Thread: Theory of life

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by marnixR

maybe you're asking the wrong question

imo, the question should be : what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?

Yes its a good reformulation of the question in question.
If we stick to the story ive been told
then single cells were there instantly (in geological terms)
as soon as the Earth was cool enough to sustain life.

Then Earth had to wait two billion years
until two cells decided to join company.
IF I was told the truth then the question is:
Why wait so long?

Your question obviously comes along. No one can deny that. Why so long?

FIRST: You should not take me on faith, please do a google research. It shouldnt be too hard. NEVER rely on facts from one source only!
That said:

Thank you for asking The problem is not yet solved! There is no accepted solution yet. I have ...eh... ahem,eh... a SPECULATION!
(And I think Im alone in my speculations.) Do you get it? SPECULATION WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really should force you to sign a contract saying you will not sue me or the forum (though in all honesty...eh...better left that unsaid...where was I? Are all formalites done? NO!) in case of damages to....I give up! ***k the formalities! Are you ready? Here I go:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381 Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon (Submitted on 28 Mar 2013) An extrapolation of the genetic complexity of organisms to earlier times suggests that life began before the Earth was formed.

Brief SUMMARY
1 Every solar system will (except the earliest since they lacked super nova ingrediences) pass through a phase in its development where conditions are just right for life to appear. (details skipped)
2 The volumes involved are huge and, though borders varies, it will last for a very long time (details skipped) This means that only a few solar systems are totally devoid of life.
3 When the planets are cool enough to sustain life... extremophiles are living in free fall in Near Planetary Space the few extremophiles not finding their way down to the planet will die because of changing environment. What was once "soup" turned into vacum for several reasons. (details skipped)
4 The first settlers on the Earth are very tough customers, resistant to change, even able to penetrate deep into the mountains and soon there is life all over earth. AND we resisted change for two billion years.
5 Evolution goes on and two billion years later sigurdV is
writing down some thoughts on:The Theory of Life

6 There is no largescale theory of life as far as I know so lets get on with it:
Life is a "natural consequense of (the laws and construction) of the universe
7 According to Nobel Prize Winner Ilya Prigogine:
Life is a thermodynamic dissipative system far from equilibrium which,
very simply put, means that life in order to remain alive must consume... energy!
8 Life grows (in principle) exponentially... will expand into any neighbouring "territory"and
since the universe contains only a finite amount of energy then,
long before any previously deduced end of the universe,
all available energy will be reduced to lowest possible form.
9 This raises some questions, I have my own but what do you think?
10 WHAT #ON EARTH# WILL WE DO?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

SPECULATION WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clear.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

. extremophiles are living in free fall in Near Planetary Space

Where did these extremophiles come from?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

4 The first settlers on the Earth are very tough customers, resistant to change, even able to penetrate deep into the mountains and soon there is life all over earth. AND we resisted change for two billion years.

Resisted change?! The fossil record suggests that is not the case at all...

Which brings us back to what you just said a line above or so:

Originally Posted by sigurdV

the few extremophiles not finding their way down to the planet will die because of changing environment.

Because they are resistant to change, right?

I have a few questions about this most interesting subject.

How 'big' or complex are these single celled organisms thought to have been?

Where did they come from? chemistry? what a load of atoms formed a 'magic' combination and then boom, we have a reproducing life forms? How does that work?
How do these single celled organisms get energy?

And back to the question at hand... what is the theory on how these single celled organisms managed to combine into a multicellular organism functionaing as one?

Is hydrogen not the first life form on Earth? doesn't the 'gen' in hydrogen stand for 'seed'... doesn't the fact that hydrogen reacts to stimulous and behaves in a certain way mean that it has some form of code inside it?
It is not a dead thing is it? it has motion and behaviour?

When it comes to the theory... how big are these 'single celled organisms' compared with an atom of hydrogen?

Originally Posted by question for you

Where did they come from? chemistry? what a load of atoms formed a 'magic' combination and then boom, we have a reproducing life forms? How does that work?

Calling it magic is not the best start. You're showing a bias, already.
The property if emergence is one in which higher complexity overcomes entropy- but only for a limited time. It's like a stay, but only temporary.
There's no magical boom. The enitire process is gradual. Literally, you started with amino acids:
Amino acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Amino acids are created in laboratory
Complex chains and molecules can self replicate- even if not "alive." This process is simply a chemical reaction. As the chains grew in size and complexity, they were better suited for blundering into chemicals that react.
Since there were no cells, just molecules, there were no predators.
It's uncertain when or how proteins were used to coat molecules, but at some point proteins met complex molecular chains that were structured in a way that was complimentary to the protein groups causing clusters of proteins to cover the surface of the molecule. These, of course, were better protected from the environment and stood better chances of replicating.
Eventually, these protein clumps took on the form of a complete coating and later, as a rudimentary type of cell wall.

See, no magic BOOM there.

Originally Posted by question for you

How do these single celled organisms get energy?

a myriad of ways and that's not changed in all this time.
Single celled organisms are quite complex.
Are you asking about the precursors to single celled organisms? The origin of predation: They acquired energy where it's found in the environment- be devouring it.

Originally Posted by question for you

And back to the question at hand... what is the theory on how these single celled organisms managed to combine into a multicellular organism functionaing as one?

There are hypotheses, but I'm not aware of a set theory- but I'm no molecular biologist.

Originally Posted by question for you

Is hydrogen not the first life form on Earth?

No, hydrogen is an element.

Originally Posted by question for you

doesn't the 'gen' in hydrogen stand for 'seed'... doesn't the fact that hydrogen reacts to stimulous and behaves in a certain way mean that it has some form of code inside it?

What utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by question for you

It is not a dead thing is it? it has motion and behaviour?

Motion and properties- but that's not the standard as to how we define "life."

Originally Posted by question for you

When it comes to the theory... how big are these 'single celled organisms' compared with an atom of hydrogen?

Much bigger. Asking on the internet is fine and good but you're asking for a heavy education that cannot be easily summed up in a few posts. I suggest you hit the books.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

Where did they come from? chemistry? what a load of atoms formed a 'magic' combination and then boom, we have a reproducing life forms? How does that work?

Calling it magic is not the best start. You're showing a bias, already..

It's a common expression really... It expresses a complete lack of understanding of how the thing occured.

What if it does show a bias? which it doesn't.. A bias towards what exactly? if you are claiming there are two optiions... 1, random events or 2, God did it... then are you not also showing a bias? therefor what do you hope to achieve by highlighting my bias which doesn't actually exist???

I want to be civil and have a pleasent constructive conversation with you, yet you make it so difficult. Pot, kettle, black. lets try to avoid it in future.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The property if emergence is one in which higher complexity overcomes entropy- but only for a limited time. It's like a stay, but only temporary.
There's no magical boom. The enitire process is gradual. Literally, you started with amino acids:
Amino acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Amino acids are created in laboratory
Complex chains and molecules can self replicate- even if not "alive." This process is simply a chemical reaction. As the chains grew in size and complexity, they were better suited for blundering into chemicals that react.
Since there were no cells, just molecules, there were no predators.
It's uncertain when or how proteins were used to coat molecules, but at some point proteins met complex molecular chains that were structured in a way that was complimentary to the protein groups causing clusters of proteins to cover the surface of the molecule. These, of course, were better protected from the environment and stood better chances of replicating.
Eventually, these protein clumps took on the form of a complete coating and later, as a rudimentary type of cell wall.

See, no magic BOOM there..

Not evidence of much either. But hey, it's a reasonable speculation, as good as any other I have heard.

Complex aminos replicate? they divide? Where was this observed?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

And back to the question at hand... what is the theory on how these single celled organisms managed to combine into a multicellular organism functionaing as one?

There are hypotheses, but I'm not aware of a set theory- but I'm no molecular biologist.

Not even a theory? you're kidding me?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

Is hydrogen not the first life form on Earth?

No, hydrogen is an element.

Bacteria is an ellement of my gut... it's still alive.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

doesn't the 'gen' in hydrogen stand for 'seed'... doesn't the fact that hydrogen reacts to stimulous and behaves in a certain way mean that it has some form of code inside it?

What utter nonsense.

Please explain...

