Thread: origin of life

i was going over some information and had a thought, but first here is the information I was looking through,

"Particle theory revisited
Another experimental anomaly was the photoelectric effect, by which light striking a metal surface ejected electrons from the surface, causing an electric current to flow across an applied voltage. Experimental measurements demonstrated that the energy of individual ejected electrons was proportional to the frequency, rather than the intensity, of the light. Furthermore, below a certain minimum frequency, which depended on the particular metal, no current would flow regardless of the intensity. These observations clearly contradicted the wave theory, and for years physicists tried in vain to find an explanation. In 1905, Einstein solved this puzzle as well, this time by resurrecting the particle theory of light to explain the observed effect. Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of the wave theory, however, Einstein's ideas were met initially by great skepticism among established physicists. But eventually Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect would triumph, and it ultimately formed the basis for wave–particle duality and much of quantum mechanics."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Particle_theory_revisited

Here's the original partical theory:

"Particle theory
Main article: Corpuscular theory of light
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 965–1040) proposed a particle theory of light in his Book of Optics (1021). He held light rays to be streams of minute energy particles[5] that travel in straight lines at a finite speed.[6][7][8] He states in his optics that "the smallest parts of light," as he calls them, "retain only properties that can be treated by geometry and verified by experiment; they lack all sensible qualities except energy."[5] Avicenna (980–1037) also proposed that "the perception of light is due to the emission of some sort of particles by a luminous source".[10]
Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), an atomist, proposed a particle theory of light which was published posthumously in the 1660s. Isaac Newton studied Gassendi's work at an early age, and preferred his view to Descartes' theory of the plenum. He stated in his Hypothesis of Light of 1675 that light was composed of corpuscles (particles of matter) which were emitted in all directions from a source. One of Newton's arguments against the wave nature of light was that waves were known to bend around obstacles, while light travelled only in straight lines. He did, however, explain the phenomenon of the diffraction of light (which had been observed by Francesco Grimaldi) by allowing that a light particle could create a localised wave in the aether.
Newton's theory could be used to predict the reflection of light, but could only explain refraction by incorrectly assuming that light accelerated upon entering a denser medium because the gravitational pull was greater. Newton published the final version of his theory in his Opticks of 1704. His reputation helped the particle theory of light to hold sway during the 18th century. The particle theory of light led Laplace to argue that a body could be so massive that light could not escape from it. In other words it would become what is now called a black hole. Laplace withdrew his suggestion when the wave theory of light was firmly established. A translation of his essay appears in The large scale structure of space-time, by Stephen Hawking and George F. R. Ellis."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Particle_theory

and started to make a connection with this:

"Origin of life
For more details on this topic, see Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis.
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[163] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[164] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[165][166] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[167] and the assembly of simple cells.[168]"

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Origin_of_life

Evolution of life
For more details on this topic, see Timeline of evolution.


Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center.[177] The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[178][179] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[180]
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[70][181] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[182] An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[183] It is unknown when the first eukaryotic cells appeared though they first emerged between 1.6 - 2.7 billion years ago.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[178][184] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[185]
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.[186] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[187] About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[188] Amphibians first appeared around 300 million years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.[103]

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life

Then I thought, considering that light is affected by black holes gravity (once in the event horizon) it's safe to say the light is in fact a physical object of matter, at present time it is not currently understood what light is exactly, however with the partical theory in mind and considering the first life used water and sunlight for existence, I propose the theory that inside of light at such a level that can't be measured by modern science, there exist a piece of matter that is capable of creating life or is life in itself, and can live/grow/adapt with the help of certain chemical reactions (such as I'm proposing happens with water).

Anyone have any advise to make or break this theory?

and please if your gonna try to bust my balls at least have the data to back it up, or let me know of your references (if your a optics professor etc...) so I can take you seriously.

I will say that I pretty much only read your last paragraph since there is quite a bit of material. I'm not sure how many people will want to read all of it, but I do applaud the effort you put into it.

Light consists of photons, which are generally viewed as little packets of energy ("quanta"). I feel it's unlikely there's any further structure to them to make life. While we don't know which of the many proposed ideas led to the formation of the first life, one of them, or a combination of them, or modification of one of them, or something, is probably a good answer.

