Origin of Life

MAGA MAN said:
No physical evidence because it's too far away, and always will be. The evidence that we have is merely mathematical.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If can’t both verify or in principle falsify a hypothesis than it’s not a sound scientific hypothesis. Be that as it may and to paraphrase Cypress, the conjecture is still a lot of fun. :)
 
Cypress said:
Notes I took from Professor Ahern's biochemistry class:


Sulfur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen account for the main six elements found in every single living organism we know of.

These elements can make multiple chemical bonds or share electrons to make covalent bonds. This is necessary for making long-chain biomolecules. Other elements abundant in the environment (aluminum, iron, sodium, etc.) cannot do what these elements can do.

Carbon's ability to make four bonds also makes it central to the construction of large and complicated bio-molecules. No other elements in the environment have the ability to from four, complex covalent bonds like carbon. A notable exception is silicon, but carbon is probably a better atom for building larger molecules. Some scientists wonder if silicon-based life is possible on exoplanets.
Click to expand...

I doubt silicon could be a basis for life as we know it. Mainly because Silicons valence electrons exist at a higher quantum level than carbon and does not easily form polymers. In fact the only polymers with silicon I can think of all contain carbon. Instead silicon tends to form into non-stoichiometric complex matrixes but not polymers. A silicon atom would have to be able to form polymers with tertiary and quaternary structures in order for it to create the complex molecular shapes that have bio activity or even the potential for bio activity.
 
Cypress said:
I won't begrudge him a 9th grade education, if he made subsequent efforts at self improvement and to become well read.

Which obviously is not the case.

I try to keep my mouth shut on topics I know nothing about. Boob does not appear to share that practice.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. That’s a nice thing about JPP. Being ignorant on a topic and making a fool of yourself has never stopped anyone on JPP from uttering opinions they don’t have that first clue about. Myself included.

But outside of JPP it can be annoying. I’ll use the example of Dr. Jordan Peterson. When he sticks to neuroscience and psychology he’s fascinating to listen to.

When he gets into topics outside of his expertise though he can be pretty clueless. I can remember in one of his lectures he was making serious condemning statements about Environmentalism.

He had his reasons too. However those criticisms were based on the fringe beliefs of ivory towered academics and fringe political activist and Jordan used this to paint all environmentalist as being in the wrong.

The only problem was those groups represent a teeny tiny fraction of the 1.5 million people in North America who work in the environmental field. Their fringe views are not even remotely representative of the field. He was also very passionate about his views.

For someone like myself who has worked 30+ years in this field his views were almost completely removed from the reality.

His main criticism, which was pretty baseless, is that environmentalist are misanthropes who believe that the world would be a better place with far fewer or even no people. It was a completely ridiculous thing for him to say.

The vast majority of people in the Environmental field will tell you our credo is to protect human health and the environment. Notice human health comes first in that credo? That’s not an accident.

But Jordan isn’t the only polemicist who makes an ass of himself when he gets into topics that are not on his area of expertise.

Ben Shapiro is another example. Though a talented legal scholar all his discussions on virtually any topic is based on rationalizing his ideology. Which often makes him appear clueless and an intellectual light weight on many occasions.

These sorts can drive me up a wall at times.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
hypothesis #3. That question has already been answered. It did lead inevitably to DNA based life. Don’t believe me? Go look in the mirror. That’s all the evidence you need to independently verify that fact.
.
Click to expand...

that's exactly the same evidence I have of creation.....isn't that a coincidence......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That’s just completely untrue. In fact it’s the exact opposite. Events in nature do occur randomly but they are all still subject to the laws of chemistry, biology and physics. Those are anything but random.
Click to expand...

and yet, the laws of chemistry, biology and physics themselves had to happen randomly at the moment our universe began.......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hypothesis #1. Biological evolution of life is anything but rare and we observe it constantly and the evidence for the vast quantity of speciation is proof that the complex chemical and physical reactions necessary are very much likely to happen because it has happened.
Click to expand...

as the title of the thread indicates, I believe the context is the origin of life not the change of it.......that has only happened once.......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
True but we can only say that because we are limited to traveling only within our Solar System.
Click to expand...