Gen is the latin meaning birth, born from etc. Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen... these are the things that aminos are born from.

Doesn't the fact that hydrogen can react to it's environment mean that it is able to sense it's environment? Doesn't that mean it has a form of intelligence?

If you have a deep understanding, or even a basic one, please fee free to share... just stating 'utter rubbish' with no explaination or indication that you have a clue what your talking about, isn't the best approach.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

It is not a dead thing is it? it has motion and behaviour?

Motion and properties- but that's not the standard as to how we define "life".

But I was using it to define 'intelligence', rather than life.

Motion and behaviour are very different things ofcourse... behaviour insists the presence of 'sense', 'intelligence', 'code', 'mind'. How can there be bahaviour without it?

Gravity inflicts motion, it doesn't inflict behaviour...

It's a philisophiocal question... if something senses it's environmental factors then it must surely have mind right?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

When it comes to the theory... how big are these 'single celled organisms' compared with an atom of hydrogen?

Much bigger. Asking on the internet is fine and good but you're asking for a heavy education that cannot be easily summed up in a few posts. I suggest you hit the books.

Reallly? an Atom of hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.... An oxygen atom has a mass of 8. Nitrogen has a mass of 7.
An amino such as aspartic acid is made of 3 H, 4 O and 1 N..... all I need to know now is how many aminos can fit inside a cell... I thought that would be easy for an expert like you.

I will indeed hit the books... no need for you to spend any more of your time... thanks for your help.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

SPECULATION WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where did these extremophiles come from?

Ok, since you ask so nicely, I will sketch in some of the skipped details: In the beginning of the Terran Solar System the debrice in it got coated with carbohydrates ...or wtf you call them...as the cloud begins to rotate pressure and temperature raises within the disk. The first spot where temperature and pressure turns ice into drops of water, of varying sizes, is in the center. Eventually the center gets too hot and water vaporises. Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened, so a drop of water at the center of what will be the Sun is the place where the first life occured.
(I noticed you are not unacquainted of the details of the early stages of life formation so Ill jump to cell formation) Some molecules are waterloving and waterhating at their"poles" so they form a skin at the border of the drop of water. Already from the beginning its a tough environment: At the center hot air will kill and closer to what will be the orbit of Mercury cold will kill. "How can cells be transported out of the gravity-well" you may ask...but ill leave that as Exercise 1: All imaginative readers may answer...first correct answer gets a pat on the head
We didnt pay attention to the anatomy of the system and I will continue to do so. Our tough cell used to changes between hotla and coldybdis (You dont understand Antique? Ask Sculptor nicely) is now facing death in the form of near vacum between...say....the orbit of what will become Mercury and the orbit of what will become Venus.
Exercice 2: is to deduce what survival trait is needed for travelling far distances in vacum.

I suggest we applaud our Struggling Champion Ancestor doing the grandest Odysse EVER!

From the Sun to our Hearts.

You didn't really answer the question. You're talking about Panspermia. That's fine- I get that. What I asked was, where did they come from?

Those space-faring extremophiles had to originate somewhere... It doesn't really solve the origin question.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You didn't really answer the question. You're talking about Panspermia. That's fine- I get that. What I asked was, where did they come from?

Those space-faring extremophiles had to originate somewhere... It doesn't really solve the origin question.

1 No my theory is NOT identical to the pan spermia theory. It is similar so Im not offended...One very basic difference is that my speculation is that life is older than planets...show me the pan spermia theory that says so

2 Read carefully (if you know how to do that) somewhere in the text it is told where the first cell was formed.
Let finding the answer to your nearsighted question be Exercise 3

Originally Posted by sigurdV

2 Read carefully (if you know how to do that)

Because of the constant crap like this^...

I have difficulty reading your posts generally. If I missed something, my apologies. Start posting like a polite chimpanzee and I'm sure I'll do better.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

2 Read carefully (if you know how to do that)

Because of the constant crap like this^...

I have difficulty reading your posts generally. If I missed something, my apologies. Start posting like a polite chimpanzee and I'm sure I'll do better.

"Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened, so a drop
of water at the center of what will be the Sun
is the place where the first life occured." ^

But keep in mind that theres many other possibilities and I know of no way to select the correct possibility out of the set of possibilities...for all we know the first sign of life could begin in what later became the orbit of the Earth.

Originally Posted by question for you

Sponges... good point icewendigo, it hasn't been mentioned yet.

Well gentlemen perhaps you could
restrict your journey down into the details
and attend to the theory of life as a whole.

Perhaps comments on its consequences
could be made by some far sighted visionaries
among you?

Poincare "par example"claims that a finite universe
will repeat its development forever.(Eternal Recurrence.)
Will the laws of Thermodynamics allow that?

Will the theory give Drakes formula a "modern" look?
Can we predict at what time all life should be extinct?
All the theory says is that it will occur earlier than expected...

Originally Posted by sigurdV

"Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened, so a drop
of water at the center of what will be the Sun
is the place where the first life occured." ^

But keep in mind that theres many other possibilities and I know of no way to select the correct possibility out of the set of possibilities...for all we know the first sign of life could begin in what later became the orbit of the Earth.

All true, but the simplest is that it began right here, especially considering the conditions were conducive to it.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

"Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened, so a drop
of water at the center of what will be the Sun
is the place where the first life occured." ^

But keep in mind that theres many other possibilities and I know of no way to select the correct possibility out of the set of possibilities...for all we know the first sign of life could begin in what later became the orbit of the Earth.

All true, but the simplest is that it began right here, especially considering the conditions were conducive to it.

It doesnt matter at all exactly WHERE in a stellar system life begins!
All the theory says is that the conducive conditions exists long before the planets are formed.

(Im afraid determining the earliest possible time for life to begin needs a more
solid understanding of the details of the development of Stellar Systems.)

There is the possibility that we will find life on different places in the solar system, and that we find (through DNA analysis) that all life in the Terran Solar System has a common ancestor. That is evidence for the theory of life

But, alas, that does not belong to our near future...

Post Scriptum. Im not sure what you mean with "simplest"...
Do you mean "closest to earth"?
Then you are correct in your estimation.

ok

moved to your thread - please stop posting off-topic material to the thread about multicellularity

We keep searching for answers and we know allot now but still need to keep asking questions and searching for one day, perhaps, we will know the answers to everything.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

We keep searching for answers and we know allot now but still need to keep asking questions and searching for one day, perhaps, we will know the answers to everything.

Its the theory of everything then. Its probably impossible.
Its like: You cant experience everything since experiencing everything is a NEW experience!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

It doesnt matter at all exactly WHERE in a stellar system life begins!
All the theory says is that the conducive conditions exists long before the planets are formed.

(Im afraid determining the earliest possible time for life to begin needs a more
solid understanding of the details of the development of Stellar Systems.)

There is the possibility that we will find life on different places in the solar system, and that we find (through DNA analysis) that all life in the Terran Solar System has a common ancestor. That is evidence for the theory of life

But, alas, that does not belong to our near future...

Post Scriptum. Im not sure what you mean with "simplest"...
Do you mean "closest to earth"?
Then you are correct in your estimation.

All true. Then it just makes me wonder about why you posted all that you had.

Simplest means that the Early conditions on Earth were conducive to our form of life. It's also possible that extremophiles landed here embedded in a space rock. It's application of Occams Razor.

We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

The apparent short delay (say 100 million years) between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained in three ways.

1) Life arises easily.
2) Life arrived from elsewhere.
3) Blind luck.

Until we are well advanced in developing a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway, then it will be impossible to distinguish between these. (Occam's razor can be applied with equal veracity to each.)

A point of error already pointed out by others needs to be emphasised: life did not pause in development for two billion years. Claiming so, as Sigurd does, betrays fundamental flaws in his knowledge and calls into question his competence to be commenting on the origin of life. Either, Sigurd, you admit it was a silly comment, or - if you wish to be more chary - you could dis those who argue otherwise.


Sigurd you appear to think you are clever by your reference to Scylla and Charybdis (hotla and coldbdis and the Oddysey of Life). If you want to show off your education why don't you post in Greek.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

It doesnt matter at all exactly WHERE in a stellar system life begins!
All the theory says is that the conducive conditions exists long before the planets are formed.