If you are serious enough about this to put that much effort into it, then I'll be straightforward and say that I don't think you'll get very far with your idea. You're acknowledging the possible existence of a further structure to the photon that is undetectable by modern science. I doubt anyone will go for that... Right now there isn't strong evidence for structure below the photon level.

thanks for the reply chemboy, yeah I figured most people wouldn't read the whole thing, just have it there as a refference if needed because of how crazy this idea may sound to some people, it's almost required. I wanted to mention though that the scientific community already recognizes that there are elements of light beyond our measurements, it was a very important detail to me when researching this, I needed to know; do we know all we can about light? When looking over the theory of wave-particle duality it's stated that:
"we can't detect wave properties of macroscopic objects due to their small wavelengths."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Also with Quantum Mechanics in the picture stating that "the laws that govern a macroscopic object do not function the same in such small realms"
-http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/p/quantumphysics.htm

makes it safe to assume that, well, lets say your shrunk down to a macroscopic size, now at that size the laws of physics that govern that "small realm" would behave differently, so if we look one step further and looks at a realm which in comparison to the macroscopic universe itself would be macroscopic, at this point we have absolutely no idea of how the laws would function at that level, creating seemingly infinite possibilities to consider.

I believe there are particles beyond a photon level, and furthermore that the universe can be viewed on scales of infinite sizes (like time, no beginning, no end) from macroscopic, to general, to astronomical, and everything after or before. May seem crazy but size is only relevant to it's viewer, we may be on a smaller scale of a universe where we're but the size of an atom in relevance to the whole and so on (but that's another story).

in conclusion, with knowing that it is recognized that (in light) particals can exist smaller than on a photon level , would there be anything else that could disprove this?

Do you mean "shrunk down to microscopic size" in the third bunch of text?

So you're saying here that the laws that govern microscopic or sub-microscopic things are different than those that govern macroscopic things, and so if we go to an even higher level, let's say, super-macroscopic, things will behave differently there. I definitely agree that that's a distinct possibility.

But...instead of going super-macroscopic aren't you looking at the sub-sub-microscopic, something below the level of the photon? That would get into string theory, potentially...which I've never really gotten into.

I'll give you that there may very well be things we don't understand about light and about laws on the quantum mechanical level. I will declare your idea unlikely, but never impossible. Fact is, the origin of life is one thing that we will most likely never know for a fact, all we can do is come up with the most reasonable explanation for it. And unless we do come up with one straight, solid answer regarding the origin of life, any proposed idea has some possibility to it...

Fact is, we will never know everything. Your idea may seem a bit out there, but we'll never know that we've broken matter down into the smallest possible components, and that there's nothing left to find that could potentially be responsible for life.

"Do you mean "shrunk down to microscopic size" in the third bunch of text? "

I'm sorry, yeah microscopic, guess we would be the macroscopic, lol, so you're telling me the string theory presents this same suggestion of infinite scales of sizes in the universe? I've heard of that term "string theory" but it's sounds like it's something I will have to look into when making considerations on this(may have some great insight).

There's a conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. GR describes things on a very large scale. QM describes things on a very small scale. String theory is an attempt to unify the two. I can't give you too much on it, check out wikipedia or something. I'll get to the rest of your post a little later...need to get some things done right now.

unify, crazy didn't think of that. Cool I'll check it out. Thanks (I'm downloading some documentaries on it now) :-D

can you suggest any way that your theory could be tested ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

can you suggest any way that your theory could be tested ?

the only thing I can think of at the moment (I've been thinking about this for a while too) would be to recreate a controlled live-less environment, and re-simulate the chain of events that I believe may have caused life to see if it will spawn into existence somehow. but I can't think of a way to do this, plus if that didn't work it may only mean that the time it takes for this evolution may be too long for a single person to view in there lifetime. Maybe there is another angle to go about testing this though, any ideas out there?