True, but visually and across the electromagnetic spectrum, there is no evidence confirming life elsewhere in the Universe.

At one time SETI had a small program where users could help crunch data when computers weren't being used. I was part of that for a few years. Results? Nada.

Is there life elsewhere? The odds favor it but there is zero evidence to support the hypothesis.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You have absolutely no idea how much it pains me to say this or the degree of pain involved but PmP is right.
Click to expand...
Sure, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but anyone who claims that life exists elsewhere might as well be claiming the Big Bang was created by God. The same amount of evidence exists for both conclusions.
 
Cypress said:
I think scientists should be trained with more philosophical education. Einstein understood this.

Since scientists generally lack a philosophical background they sometimes aren't clear on what actually counts as an explanation.

They have done a great job understanding how gene coding sections of DNA are transcribed by RNA and then translated into proteins.

That is knowledge. A very mechanistic kind of knowledge. But its not actually a profound understanding of the nature and origin of life itself.
Click to expand...

With philosophy I can prove a ham sandwich actually exist. With science I can actually make a ham sandwich!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
A good question and the answer to that question is as far as we know that’s exactly the case. That doesn’t exclude life from occurring elsewhere in the Universe as being probable but we don’t have the verified information that it has occurred elsewhere in the Universe. So as far as we know based on the evidence we currently have life as we know it only exists on earth.
Click to expand...

It's my hope that sometime before I kick the bucket we will have proof that life exists or did exist somewhere off this planet. I want to see what the social/religious reaction to that news will be, too.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

So we can take the Playdoh and make things with it, but as of now we cannot create the Playdoh itself.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
True, but visually and across the electromagnetic spectrum, there is no evidence confirming life elsewhere in the Universe.

At one time SETI had a small program where users could help crunch data when computers weren't being used. I was part of that for a few years. Results? Nada.

Is there life elsewhere? The odds favor it but there is zero evidence to support the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
MAGA MAN said:
Wrong. The entire science of chemistry was developed using mathematical models.
Click to expand...

I have to question if you’ve ever seriously studied science let alone chemistry. What I stated is a indisputable fact of the scientific method. No scientific theory is valid unless it is independently verifiable and, in principle, falsifiable. That’s been a time tested and proven part of the scientific method for a very long time.

Nor is chemistry based purely in mathematics. Anyone who has studied organic chemistry would laugh at you for that comment.

My background in science is I have a Masters in the life sciences and majored in biology with a minor in chemistry for my BA. I also spent 2.5 years doing graduate level research at a major university and have 33 years experience doing environmental work for a very large chemical company.

So what’s your curriculum vitae in science?
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
And important. Most great ideas of science don’t start with a hypothesis but start with conjecture.
Click to expand...

Arm waving and conjuncture are the life blood of science. And speculation is just bloody fun! Who doesn't like Schoedinger's cat thought experiment?

Einstein's brilliance started first and foremost with his thought experiments.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can tell you’ve never dropped acid or you would know the answer to that question. LOL
Click to expand...

Well you are wrong and based on that logic, I could say that I can tell you’ve never dropped acid either, or you would recognize that I have in fact, done so on several occasions.

I've also done a minimal amount of cocaine, just enough to know it's not my thing, and smoked my share of weed, but along with acid and shrooms, that's it.

Never tried heroin or meth or downers etc.

But tripping and getting high was something I enjoyed in my youth and I'm glad I did.

:thup:
 
Nomad said:
Well you are wrong and based on that logic, I could say that I can tell you’ve never dropped acid either, or you would recognize that I have in fact, done so on several occasions.

I've also done a minimal amount of cocaine, just enough to know it's not my thing, and smoked my share of weed, but along with acid and shrooms, that's it.

Never tried heroin or meth or downers etc.

But tripping and getting high was something I enjoyed in my youth and I'm glad I did.

:thup:
Click to expand...
Joke lang
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top