(Im afraid determining the earliest possible time for life to begin needs a more
solid understanding of the details of the development of Stellar Systems.)

There is the possibility that we will find life on different places in the solar system, and that we find (through DNA analysis) that all life in the Terran Solar System has a common ancestor. That is evidence for the theory of life

But, alas, that does not belong to our near future...

Post Scriptum. Im not sure what you mean with "simplest"...
Do you mean "closest to earth"?
Then you are correct in your estimation.

All true. Then it just makes me wonder about why you posted all that you had.

Simplest means that the Early conditions on Earth were conducive to our form of life. It's also possible that extremophiles landed here embedded in a space rock. It's application of Occams Razor.

Do you want a nut little parrot? LIFE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS OLDER THAN ITS PLANETS!

That nut is new! It IS possible (but improbable) that life at a certain point independently started somewhere on Earth. But if so, it did not survive! ALL discovered life in our solar system share a common ancestor. When we examine thriving extremophiles outside Earth the truth will be obvious.

(Heh!) Why MUST life coming to earth arrive within a rock? I dont think you ever proved to yourself that it MUST be so. You only reverently join the choir. WHY wasnt it a sphore? Its known that Earthly Bacteria can survive prolonged exposure to the "deadly" vacum in space:
That said... I salute you for improving your manners.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Do you want a nut little parrot?

Yes. But steak is preferred.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

LIFE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS OLDER THAN ITS PLANETS

Support this claim with evidence.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

It IS possible (but improbable) that life at a certain point independently started somewhere on Earth. But if so, it did not survive! ALL discovered life in our solar system share a common ancestor. When we examine thriving extremophiles outside Earth the truth will be obvious.

Err.. what? You backtracked on yourself a bit too hard, there...
It's possible, but improbable... ok, I don't see how it's improbable that the life on Earth, which is composed of the proper chemicals that were abundant on the early Earth, under the conditions for it, which was proper on the early Earth, originated on the early Earth. It seems the other way around, that's it is improbable that life originated elsewhere, traveled through the vasty nothingness and landed on Earth and flourished in this environment which was alien and new to it.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(Heh!) Why MUST life coming to earth arrive within a rock? I dont think you ever proved to yourself that it MUST be so.

True.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

You only reverently join the choir. WHY wasnt it a sphore? Its known that Earthly Bacteria can survive prolonged exposure to the "deadly" vacum in space:

It's known that a few very extreme forms of bacteria have the possibility that the can, for a somewhat limited time. By the way, space is not a "vacuum."
A vacuum is only formed when surrounded by pressure.
As far as the choir: I do have a brain. I don't claim to use it well, but I reach my own conclusions. This little parrot doesn't feel the overwhelming need to 'buck the system' and stroke my ego showing how "original and smart I am" by rejecting critical thinking and the scientific method and treating science as the new religion.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

That said... I salute you for improving your manners.

You made a claim above; actually several, regarding the origin of life. Instead of expending so much energy into baiting me, why don't you support your claims scientifically.

Originally Posted by John Galt

We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

The apparent short delay (say 100 million years) between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained in three ways.

1) Life arises easily.
2) Life arrived from elsewhere.
3) Blind luck.

Until we are well advanced in developing a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway, then it will be impossible to distinguish between these. (Occam's razor can be applied with equal veracity to each.)

A point of error already pointed out by others needs to be emphasised: life did not pause in development for two billion years. Claiming so, as Sigurd does, betrays fundamental flaws in his knowledge and calls into question his competence to be commenting on the origin of life. Either, Sigurd, you admit it was a silly comment, or - if you wish to be more chary - you could dis those who argue otherwise.


Sigurd you appear to think you are clever by your reference to Scylla and Charybdis (hotla and coldbdis and the Oddysey of Life). If you want to show off your education why don't you post in Greek.

It's nice to witness some perspective on the matter. I do admire you're concise yet detailed comments which do seem to cut straight through nonsense and get to the facts of the matter.

I just want to defend Sig a little by pointing out that this statement: "We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process." betrays fundamental flaws not only in John's knowledge, but everybody elses also, and calls into question the competence of any Human alive to be commenting on the origin of life.

So in my fairly humble and yet completely jumped up opinion... it's all good as long as none of us take ourselves too seriously.

Originally Posted by John Galt

We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

The apparent short delay (say 100 million years) between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained in three ways.

1) Life arises easily.
2) Life arrived from elsewhere.
3) Blind luck.

Until we are well advanced in developing a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway, then it will be impossible to distinguish between these. (Occam's razor can be applied with equal veracity to each.)

A point of error already pointed out by others needs to be emphasised: life did not pause in development for two billion years. Claiming so, as Sigurd does, betrays fundamental flaws in his knowledge and calls into question his competence to be commenting on the origin of life. Either, Sigurd, you admit it was a silly comment, or - if you wish to be more chary - you could dis those who argue otherwise.


Sigurd you appear to think you are clever by your reference to Scylla and Charybdis (hotla and coldbdis and the Oddysey oreek.

I admit of being playful, trustful and naive. But I deny being silly!
I told everybody that it was TOLD TO ME that there is (to put it in your own words) "an apparent discreparity".
I have no idea who originally told me and I felt a need of an explanation of the apparent "apparent discrepancy".

I dont think you interpreted the situation correctly: I quote you:"The apparent short delay (say 100 million years)
between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained " I agree and i agree and i agree...

But then there comes (as i have been told by some to me now unknown scientist) two billion years until the first COMPLEX cells begin multiplying on Earth:

The "situation" contains two consecutive time intervals

1 Interval one: Bringing the first cell into existence. Duration: 100000 million years
2 Interval two: Bringing the first COMPLEX cell into existence. Duration: two billion years.

Im no Matematician so I advice you to yourself carefully inspect & compare the length of the intervals.
Because when I did exactly that, I found what I see as an anomaly:

IT SURELY CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT LIFE THAN TO IMPROVE UPON IT!? What is wrong?

Probably it actually took less than an added 100 000 million years to improve the original cell into a complex of cells but that is for the expert to tell us. WHAT I do is suggesting that the apparent anomaly reported is evidence.

That said: Hello!
I dont recall discussing with you before, so I will introduce myself: My name is Sigurd Vojnov and I believe I am an independent Philosopher. With a love for Science! Happy to check Scientific Arguments. Or,for that matter, any ingeniously constructed and interesting argument of any kind. By "independent Philosopher" I intend to tell my environment that I have no wish to be identified or adressed as a philosopher, it only once was my own independent conclusion while questioning what I was doing.

Originally Posted by question for you

it's all good as long as none of us take ourselves too seriously.

Then it's not defending SigurdV...

Hi and welcome friendly Q4U!
Dont bother about me... Defend vigorously "Truth","Life" and "Reason" instead
A prediction: Incomers will immediately on first sight establish their defence/attack position in interval 1.

I would prefer taunting mode but in the assumption that the intention of the participants is to be scientific about it Ill remain analyzing. The explanation behind my prediction is not observation of behaviour, it is in my humble opinion that we, "metaphorically speaking" are conditoned by a virus to restrict the theory of life to the question of the origin of life...The "virus", I hasten to add, isnt consciously doing anything... it simply is in its construction to effect our brains and makes us predictable and unaware of transmitting the virus. (I call it "The Religious Attitude." and we all has been infected at an early age.)

Theres Darwinism...and its extensions to be included in the set of "Theories of Life" They should perhaps be presented in their simplest forms for our eventual comparisation and analysis... that is if we are able to stop fighting on interpretation of Minor Points and instead concentrate our thoughts on the topic...

I suggest we look at the first statement of the theory (we dont need a theory of theories do we?)
I vaguely remember it as:
1 Life is a consequense of the Laws of the Universe and its actual construction.

Is there anything to critizise ... what corrections should be made and what definitions should be added?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Hi and wecome Q4U!
Dont bother about me... Defend "Truth","Life" and "Logic" instead

I find it interesting how people that do not exercise "truth" or "logic" speak of it so much. Is the purpose to simply be convincing?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Hello!
I dont recall discussing with you before, so I will introduce myself: My name is Sigurd Vojnov

Well, Sigurd, at the risk of appearing autistic and socially inept, I'm John Galt and I don't really give a rat's ass as to who you are. I am interested in your arguments and your way of presenting them. At the moment neither impress me.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I dont think you interpreted the situation correctly: I quote you:"The apparent short delay (say 100 million years)
between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained " I agree and i agree and i agree...