I'm not sure by what mechanism a piece of matter could somehow put other pieces of matter (atoms and molecules) into the correct formation and interactions to result in life. It would have to have some chemical properties that interacted in certain ways with the atoms and molecules that would have existed at that time. It follows, then, that at some level, we should be able to light causing atoms or molecules to interact in ways they do not when no light is present. Even if, as you suggest, the process of actually resulting in life is very long, we should still be able to see at least some effect of some kind on a short term scale. A chemist would probably be better able to speak to what we should expect to see.

Another consequence of your theory, however, is that life should be spontaneously arising multiple times throughout earth's history. Light hasn't stopped hitting this planet, after all. And as far as I know, there are no life forms or convincing evidence for past life forms that arose at a separate time, that do not all share a single common ancestor.

I'm locking this thread. I only just now realized that deadcat posted identical threads in multiple forums. Such double (and triple) posting is against forum policy. Please continue this discussion in the thread in Chemistry.
/moderator mode

"paralith" (btw sorry about multiple post, didn't know it wasn't allowed just wanted the correct category for the best response) noted -

Another consequence of your theory, however, is that life should be spontaneously arising multiple times throughout earth's history. Light hasn't stopped hitting this planet, after all. And as far as I know, there are no life forms or convincing evidence for past life forms that arose at a separate time, that do not all share a single common ancestor.


don't you feel no matter what the cause of life was it would still be happening? also by the logic I'm presenting, only the original life would have to continuously be recreated which would be prokaryotes (and they are) so the real question about that would be is there reprodution strictly from binary fission, or is the external force that created the first life also in play, after all the prokaryotes continue to evolve, but new regular prokaryotes also come about in all water. So if we can create prokaryotes with only water and light then this theory may be valid, that's a VERY valid point you bring up though, how do you think this experiment could be correctly done?

Originally Posted by deadcat

"paralith" (btw sorry about multiple post, didn't know it wasn't allowed just wanted the correct category for the best response) noted -

Remember you can always put a thread in one spot, and if you decide later you'd rather not have it there you can PM one of the mods to move it for you.

don't you feel no matter what the cause of life was it would still be happening? also by the logic I'm presenting, only the original life would have to continuously be recreated which would be prokaryotes (and they are) so the real question about that would be is there reprodution strictly from binary fission, or is the external force that created the first life also in play, after all the prokaryotes continue to evolve, but new regular prokaryotes also come about in all water. So if we can create prokaryotes with only water and light then this theory may be valid, that's a VERY valid point you bring up though, how do you think this experiment could be correctly done?

It's quite simple to disprove that reproduction requires light - you have cells deep inside your body that are never exposed to light, yet they split and grow and split and grow just fine. You can culture a plate of E. coli bacteria in the dark and they will multiply just as well as they did in the light. There are animals living deep in ocean trenches, where perhaps some tiny amount of light does filter down, but I'd wager in some places there really is no light. Yet clearly these organisms are doing their thing just fine.

Prokaryotes are continuously recreated? I've never heard that before, do you have a source? From what I understand even extremophile bacteria seem to share in their common origin with the rest of life. Also, you can't create prokaryotes with just water and light. Protocells were probably more than just hydrogen and oxygen. They need carbron, nitrogen, etc etc.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Then I thought, considering that light is affected by black holes gravity (once in the event horizon) it's safe to say the light is in fact a physical object of matter,

Words exist,

Fire, Breathing & Elephant are all words.

Ergo Fire Breathing Elepahant exists.


Different logic same conclusion...

From what we know of life, of it's composition and the reactions which drive it, there's no need to assume that light has these properties you describe. Life is physically composed of matter that is found all around us on Earth as well as on other planets and moons. The reactions between these elements and molecules all conform to known natural laws. The origin of life is an open question, mostly due to our lack of information regarding the starting conditions, but there appears to be no need to assume that something material is missing from the picture. Light was probably involved, but as an energy source and a mutagen, not as a matter source.

Originally Posted by deadcat

don't you feel no matter what the cause of life was it would still be happening?

I would more astounded by this, were it true, than anything I have ever seen or heard.
Life arose when there was no competition. It almost certainly was very simple - simpler than anything that lives today. Once life became established the organic material from which it arose became a feedstock. Life is now so omnipresent on the Earth that there is nowhere for such simple forms to arise. Their precursors are gobbled up by today's life.

