
Cypress said:
I currently lean towards number two, but keep an open mind.
It would be nice if we had more intel on emergence: the transition from non-life to life. There is zero chance something as mind boggling complex as even a single eukaryotic cell just appeared on the scene without an incredible sequence of interim events. Unless we were seeded from another planetary body.
Click to expand...




Life or conscious life
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
As child of a scientist and mother of another, and a spiritual being connected to all the life on the this planet (like all of us)... I'm going with #3.

We simply do not know enough about life forms on THIS planet, let alone others. We don't know as much of biochemistry as we want to. We can sequence DNA, but we cannot replicate what it does.

Given our infantile state of growth as a species, I'd say that that is an excellent thing!
Click to expand...
To be honest with you we can sequence DNA and can replicate what DNA does. DNA synthesizes proteins and we can sequence DNA to produce specific proteins. That’s pretty much how a lot modern pharmaceuticals are manufactured. Take synthetic insulin for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top