But then there comes (as i have been told by some to me now unknown scientist) two billion years until the first COMPLEX cells begin multiplying on Earth:

The "situation" contains two consecutive time intervals

1 Interval one: Bringing the first cell into existence. Duration: 100000 million years
2 Interval two: Bringing the first COMPLEX cell into existence. Duration: two billion years.

Im no Matematician so I advice you to yourself carefully inspect & compare the length of the intervals.
Because when I did exactly that, I found what I see as an anomaly:

IT SURELY CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT LIFE THAN TO IMPROVE UPON IT!? What is wrong?

Probably it actually took less than an added 100 000 million years to improve the original cell into a complex of cells but that is for the expert to tell us. WHAT I do is suggesting that the apparent anomaly reported is evidence.

You clearly stated, and I quote, " The first settlers on the Earth are very tough customers, resistant to change, even able to penetrate deep into the mountains and soon there is life all over earth. AND we resisted change for two billion years."

That is your emphasis, not mine and it is completely wrong, as has been pointed out to you. I shall be happy to explain why it is wrong, but only if you show some evidence you are going to listen, rather than try to impress with your schoolboy knowledge of Greek mythology.

Now you may find the foregoing aggressive. That's good, that's how it's intended, because your contrived style is implicitly aggressive. If you were unaware of this consider yourself informed, then change, and then we can have a productive conversation.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Hi and wecome Q4U!
Dont bother about me... Defend "Truth","Life" and "Logic" instead

I always try to do that Sig.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

The "virus", I hasten to add, isnt consciously doing anything... it simply is in its construction to effect our brains and makes us predictable and unaware of transmitting the virus. (I call it "The Religious Attitude." and we all has been infected at an early age.)

Theres Darwinism...and its extensions to be included in set of "Theories of Life" (to be continued & edited)

The religious attitude eh... grouping together and aligning ourselves with the supposed beleifs of others?

I can see how that could be a hinderance to understanding reality... But what if the religious atitude is that we should be independent thinkers and not form alegiences with others in order to habour support for ourselves... would that religious attitude be a virus which hinders our intelectual development?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

IT SURELY CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT LIFE THAN TO IMPROVE UPON IT!?

While I suspect the entirety of this exchange may be a bit out of my water, this one particular statement I would like to reply to by stating: Why not?

It is my understanding that one of the (if not the) major current hypothesis suggest that the first life on Earth had to basically terraform the place by releasing certain gases and elements into the atmosphere and oceans which together with a gradual climate change only enabled more advanced life on a geological time scale. Not only that, but it is also my understanding that Mitochondria, which is present as effectively the power plant in most (all?) multicellular life has been found, through genome analysis, to apparently be close relatives to certain types of early bacteria, suggesting that it may only have been a very specific and unusual sort of symbiosis that came to give rise to the possibility of multicellular life.

It suggests to me, then, that the step between simple single-cell life and multicellular life is actually a very significant one, far greater than the simple integer increment in cell count that the terms single-cell and multicellular would suggest, and the many problems that would have to be overcome to make that step may possibly be far greater than the difference between a human and a regular birch tree.

Of course, I freely admit this is all conjecture on my part as I am little more than a layman, but I do not see why it might not take less time to develop original forms of life than it might take for it to start branching into much more complicated forms. After all, if you would permit a possibly quite faulty analogy, the time between the invention of wheeled vehicles and the invention of the automobile is several thousand years due to the complexity of several requisites such as methods of propulsion and so on, but once the automobile had been invented, the technology for it essentially exploded in a mere hundred years to where it is now.

Kompi, your summary is excellent and addresses, I think, the key points in the issue. I especially liked the wheel analogy. I think it works better than most analogies, since it seems to hold even if you probe a little deeper.

I might question one small point in your wording: I dislike the phrase "that the first life on Earth had to basically terraform the place". This implies that the change was necessary, pre-ordained and welcome. (I'm employing some degree of exageration for effect.) In fact the oxygenation was a disaster for most life on the planet at that time, forcing them into remote habitats that today we call extreme - and their inhabitants, extremophiles - but which in the early days of the planet were normal and a delight for the extant life forms.

Also, it is likely that the first life was much simpler than anything around today. So, before we could think of multicellularity, before we could think of bacteria complex enought to be absorbed to form a eukaryotic symbiote, we first had to see the primitive prokaryotes evolve into something akin in complexity to today's prokaryotes.

All that said I still find it remarkable that life apparently appeared in a twinkling of an eye.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I might question one small point in your wording: I dislike the phrase "that the first life on Earth had to basically terraform the place". This implies that the change was necessary, pre-ordained and welcome. (I'm employing some degree of exageration for effect.) In fact the oxygenation was a disaster for most life on the planet at that time, forcing them into remote habitats that today we call extreme - and their inhabitants, extremophiles - but which in the early days of the planet were normal and a delight for the extant life forms.

This is a good point, and the criticism is duly noted; it struck me as the simplest way to state it (as I felt the by evidence implied origins of mitochondria was the stronger point) but admittedly not quite the most accurate.

My point with it was mainly that as far as I understand it, there were quite significant changes in habitat and climate that occurred between the formation of the first forms of life and the formation of more complex, multi-cellular life

Of course, I definitely agree that none of this makes the origin of life any less awe-inspiring.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Hi and wecome Q4U!
Dont bother about me... Defend "Truth","Life" and "Logic" instead

I find it interesting how people that do not exercise "truth" or "logic" speak of it so much. Is the purpose to simply be convincing?

What "purpose" am I supposed to look for...Theirs? Yours or Mine?
Are U sure you dont mean "why" instead of "how".
Hopefully you understand what you were saying...I dont:

Are you implying that I lie?
Or that Im inconsistent?
Or do you simply want me to shut up?

Why dont you instead quote something?
Your own statements are below par.

It would be interesting to know what interests you,
but Im not convinced you will ever successfully communicate.

Perhaps I should reformulate my prediction?
Put this into it: "...either attack me personally or..."

You contradict yourself with your arguments. You say it's speculation, then you call it "Truth" etc.

Originally Posted by Kompi

Originally Posted by sigurdV

IT SURELY CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT LIFE THAN TO IMPROVE UPON IT!?

While I suspect the entirety of this exchange may be a bit out of my water, this one particular statement I would like to reply to by stating: Why not?

Hi Kompi! I welcome you. My eye fell on the above and I answer on sight.

Because:

First I abstract: IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X

Then I exemplify: And i dont think i have to be formal about it among "friends". Say we wrote an essay, then we try to improve it by proofreading it...Are you saying it in general takes us longer time to check our essays for spelling mistakes than the time spent to write them?

Originally Posted by Kompi

It is my understanding that one of the (if not the) major current hypothesis suggest that the first life on Earth
had to basically terraform the place by releasing certain gases and elements into the atmosphere and oceans which together with a gradual climate change

only

enabled more advanced life on a geological time scale.

Not only that,

but it is also my understanding that Mitochondria, which is present as effectively the power plant in most (all?) multicellular life has been found, through genome analysis, to apparently be close relatives to certain types of early bacteria,

suggesting

that it may only have been a very specific and unusual sort of symbiosis that came to give rise to the
possibility of
multicellular life.

Originally Posted by Kompi

It suggests to me, then, that
the step between simple single-cell life and multicellular life is actually a very significant one,

far greater than the simple integer increment in cell count that the terms single-cell and multicellular would suggest,
and the many problems that would have to be overcome to make that step may possibly be far greater than
the difference between a human and a regular birch tree.

Originally Posted by Kompi

Of course, I freely admit this is all conjecture on my part
as I am little more than a layman,

but I do not see why it might not take less time to develop original forms of life than it might take for it to (start) branch(ing) into much more complicated forms.