Originally Posted by deadcat

also by the logic I'm presenting, only the original life would have to continuously be recreated which would be prokaryotes (and they are)

1. Prokaryotes are not simple. This is a convenient simplification to distinguish them from eukaryotes which are indeed more comples, but simple the prokaryote is not.
2. Prokaryotes are being continuously created today! Please tell me this was clumsy wording. If not then please follow paralith's request for citations. (I'd love to be astounded, but it's not going to happen.)

Originally Posted by deadcat

but new regular prokaryotes also come about in all water.

Originally Posted by deadcat

So if we can create prokaryotes with only water and light then this theory may be valid,

If you can do that I'll likely die of shock.

Originally Posted by deadcat

don't you feel no matter what the cause of life was it would still be happening? also by the logic I'm presenting, only the original life would have to continuously be recreated which would be prokaryotes (and they are) so the real question about that would be is there reprodution strictly from binary fission, or is the external force that created the first life also in play, after all the prokaryotes continue to evolve, but new regular prokaryotes also come about in all water.

If abiogenesis had successfully occurred a great number of times then why do all of the known species appear to be genetically descended from a single common ancestor? It's likely that abiogenesis did occur more than once and to various extents, but nothing appears to have survived from any such event other than the one which gave rise to us.

Originally Posted by deadcat

So if we can create prokaryotes with only water and light then this theory may be valid, that's a VERY valid point you bring up though, how do you think this experiment could be correctly done?

If you can create an organism from just water and light then what you've done is create new matter. No hypothesis of abiogenesis suggests this to be possible and indeed it violates a whole bunch of the laws of physics. The mixture you propose has hydrogen and oxygen in it. And light. Life as we have observed it contains hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous at the very least. These are not going to arise from the interaction between light and water.

Prokaryotes are continuously recreated?

yeah most the have to be recreated to continue existence, what I was meaning though was it just though binary fission (there form of reproduction) or was there something also creating new life. maybe it's not light but there has got to be something in chemistry creating this life to just start up. Also I was looking at the timeline of evolution and apparently it took incredibly long for these guys to even come about (Prokaryote). they say the odds of a life form assembling like this are about the same as the odds of having a do it yourself shed assemble itself in a hurricane, but it happened.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Reproduction)
heres the reference(just just about binary fission reproduction of the Prokaryote though, it how they keep becoming recreated)

Prokaryotes are continuously recreated?

yeah they have to be recreated to continue existence (just like people), what I was meaning though was it just though binary fission (there form of reproduction) or was there something also creating new life. maybe it's not light but there has got to be something in chemistry creating this life to just start up. Also I was looking at the time line of evolution and apparently it took incredibly long for these guys to even come about (prokaryote). they say the odds of a life form assembling like this are about the same as the odds of having a do it yourself shed assemble itself in a hurricane, but it happened.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Reproduction)
heres the reference(just just about binary fission reproduction of the prokaryote though, it how they keep becoming recreated)

Originally Posted by deadcat

Prokaryotes are continuously recreated?

yeah most the have to be recreated to continue existence, what I was meaning though was it just though binary fission (there form of reproduction) or was there something also creating new life. maybe it's not light but there has got to be something in chemistry creating this life to just start up. Also I was looking at the time line of evolution and apparently it took incredibly long for these guys to even come about (prokaryote). they say the odds of a life form assembling like this are about the same as the odds of having a do it yourself shed assemble itself in a hurricane, but it happened.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Reproduction)
heres the reference(just just about binary fission reproduction of the prokaryote though, it how they keep becoming recreated)

Firstly, reproduction and the formation of entirely new life from basic chemicals are two different things. The formation of entirely new life would result in a lineage of organisms with clear differences from the ones we see today and there is no evidence of such organisms existing. Secondly, modern day prokaryotes are not good models for the first life forms. The prokaryotes we see today have been evolving for just as long as the eukaryotes if not longer and are quite complex compared to what the very first life would have been like.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by deadcat

Prokaryotes are continuously recreated?

yeah most the have to be recreated to continue existence, what I was meaning though was it just though binary fission (there form of reproduction) or was there something also creating new life. maybe it's not light but there has got to be something in chemistry creating this life to just start up. Also I was looking at the time line of evolution and apparently it took incredibly long for these guys to even come about (prokaryote). they say the odds of a life form assembling like this are about the same as the odds of having a do it yourself shed assemble itself in a hurricane, but it happened.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Reproduction)
heres the reference(just just about binary fission reproduction of the prokaryote though, it how they keep becoming recreated)

Firstly, reproduction and the formation of entirely new life from basic chemicals are two different things. The formation of entirely new life would result in a lineage of organisms with clear differences from the ones we see today and there is no evidence of such organisms existing. Secondly, modern day prokaryotes are not good models for the first life forms. The prokaryotes we see today have been evolving for just as long as the eukaryotes if not longer and are quite complex compared to what the very first life would have been like.

yes although they have been evolving independently this is true for other things in evolution as well, take chimps for instance we came of them but they are still independently evolving as chimps as well, when a species splits and no longer reproduces with the others successfully, a new species has been created this is evolution, and it is fact, not dependent on an opinion. and in this fact which is evolution it is believed that prokaryotes were the first life forms. Also there is no can find any proof the prokaryotes are different from the first prokaryotes (do you have a reference?) there pretty simple organisms.

Originally Posted by deadcat

yes although they have been evolving independently this is true for other things in evolution as well, take chimps for instance we came of them but they are still independently evolving as chimps as well, when a species splits and no longer reproduces with the others successfully, a new species has been created this is evolution, and it is fact, not dependent on an opinion. and in this fact which is evolution it is believed that prokaryotes were the first life forms.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Firstly, we did not evolve from modern day chimps. We share a common ancestor with modern day chimps chimps. Secondly, I'm most certainly not arguing against speciation. But that is the formation of a new species, not the formation of an entirely new lineage of life. We still share over 98% of our genes with chimps. We came from the same lineage as they did. Humans did not arise out of a chemical soup. Also, the group of organisms we call prokaryotes includes both modern day species and much older species. All I'm saying is that modern prokaryotes are probably quite different, after several billion years of evolution, than the oldest prokaryotes that ever existed.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by deadcat

yes although they have been evolving independently this is true for other things in evolution as well, take chimps for instance we came of them but they are still independently evolving as chimps as well, when a species splits and no longer reproduces with the others successfully, a new species has been created this is evolution, and it is fact, not dependent on an opinion. and in this fact which is evolution it is believed that prokaryotes were the first life forms.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Firstly, we did not evolve from modern day chimps. We share a common ancestor with modern day chimps chimps. Secondly, I'm most certainly not arguing against speciation. But that is the formation of a new species, not the formation of an entirely new lineage of life. We still share over 98% of our genes with chimps. We came from the same lineage as they did. Humans did not arise out of a chemical soup. Also, the group of organisms we call prokaryotes includes both modern day species and much older species. All I'm saying is that modern prokaryotes are probably quite different, after several billion years of evolution, than the oldest prokaryotes that ever existed.

oh, my bad, yeah I definitely misunderstood your point, lol. while it's true that most prokaryotes are probably extremely different then old time ones but if you consider that it may take a very long time for this chemical reaction to cause a new one, and/or even if the method in which the first ones are created might have slightly changed because the environment is so much different now. The life span of evolution shows us that it could possibly take a very very long time for them to be created, when you considered the life span of the earth to the life span of life on earth.

however i'd have to disagree with you on one aspect "Humans did not arise out of a chemical soup" it is shown in the theory of evolution that all life is connected, starting from the beginning.
(or do you believe in creationism?)

No hypothesis of abiogenesis suggests this to be possible and indeed it violates a whole bunch of the laws of physics.

which laws?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by deadcat

Then I thought, considering that light is affected by black holes gravity (once in the event horizon) it's safe to say the light is in fact a physical object of matter,

Words exist,

Fire, Breathing & Elephant are all words.

Ergo Fire Breathing Elepahant exists.