Neither do I: here you have in a friendly "sophistic" way
directed the argumentation away from the necessary
to any complication after the first necessary simple step
((postulated by Darwinism)):
"unsuccessful separation" as envisaged by marniX

After all, if you would permit a possibly quite faulty analogy,

the time between the invention of wheeled vehicles and the invention of the automobile is several thousand years due to the complexity of several requisites such as methods of propulsion and so on, but once the automobile had been invented, the technology for it essentially exploded in a mere hundred years to where it is now.

Our "disagreement" is really a question of interpreting the concept "improvement" I wish there were more informative attackers like you in here. Please sit down with the recognized opposition...Enjoy a cup of tea. Thank you.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

First I abstract: IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X

Then I exemplify: And i dont think i have to be formal about it among "friends". Say we wrote an essay, then we try to improve it by proofreading it...Are you saying it in general takes us longer time to check our essays for spelling mistakes than the time spent to write them?

No, but I am saying that it will take you a significantly shorter time to create an empty document in which to start writing your essay in than it will take you to write the actual essay itself.

Or, to take a more elaborate example from my own field of expertise, making an initial prototype to test an implementation or concept is significantly simpler and swifter a task than the following gradually iterative task of then refining, optimising, debugging and further implementing said concept until you arrive at something that is in a state presentable enough to be shippable.

In near any field of human development, making early models and prototypes for rough testing of basic concepts is typically always quicker and cheaper than the time required to make a full-featured production model - which is why we develop the models and prototypes to begin with. It is always a slow, iterative process that rarely prompts a complete and full-featured result from the get go. And while life and evolution clearly does not happen with the benefit of foresight, why would it be so strange that they develop through a similar, iterative process?

I hold that for there to be a theory of the origin of life and consciousness, it should be considered as an element of a system of three theories which includes also a theory of consciousness, and a theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems.

To the point, these three theories must be constructed within the limits of the same General Theory (or, meta-theory). I mean that they should use the same principles of formation of concepts, the same general method, the same system of models, the same system of proofs (the listed ones, and more other elements are being elaborated on the level of meta-theory). Being considered apart (or being constructed within the limits of their own meta-theories), they would cease to be theories as such.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You contradict yourself with your arguments. You say it's speculation, then you call it "Truth" etc.

Im not aware that I claimed something to be true...
WHAT DID I JUST SAY!?
HOW could I forget to do THAT??
Here : The finishing untranslatable and confounding
sentence complex is in English: Cèst vrais.
Indeed...some of this IS true!
Thank you!

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You contradict yourself with your arguments. You say it's speculation, then you call it "Truth" etc.

Im not aware that I claimed something to be true...
WHAT DID I JUST SAY!?
HOW could I forget to do THAT??
Here : The finishing untranslatable and confounding
sentence complex is in English: Cèst vrais.
Indeed...some of this IS true!
Thank you!

Where this sidetrack began - see post 26. Sorry though, I may have read more in your wording than you intended.
"Defending the truth" in this thread seems an odd thing to say. In addition to calling me a "little parrot" several times, for agreeing with mainstream rather than your far-fetched ideas. You promote your belief as fact when you say things like, "Correct answer." It's an over-all tone.

Originally Posted by Serge_Patlavskiy

I hold that for there to be a theory of the origin of life and consciousness, it should be considered as an element of a system of three theories which includes also a theory of consciousness, and a theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems.

To the point, these three theories must be constructed within the limits of the same General Theory (or, meta-theory). I mean that they should use the same principles of formation of concepts, the same general method, the same system of models, the same system of proofs (the listed ones, and more other elements are being elaborated on the level of meta-theory). Being considered apart (or being constructed within the limits of their own meta-theories), they would cease to be theories as such.

Preliminary study of the Theory of Theories.
1 There are theories not about theories... lets call them basic theories
2 Theories (also) about theories will be called meta theories.
Exercise: Prove there is no theory of all theories.

Frankly Sir, I think you were forewarned! The OP in here is a Swede so this should be VALHALLA,
and you made a powerful intellectual entre... Im impressed: take a seat, you will be watched!

Originally Posted by Serge_Patlavskiy

I hold that for there to be a theory of the origin of life and consciousness, it should be considered as an element of a system of three theories which includes also a theory of consciousness, and a theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems.

To the point, these three theories must be constructed within the limits of the same General Theory (or, meta-theory). I mean that they should use the same principles of formation of concepts, the same general method, the same system of models, the same system of proofs (the listed ones, and more other elements are being elaborated on the level of meta-theory). Being considered apart (or being constructed within the limits of their own meta-theories), they would cease to be theories as such.

Have you been drinking some of Deepak Chopra's Kool-Aid?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Because:

First I abstract: IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X

Then I exemplify: And i dont think i have to be formal about it among "friends". Say we wrote an essay, then we try to improve it by proofreading it...Are you saying it in general takes us longer time to check our essays for spelling mistakes than the time spent to write them?

You seem unaware that to produce concise, clear and comprehensive writing requires careful and generally extensive editing. It is surprising if this takes less time than the production of the draft. I refer readers to your own posts as evidence of what occurs if you ignore this principle.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You contradict yourself with your arguments. You say it's speculation, then you call it "Truth" etc.

Im not aware that I claimed something to be true...
WHAT DID I JUST SAY!?
HOW could I forget to do THAT??
Here : The finishing untranslatable and confounding
sentence complex is in English: Cèst vrais.
Indeed...some of this IS true!
Thank you!

Where this sidetrack began - see post 26. Sorry though, I may have read more in your wording than you intended.
"Defending the truth" in this thread seems an odd thing to say. In addition to calling me a "little parrot" several times, for agreeing with mainstream rather than your far-fetched ideas. You promote your belief as fact when you say things like, "Correct answer." It's an over-all tone.

Perhaps I was led astray by your avatar sorry!

The truth when it comes to my opinion of you is that you are young, gifted and promising.
I also thought you were tough and endurable... Ill be more civil in the future.

By calling you a "parrot" I only wanted to make you aware
that U seem to have formed no opinion on your own.
It is time to do so my young friend.

PS: Thank you for claiming that some of my ideas are far fetched.
It doesnt look that way in my view but I guess most ideas are relative.

Till exempel:
To me its obvious that the rate of aging
of our Universe depends on
the amount of energy left outside it
but Im sure
nobody will agree with me

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Perhaps I was led astray by your avatar sorry!

Not at all- my avatar rocks.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

The truth when it comes to my opinion of you is that you are young, gifted and promising.

True...

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I also thought you were tough and endurable...

Oh, I am. But it also means I don't take crap from people with big mouths.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Ill be more civil in the future.

Yes, please do that.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

It is time to do so my young friend.

I've formed several. Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I don't form my own opinions. That you would stoop to such a low tactic led to forming another opinion of my own.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

To me its obvious that the rate of aging
of our Universe depends on
the amount of energy left outside it

What?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

nobody will agree with me

The parrots! How dare they not do so?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Because:

First I abstract: IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X

Then I exemplify: And i dont think i have to be formal about it among "friends". Say we wrote an essay, then we try to improve it by proofreading it...Are you saying it in general takes us longer time to check our essays for spelling mistakes than the time spent to write them?

You seem unaware that to produce concise, clear and comprehensive writing requires careful and generally extensive editing. It is surprising if this takes less time than the production of the draft. I refer readers to your own posts as evidence of what occurs if you ignore this principle.

I was referring to the "essay" as an almost finished product and the proofreading of it as the final touch before its on the road to the readers... BTW thank you for referring to my posts as unedited essays...moderators in here usually refere to them as "utter nonsense"... How come youre evaluation is so relatively civil?

Next:

Yours is (Im afraid) but another example of elementary sophistry: By not including editing in the writing of an essay(and identifying the essay with its draft) you try to change the relationship between constructing x and improving x...Ill do the same in trying to prove my point:

Let "construct x" be "writing the essay" and let "improve x" be "finishing the essay"...now please show me an essay of yours that took shorter time to write than to finish? Doesnt usually the finishing of an essay only consists in a decision: "There! Now its finished."?

Post Scriptum: This friendly chat of ours is indeed funny and interesting, but what has it to do with the topic?
Do you have any opinions on the theory of life and related matters? A well formed theory or at least a well formed opinion from a moderator, I would treasure above most other things

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Do you have any opinions on the theory of life and related matters?

Yes. Your speculations in the OP are ill informed nonsense, unsupported by substative scientific evidence, poorly presented and lacking any redeeming feature. These of course are only opinions - the facts are more damaging to your case.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Hello!
I dont recall discussing with you before, so I will introduce myself: My name is Sigurd Vojnov

Well, Sigurd, at the risk of appearing autistic and socially inept, I'm John Galt and I don't really give a rat's ass as to who you are. I am interested in your arguments and your way of presenting them. At the moment neither impress me.

Good! Then we are even.

Originally Posted by John Galt

[

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I dont think you interpreted the situation correctly: I quote you:"The apparent short delay (say 100 million years)
between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained " I agree and i agree and i agree...

But then there comes (as i have been told by some to me now unknown scientist) two billion years until the first COMPLEX cells begin multiplying on Earth:

The "situation" contains two consecutive time intervals

1 Interval one: Bringing the first cell into existence. Duration: 100000 million years
2 Interval two: Bringing the first COMPLEX cell into existence. Duration: two billion years.

Im no Matematician so I advice you to yourself carefully inspect & compare the length of the intervals.
Because when I did exactly that, I found what I see as an anomaly:

IT SURELY CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT LIFE THAN TO IMPROVE UPON IT!? What is wrong?

Probably it actually took less than an added 100 000 million years to improve the original cell into a complex of cells but that is for the expert to tell us. WHAT I do is suggesting that the apparent anomaly reported is evidence.

You clearly stated, and I quote, " The first settlers on the Earth are very tough customers, resistant to change, even able to penetrate deep into the mountains and soon there is life all over earth. AND we resisted change for two billion years."

I admit of writing emotionally.
I was close to the end of a short story of how we might happen to be in our present situation. But what facts are misrepresented?
IF life in the forms of cells originated close to the center of what is now a star and travelled to the Earth without any hitchiking... relying only on its own abilities... changing into the form of a sphore... being resistant to radiation damage etc etc... I repeat IF...is it far from an objective description to describe such beings as "tough customers"? Id like to read your objections to my story! Why didnt you tell immediately? Do you demand a favor? Are you really that valuable as a critic?

Originally Posted by John Galt

[
That is your emphasis, not mine and it is completely wrong, as has been pointed out to you. I shall be happy to explain why it is wrong, but only if you show some evidence you are going to listen, rather than try to impress with your schoolboy knowledge of Greek mythology.

What gave you the impression that I want to impress you? No Sir! I rather destroy your arguments! There is nobody in here I see any reason to impress. I try to get them to engage in friendly arguments but most disappointingly they usually only do that once. Except the promising young warrior ...hmmm what was his name ...er..."Nighthawk"... nah... Needless... I give up...it will come to me eventually. Didnt you understand what my intention in miss spelling the names of them ancient greece monsters was? Ill remember that.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Now you may find the foregoing aggressive. That's good, that's how it's intended, because your contrived style is implicitly aggressive.

Aha! Your present style is not natural to you. If its comfy to you I suggest you keep it. At least when u & I communicate. Dont you all the time as moderator have to guard yourself? Relax! Be yourself in my presence. You hereby have my permission if it will be needed.
My writings, on the other hand, have no other "style" than a continual flow of my thoughts. Im not pretending to be something Im not.
I find English Language Mannerisms barbaric! Its "please" here "Sir" there "if I may say so" everywhere...
Why do you feel the urge to lick each other assets all the time? Whats wrong with honestly and fearlessly saying what you think?
And your style of "insults"? ... #Shakes his heads# ... I rest my case.

Originally Posted by John Galt

If you were unaware of this consider yourself informed, then change, and then we can have a productive conversation.

Yes Im now informed. I WILL try to be civil,
and IF you kindly consider me a cobra
and stops your semantic manipulations...
I might enjoy conversation...youre not stupid.

Originally Posted by question for you

I have a few questions about this most interesting subject.

How 'big' or complex are these single celled organisms thought to have been?

Where did they come from? chemistry? what a load of atoms formed a 'magic' combination and then boom, we have a reproducing life forms? How does that work?
How do these single celled organisms get energy?

And back to the question at hand... what is the theory on how these single celled organisms managed to combine into a multicellular organism functionaing as one?

Is hydrogen not the first life form on Earth? doesn't the 'gen' in hydrogen stand for 'seed'... doesn't the fact that hydrogen reacts to stimulous and behaves in a certain way mean that it has some form of code inside it?
It is not a dead thing is it? it has motion and behaviour?

When it comes to the theory... how big are these 'single celled organisms' compared with an atom of hydrogen?

I think your questions are legitimate. But what do you mean by "dead thing"? To be (alive) is to be
a thermodynamic dissipative system far from equilibrium and that does not fit hydrogen. So elementary particles are dead as I see it.

On the other hand I think you are impressed by order...impressed by the fact the universe is a law abiding structure... You are also (like me) impressed by consciousness and suspects it has more importance then generally is assigned to it. Well... you may be correct in that.
Who knows? Its not logically impossible, and until somebody proves that "pure energy" is NOT equivalent to "pure consciousness" I wouldnt worry if I were you.

Life starting in the drop of water at the centre of what will be the sun. Huh? This "Theory of Life" doesn't rate as a reasoned hypothesis let alone have the overwhelming weight of evidence needed to be a theory. A bit of speculation can be interesting and fun but I'm not sure this speculation even achieves the minimum necessary for Pseudo-Science. I'd vote for the Trash Can.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Do you have any opinions on the theory of life and related matters?

Yes. Your speculations in the OP are ill informed nonsense, unsupported by substative scientific evidence, poorly presented and lacking any redeeming feature. These of course are only opinions - the facts are more damaging to your case.

So you equate the theory of life with the theory of mine you see in my intro...
I dont know if I should be flattered...
or insulted by your ignorance: The theory of life is Darwins Theory of Evolution since it has no competition right?

But I consider MY theory as a related matter and I look forward to the moment when you instead of presenting your
opinions will present some facts together with an argument that relates them into a conclusion supporting any opinion of yours...
Until then I will ignore you unless you function as a moderator. Happy now?

Hi Ken Fabos.

Would you mind telling what makes you think I ever claimed that
life started in a drop of water at the centre of what became the sun.
( Are you not English or Careless? It seems as if you misuse "the")

@ Sigurd

I admit of writing emotionally

This is a science forum. Passion and animation in describing scientific concepts, or in defending the scientific method, or explaining the foundations of a theory, are welcome. Allowing that passion to overwhelm sound construction of arguments and delivery of your message is self defeating. I’ve given you advice to discontinue that approach. It reflects badly on you if you choose not to.

I was close to the end of a short story about how we might happen to be in our present situation.

You told the story very badly. You are meant to be presenting a scientific hypothesis, not a fairy story with literary pretensions. By all means practice your English essay skills, but not in the heart of a science forum. It clouds the goals of the forum and tends to confuse those who come here to learn.

But what facts are misrepresented.

You make a clear statement, emboldened in the quote and which I drew attention to, that “we resisted change for two billion years”. I was not the first to point out that this was wholly inaccurate, yet you make no acknowledgement and seek to divert discussion to an irrelevancy upon which you have not been challenged.

What gave you the impression I want to impress you?

I did not say or imply you wanted to impress me, I said you wished to impress ‘with your schoolboy knowledge of Greek Mythology’. You wish to impress others. I don’t know who. But those on a science site having a classical education in the opening decades of the 21^st century will be as thin on the ground as a literary allusion in the heat of battle. Pretending otherwise is pretentious; an affectation that obscures rather than clarifies.

Didn’t you understand what my intention in miss spelling (sic) the names of the ancient greek (sic) monsters was?

Of course I understood it which is why I responded with ‘Either, Sigurd, you admit it was a silly comment, or – if you wish to be more chary – you could dis those that argue otherwise.’

Silly = Scylla chary be & dis = Charybdis. I used paronomasia with Greek legends to make a point. This is inappropriate on a science forum, except when it is the most effective way of illustrating a point. Do you now get that point?

Are you really that valuable as a critic?

My employers think so.

I’d like to read your objections to my story.

1. Incoherent
2. No executive summary.
3. No evidential support.
4. Assertions made as facts that are not supported by evidence, but actually contradicted by it.