Different logic same conclusion...

no words are ideas, if you'll look over einstein's revisited partical theory you'll see what I mean by physical objects of matter.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by deadcat

Then I thought, considering that light is affected by black holes gravity (once in the event horizon) it's safe to say the light is in fact a physical object of matter,

Words exist,

Fire, Breathing & Elephant are all words.

Ergo Fire Breathing Elepahant exists.


Different logic same conclusion...

no words are ideas (unless your talking about sound waves), if you'll look over einstein's revisited partical theory you'll see what I mean by physical objects of matter.

[quote="John Galt"]

Originally Posted by deadcat

don't you feel no matter what the cause of life was it would still be happening?

I would more astounded by this, were it true, than anything I have ever seen or heard.
Life arose when there was no competition. It almost certainly was very simple - simpler than anything that lives today. Once life became established the organic material from which it arose became a feedstock. Life is now so omnipresent on the Earth that there is nowhere for such simple forms to arise. Their precursors are gobbled up by today's life.

Originally Posted by deadcat

also by the logic I'm presenting, only the original life would have to continuously be recreated which would be prokaryotes (and they are)

1. Prokaryotes are not simple. This is a convenient simplification to distinguish them from eukaryotes which are indeed more comples, but simple the prokaryote is not.
2. Prokaryotes are being continuously created today! Please tell me this was clumsy wording. If not then please follow paralith's request for citations. (I'd love to be astounded, but it's not going to happen.)

Originally Posted by deadcat

but new regular prokaryotes also come about in all water.

new prokaryotes come about from reproduction,

If you want to say evolution doesn't exist you need to take a good look at modern science

please thoroughly read my post before responding and if criticizing make sure you've looked through the references and have some of your own.

Originally Posted by deadcat

oh, my bad, yeah I definitely misunderstood your point, lol. while it's true that most prokaryotes are probably extremely different then old time ones but if you consider that it may take a very long time for this chemical reaction to cause a new one, and/or even if the method in which the first ones are created might have slightly changed because the environment is so much different now. The life span of evolution shows us that it could possibly take a very very long time for them to be created, when you considered the life span of the earth to the life span of life on earth.

But the earth is several billion years old. If all you need to make life is have light hit water with certain chemicals in it, then I think time enough has passed for at least one or two other lineages to have arisen and left some sort of evidence of their existence.

however i'd have to disagree with you on one aspect "Humans did not arise out of a chemical soup" it is shown in the theory of evolution that all life is connected, starting from the beginning.
(or do you believe in creationism?)

Ha! I've never had anyone accuse me of believing in creationism before. That's interesting. Anyhow, I suppose I should have been clearer. I was trying to make a distinction between speciation and abiogenesis. Humans speciated, they did not arise out of chemical soup as they are. The evolution of new species and the generation of a whole new lineage of life are not the same thing. That's my point.

Originally Posted by deadcat

If you want to say evolution doesn't exist you need to take a good look at modern science

deadcat, you can trust me when I say that no one who has participated in this conversation even remotely doubts evolution. It seems to us that you are saying that reproduction = completely new life, and that is incorrect. Reproduction is the continuing of one lineage of life. A second occurrence of abiogenesis, creating a whole new lineage of life, is what we are arguing against. There is no evidence for that.

Originally Posted by paralith

Originally Posted by deadcat

If you want to say evolution doesn't exist you need to take a good look at modern science

deadcat, you can trust me when I say that no one who has participated in this conversation even remotely doubts evolution. It seems to us that you are saying that reproduction = completely new life, and that is incorrect. Reproduction is the continuing of one lineage of life. A second occurrence of abiogenesis, creating a whole new lineage of life, is what we are arguing against. There is no evidence for that.

I can see how it would seem that, but actually I was stating with all the new life from reproduction it would be difficult to tell if at that microscopic level slowly, new life was forming, independent from reproduction. Sorry if I worded that a little weird when first posting..

Originally Posted by deadcat

No hypothesis of abiogenesis suggests this to be possible and indeed it violates a whole bunch of the laws of physics.

which laws?