And I’ll add to that, what seems to be a deliberate attempt to add ambiguity. This is well illustrated by your reference to a drop of water at the centre of the sun. You introduce it and talk of it later in a way that implies you think this is what happened, yet carefully use words to indicate you think this is the least likely way the process might have occurred.
In English there is a word to describe that approach. The word is dishonest.

I find English Language Mannerisms barbaric!

1. I don’t care. I do care that you are murdering the language. I concede that it may actually be manslaughter, but if you continue to throttle it when advised what you are doing, then it becomes murder.
2. Your view on the language is irrelevant to this scientific discussion. Your misuse of language is not.

Yes I’m now informed. I WILL try to be civil.

So far your efforts have failed completely. You have retained a style that is aggressive, introduces irrelevant side issues, ignores direct questions or assertions and lacks the objectivity appropriate for a discussion of your hypothesis.

The theory of life is Darwins Theory of Evolution since it has no competition right?

Wrong on two counts.
1. You are talking about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory in general and Darwin’s theory in particular have nothing to say about that.
2. Darwin’s theory no longer constitutes current thinking. At the very least we have the Modern Synthesis, now over half a century old, with so many additions and adaptations that some would give it a new name.

Originally Posted by Kompi

Originally Posted by sigurdV

First I abstract: IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X

Then I exemplify: And i dont think i have to be formal about it among "friends". Say we wrote an essay, then we try to improve it by proofreading it...Are you saying it in general takes us longer time to check our essays for spelling mistakes than the time spent to write them?

No, but I am saying that it will take you a significantly shorter time to create an empty document in which to start writing your essay in than it will take you to write the actual essay itself.

Good try! BUT: I think you underestimate the complexity of a single cell if you compare it to an empty document.
Also you probably overrestimate the complexity of my essays...I really TRY to keep them as simple as possible.

But ok. Ill take the bait:

We start from atoms and put them (one by one for the fun of it) together to form an empty document. Check the time it took. Then I do the improvement. Since the paper is the first in a series, I write "1" in the upper right corner ... it will take me a second.
Now compare the respective times spent. Satisfied?

Originally Posted by Kompi

[

Or, to take a more elaborate example from my own field of expertise, making an initial prototype to test an implementation or concept is significantly simpler and swifter a task than the following gradually iterative task of then refining, optimising, debugging and further implementing said concept until you arrive at something that is in a state presentable enough to be shippable.

Now I get suspicious. In my experience prototype builders are lazy creatures always using bad excuses for the vital components...
I once complained that one such part soon would need to be replaced and the bastard said: That means you make more cash by replacing parts! Are you also like that? With some reluctance I proceed:

Originally Posted by Kompi

In near any field of human development, making early models and prototypes for rough testing of basic concepts is typically always quicker and cheaper than the time required to make a full-featured production model - which is why we develop the models and prototypes to begin with. It is always a slow, iterative process that rarely prompts a complete and full-featured result from the get go. And while life and evolution clearly does not happen with the benefit of foresight, why would it be so strange that they develop through a similar, iterative process?

Darwin had a similar problem: He had to explain how nature could make a part of skin into an eye. The "trick" is a very long process of very small improvements. Im not really sure of your intention here!

Are you trying to refute the Theory of Evolution?

Why do you insist that the whole troublesome trial and error process up to the functioning eye is necessary!
When all that is needed is a first link (in the evolution chain) that fits the requirement of turning a single cell into a complex cell?
An obvious example is a cell consuming another cell that refuses to be food and instead starts a new symbiotic living in the host cell?
The improvement is rather fast huh?
Thats how you got your mitochondries they say... (Dont bother correcting my zpelling.)

Perhaps I again should explain that the "anomaly" is not a problem of my own design!
1 it took 100000 thousand years for evolution to construct a cell
2 it took two billion years for evolution to construct a complex cell

The EXPERTS found this disparity and I was informed by reading about it,
and shared their perplexity...if you can solve their problem then tell them.
But this particular abstraction of the problem experts recognize is mine:
IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X
Go ahead. Disprove me. I should be wrong, dont you think?

To the casual reader and devoted lurker, take note:

Sigurd seems to think there are two cases and only two cases two consider: the simple cell; the complex cell. He asserts "we resisted change for two billion years".

He is mistaken. He also appears to have moved the goalposts since he implicitly or explicitly entered this conversation in regard to the evolution of multi-cellularity. But we'll stick with simple to complex.

We do not know what form the earliest life took. Many argue that it was based upon RNA, not DNA. (google RNA world). Others argue that metabolism (i.e. metabolic cycles) preceded genetic machinery. So the first series of complex steps was to produce a lifeform that approximated a current bacterium.

The majority of researchers agree these early bacteria would lack the sophisitcation of current models. A further series of changes would be required to move to that stage.

As things progressed the environment was being changed, slowly at first with the release of oxygen. (And there we have missed a major step, the emergence of oxygen emitting bacteria.)

Then we have to move towards a nucleated cell; to change other aspects of metabolism and so forth. A single step? Pure nonsense.

Surprise! I decided that you TRY to communicate. So I show up.

Originally Posted by John Galt

To the casual reader and devoted lurker, take note:

Sigurd seems to think there are two cases and only two cases two consider: the simple cell; the complex cell.

Its a simplification: There is a division of time into two consecutive intervals of different duration:

Interval 1 from the time earth was cool enough to support life until the first simple cell was there.
its duration is (according to you john) 100000 million years.
Interval 2 from the first simple cell to the first complex cell...according to what Ive read somewhere its duration is two billion years.
(I would like to have the duration verified!)
The scientific problem is to explain the difference in size of the intervals.
According to my source no accepted explanation yet exists... (unverified fact)

Originally Posted by John Galt

He asserts "we resisted change for two billion years".

He is mistaken.

The day you declare im NOT mistaken (I dont care WHAT Im not mistaken in) I will give money to some charity organisation.
Be a good fellow and tell me what the mistake IS...I see two possibilities.

Either theres some mistake in the duration, or "we" didnt resist change...
By"we" I dont mean you and me, john, and the absolute value of the duration in question was not estimated by me: I only reported what I read somewhere. Dont keep us in suspension. Please tell us about the mistake and it will get corrected if possible.

Originally Posted by John Galt

He also appears to have moved the goalposts since he implicitly or explicitly entered this conversation in regard to the evolution of multi-cellularity. But we'll stick with simple to complex.

Reciprocally being kind to u... I will admit that I probably did both mistakes at the same time...
Im efficient u know...Is it ok if I wait until later with the self flagellation?.

Originally Posted by John Galt

We do not know what form the earliest life took. Many argue that it was based upon RNA, not DNA. (google RNA world). Others argue that metabolism (i.e. metabolic cycles) preceded genetic machinery. So the first series of complex steps was to produce a lifeform that approximated a current bacterium.

Youre informative...why??.

Originally Posted by John Galt

The majority of researchers agree these early bacteria would lack the sophisitcation of current models. A further series of changes would be required to move to that stage.

As things progressed the environment was being changed, slowly at first with the release of oxygen. (And there we have missed a major step, the emergence of oxygen emitting bacteria.)

Then we have to move towards a nucleated cell; to change other aspects of metabolism and so forth. A single step? Pure nonsense.

Correct me if Im wrong: You think I claim that nothing at all happened during two billion years and then: WHAM! All necessary change happens in one day... HOW!? Divine intervention? BAH!

But I appreciate your attempts to fill in the missing parts in the picture...What was really going on within the two intervals? Honest work should be encouraged: Go for it John! Hurt my pride by solving the problem

My serve: Do you deny that life is a consequence of the natural laws and the construction of the universe?
Or do you have a better formulation perhaps? Are definitions lacking? Then just fill in what you think is necessary.
We should get rid of superstition! Dont you agree?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Now I get suspicious. In my experience prototype builders are lazy creatures always using bad excuses for the vital components...
I once complained that one such part soon would need to be replaced and the bastard said: That means you make more cash by replacing parts! Are you also like that? With some reluctance I proceed:

You do realise that this statement says far, far more about you than it does about me, yes?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

We start from atoms and put them (one by one for the fun of it) together to form an empty document. Check the time it took. Then I do the improvement. Since the paper is the first in a series, I write "1" in the upper right corner ... it will take me a second.
Now compare the respective times spent. Satisfied?