Well I was taking it that you were talking about abiogenesis using just light and water. That would require that carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous come out of nowhere. That would certainly violate a bunch of the laws of physics since those elements can only be created by fusion, which does not naturally occur on Earth and wouldn't help the formation of life much if it did! I think you were just talking about normal reproduction though? I'm not totally clear on what you're saying. Reproduction certainly doesn't need light to have any unusual properties and, as paralith has already stated, reproduction in many species has no dependence on light at all.

Originally Posted by deadcat

I can see how it would seem that, but actually I was stating with all the new life from reproduction it would be difficult to tell if at that microscopic level slowly, new life was forming, independent from reproduction. Sorry if I worded that a little weird when first posting..

Would we not be able to tell the difference between new life from reproduction versus from abiogenesis by comparing their genomes? It's a little hard to see what you main point is here...

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by deadcat

No hypothesis of abiogenesis suggests this to be possible and indeed it violates a whole bunch of the laws of physics.

which laws?

Well I was taking it that you were talking about abiogenesis using just light and water. That would require that carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous come out of nowhere. That would certainly violate a bunch of the laws of physics since those elements can only be created by fusion, which does not naturally occur on Earth and wouldn't help the formation of life much if it did! I think you were just talking about normal reproduction though? I'm not totally clear on what you're saying. Reproduction certainly doesn't need light to have any unusual properties and, as paralith has already stated, reproduction in many species has no dependence on light at all.

Originally Posted by deadcat

I can see how it would seem that, but actually I was stating with all the new life from reproduction it would be difficult to tell if at that microscopic level slowly, new life was forming, independent from reproduction. Sorry if I worded that a little weird when first posting..

Would we not be able to tell the difference between new life from reproduction versus from abiogenesis by comparing their genomes? It's a little hard to see what you main point is here...

There would be too many subjects to test to compare genomes. Yeah, you kinda have to read the whole first post to understand the point completley. so what your saying is that the conditions that have created the original first life on earth are now gone and it's impossible for this to happen? Or what is your take on this?

I'm with you though in starting to be convinced light was not the main source but just assisting the process (as it does in photosynthesis) a lot of valid points have come up.

If the origin of life on Earth, then it was either the result of chemical reactions (My knowledge on chemistry is poor, and I'm not very good with specifics) or a meteorite from another planet, one of would have been in are solar system. If life as a whole, and all its existence, then no; personally, I believe life is infinite, it has no beginning nor end.

Originally Posted by deadcat

If you want to say evolution doesn't exist you need to take a good look at modern science

No. What I wanted to say is that you have expressed your ideas in a very clumsy way. This is evident from the interpretation that several posters in this thread have placed on your words. Everyone has interpreted those words in a singular way. That way is not what you intended. Where does the responsibility lie? With you.

but actually I was stating with all the new life from reproduction it would be difficult to tell if at that microscopic level slowly, new life was forming, independent from reproduction.

Somewhere along the road we would stumble across a beastie who couldn't have shared a common ancestor with us. We never do. The likelihood is that we shall not.

Originally Posted by deadcat

There would be too many subjects to test to compare genomes.

Why? Take a sample containing maybe 1000 cells, do a limiting dilution into a bunch of multiwell culture plates so there's 1 cell per well, clone each cell into a population large enough to do a PCR. Done. There's probably chip based microarray thingies that could make it easier.

Look, we've been doing genetic tests on organisms of all sorts in very high numbers for 20 years or more now. We've yet to find even one which is not in some way related to our common ancestor. It's not impossible that the descendants of another abiogenesis exist on Earth, but if they do they're rare and hard to find.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Yeah, you kinda have to read the whole first post to understand the point completley.

I did read it. I still don't know what you're getting at and it seems like the others don't either.

Originally Posted by deadcat

so what your saying is that the conditions that have created the original first life on earth are now gone and it's impossible for this to happen? Or what is your take on this?

More or less true. For abiogenesis to be likely to happen requires the presence of a lot of organic molecules in solution. Nucleotides and lipids anyway. Also amino acids later on. These would once have been very commonly found free in solution, in rock pools and perhaps even in the open ocean. Now such compounds are constantly being gobbled up by the existing life. Once the a successful self-replicating reaction manages to spread far enough, it prevents the initiation of competing reactions. There may have been a time when the progeny of several such reactions competed.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by deadcat

There would be too many subjects to test to compare genomes.

Why? Take a sample containing maybe 1000 cells, do a limiting dilution into a bunch of multiwell culture plates so there's 1 cell per well, clone each cell into a population large enough to do a PCR. Done. There's probably chip based microarray thingies that could make it easier.

Look, we've been doing genetic tests on organisms of all sorts in very high numbers for 20 years or more now. We've yet to find even one which is not in some way related to our common ancestor. It's not impossible that the descendants of another abiogenesis exist on Earth, but if they do they're rare and hard to find.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Yeah, you kinda have to read the whole first post to understand the point completley.

I did read it. I still don't know what you're getting at and it seems like the others don't either.

Originally Posted by deadcat

so what your saying is that the conditions that have created the original first life on earth are now gone and it's impossible for this to happen? Or what is your take on this?

More or less true. For abiogenesis to be likely to happen requires the presence of a lot of organic molecules in solution. Nucleotides and lipids anyway. Also amino acids later on. These would once have been very commonly found free in solution, in rock pools and perhaps even in the open ocean. Now such compounds are constantly being gobbled up by the existing life. Once the a successful self-replicating reaction manages to spread far enough, it prevents the initiation of competing reactions. There may have been a time when the progeny of several such reactions competed.

I see. I can understand your point, but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

there are more subjects in the world then we would be able to test hundreds of billions, i don't know how to explain that any clearer, lol.

Originally Posted by deadcat

but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

These are not alive and are therefore of little relevance to the discussion.

Originally Posted by deadcat

there are more subjects in the world then we would be able to test hundreds of billions, i don't know how to explain that any clearer, lol.

Well, it might help if you tried writing in proper sentences.

There are more subjects in the world (hundreds of billions) than we would be able to test.

The point about testing samples, that is a selection of all the potential subjects in the world, is that we can derive meaningful conclusions from a statistical analysis of the results. Moreover, as Biologista had indicated, our current automated analytical techniques are immensely powerful.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by deadcat

but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

These are not alive and are therefore of little relevance to the discussion.

again
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres

Originally Posted by deadcat

I see. I can understand your point, but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

These form from a mixture of proteins, not from pure water. They're also not alive in that whilst they self-replicate, they don't posses any genetic material and they don't vary- so they're not subject to selection. If you put phospholipids into water, they form spherical enclosures also, though these won't replicate. Both microspheres and lipid structures could well have been involved in the later stages of abiogenesis, but the fact that these things can form today does not suggest that abiogenesis is likely to occur today. There are a great many other requirements that make the natural occurrence of new abiogenesis improbable (though not impossible).

Originally Posted by deadcat

there are more subjects in the world then we would be able to test hundreds of billions, i don't know how to explain that any clearer, lol.

But what reason do you have to assume that these billions do not behave the same as the one's we have observed? Do we need to examine every hydrogen atom in order to say with confidence that they are all, in fact, hydrogen? Sampling techniques are designed with the concept of unique phenomena and heterogeneity in mind- we are careful to take "representative samples". If your suggestion about prokaryotes were true, we'd be able to test this just fine.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by deadcat

but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

These are not alive and are therefore of little relevance to the discussion.

again
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres

From that page:

Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive.

If you want to defend the position of their relevance, deadcat, giving us a link you already gave us is not an effective way to do it. You could perhaps, as the article also says, emphasize the fact that these molecules are considered precursors to protocells, and the fact that they form rather easily does suggest that, if conditions on earth now were similar to conditions on earth before life began, these molecules could in fact lead to new life. But as both Biologista and JohnGalt have already described, all the other molecules needed are too quickly gobbled up by living organisms to allow the process to continue to fruition.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by deadcat

but what about the discoveries made by Sidney Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox)
which shows an ongoing creation of microsperes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres)

These are not alive and are therefore of little relevance to the discussion.

again
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres

Sorry. I still don't see your point. These are very definitely not alive. There is no consensus view that they are a precursor of life, although personally I think it highly likely. Even if they are a precursor they are extremely distant from anything that could reasonably be considered to be alive.

So I don't see how you can use their existence as evidence for the ongoing creation of any kind of life.