So... for your analogy to actually even begin to state what you intend, you have to utilise one method to absolutely maximise the complexity of the first step, and then use a completely different method to completely minimise the second step? To be perfectly honest, to me this is starting to sound like you are basically attempting to say "If I do something very slowly, it will be slower than if I do something very quick", rather than actually observing, using the same method throughout, whether initial or future iterations take the longest amount of time to arrive.

The issue I keep finding is that you very much hold to the idea that the complexity required to create life is vastly greater than the complexity and climate required for multicellular life (or at least the form of it that evolved on our planet) but never once seem qualify it beyond "I read about some expert saying it". I feel the need to question this because as far as I can tell, there are pieces of evidence that very much suggest the move from simple, original life to multicellular life was actually highly non-trivial, and there is - as far as I am aware - evidence that suggests that certain environmental aspects that all current multicellular life that we are presently aware of were not present when life first emerged, which would mean that even if the step from single-celled to multicellular life was a trivial one, it might not have been possible until certain elements and gases had been released into the environment, which only then happened about two billion years later.

And certainly, as a layman I can not deny that there is the possibility the expert you make vague references to may be correct, but I also feel it is essentially impossible to weigh that - or the coherency of any hypothesis that rests upon said experts - without actually being able to disseminate what they actually wrote and what problems they are specifically referring to.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

But this particular abstraction of the problem experts recognize is mine:
IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X
Go ahead. Disprove me. I should be wrong, dont you think?

Well so far as your abstraction is concerned, if you apply it generally then you are wrong, there really is no space to debate that. The thing is that you are essentially using the waterfall method as the basis for your reason, and seemingly making the false assumption that all development follows that paradigm - which is not the case. It is understandable, mind you - the waterfall paradigm is in many ways the most immediately obvious because you have a problem, you work on a solution and then you test a solution in a very sequential manner - like a waterfall, hence the name. The issue with it is that as the problem increases in complexity, it becomes increasingly more cumbersome to deal with as you will have many more possible points of error that you have to address in retrospect, and each of these errors may or may not require altering a significant amount of what you already have done.

In response to these kinds of problems, a great deal of thought and research has been put into inventing other paradigms that avoid the problems the waterfall method faces with increasing complexity - several accomplish this by dividing the initial problem into many smaller problems which are then solved one or a few at a time - in my field, such methods are called "agile" methods.

I will not bore you with the entirety of the details (not to mention this is already a significant digression and I would rather not stray too far from the topic at hand), but suffice it to say that agile paradigms take a very Darwinian approach to development, creating a new iteration (or "generation", if you will) of the thing being developed with rather short intervals - usually every one or two weeks. This iteration is implemented, tested and observed at the end of its iteration and then the next iteration (or generation) will build from that version and implement a new version that is slightly more complicated, until the project arrives at the desired result. Essentially, you end up with a model where the very first version of the X you are creating is built in one or two weeks, but the final version that is ready for release can easily take up to 18 months (or, at worst, several years!) to complete.

Essentially, this manner of development model, where the time required to improve X is vastly longer than the time to create X, the process that has created the web browser you are reading this on, the operative system that said web browser is running on, the HTTP protocol with which the web browser communicated with the server that hosts this forum and the HTML standard with which this text is encoded. Basically, if your abstraction was right in a general sense, I very much doubt you would be able to read this reply right now.

I would like to end this significant digression with a question though, in the hopes that it takes my post somewhat back on the relevant track. Namely - considering how when we attempt to mimic an evolutionary development paradigm for human projects we end up with a situation where indeed creating an initial version of X is vastly swifter than improving upon X, does it not also reasonably follow that evolution itself would follow a similar sort of time curve?

(edit: reference links to certain concepts
Waterfall model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

SigurV , in reply to your query, from your comment at @6 you said

Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened, so a drop of water at the center of what will be the Sun is the place where the first life occured.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

sV , in reply to your query, from your comment at @6 you said

Lets suppose that the scenario with the minimum probability actually was what happened,
so a drop of water at the center of what will be the Sun is the place where the first life occured.

Are you saying your quote (thank u for making conversation possible)
is proof that I CLAIMED that life really began in what later became the sun?
I think it only proves that I for some reason made that SUPPOSITION.

I wonder: Do you think the notion is impossible? If so: WHY?

(I think I did it so I could ask you the above question.)

Moderator Warning:

sigurdV, your posts are loaded with provocative words, supercilious tone, passive-aggressive style, snide remarks and are generally calculated to incite emotional reactions from your readers. You are using cheap parlour tricks to divert attention from the core of your argument and its attendant weakness.

Enough is enough. From this point forward your posts will lack those characteristics or you will face a suspension. I do not wish to hear that you do not understand what I mean. Wounded innocence is not going to work here. If you don't like the tenor and intent of this warning then contact another mod or admin by pm. Do not challenge this ruling within this or any other thread. If you do you will receive a suspension.

This ruling applies to all threads you participate in on this forum.

Further, I expect to see a proper citation to the expert's work you keep referring to, within 48 hours. If I don't, this thread goes into Speculations, or worse.

Originally Posted by Kompi

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Now I get suspicious. In my experience prototype builders are lazy creatures always using bad excuses for the vital components...
I once complained that one such part soon would need to be replaced and the bastard said: That means you make more cash by replacing parts! Are you also like that? With some reluctance I proceed:

You do realise that this statement says far, far more about you than it does about me, yes?

Yes. And you do realise your answer says far, far more about you than it does about me, yes?

Originally Posted by Kompi

[

Originally Posted by sigurdV

We start from atoms and put them (one by one for the fun of it) together to form an empty document. Check the time it took. Then I do the improvement. Since the paper is the first in a series, I write "1" in the upper right corner ... it will take me a second.
Now compare the respective times spent. Satisfied?

So... for your analogy to actually even begin to state what you intend, you have to utilise one method to absolutely maximise the complexity of the first step, and then use a completely different method to completely minimise the second step?

YES! Isnt our analysis of the anatomy of analogies interesting in itself?

Originally Posted by Kompi

[

To be perfectly honest, to me this is starting to sound like you are basically attempting to say "If I do something very slowly, it will be slower than if I do something very quick", rather than actually observing, using the same method throughout, whether initial or future iterations take the longest amount of time to arrive.?

In principle I couldnt agree more! I think you will find (in other words though) if you scroll back that I share your opinion. But IF my opponent does not refrain from changing the relationship between the concepts of "object" and "improvement of object" THEN Im free to do the same.

Originally Posted by Kompi

The issue I keep finding is that you very much hold to the idea that the complexity required to create life is vastly greater than the complexity and climate required for multicellular life (or at least the form of it that evolved on our planet) but never once seem qualify it beyond "I read about some expert saying it". I feel the need to question this

And I feel the need to clarify! I like your manner of communication!
I will now use the ancient method of inventing personalities discussing the matter:
Sv: Hey! This guy says it took longer to improve the first cell than creating it from scratch!
sV: SO? What if life is older than the planets?
Sv: Howzo? How can that be?
sV: If lifes origin is not to be found on a planet.
Sv: But lifes origin was on earth!
sV: Do you always believe what you cant prove?
Sv: Ok smartazz... where was the origin of life.
sV: It could be older than the universe... its not proven not to be.
Sv: STOP kidding around! Answer!
sV: Since you ask politely Ill guess: How about in what became the orbit of the earth?
Leaving the pair eternally quarreling I return to our conversation:

Originally Posted by Kompi

because as far as I can tell, there are pieces of evidence that very much suggest the move from simple, original life to multicellular life was actually highly non-trivial, and there is - as far as I am aware - evidence that suggests that certain environmental aspects that all current multicellular life that we are presently aware of were not present when life first emerged, which would mean that even if the step from single-celled to multicellular life was a trivial one, it might not have been possible until certain elements and gases had been released into the environment, which only then happened about two billion years later.:

Originally Posted by Kompi

And certainly, as a layman I can not deny that there is the possibility the expert you make vague references to may be correct, but I also feel it is essentially impossible to weigh that - or the coherency of any hypothesis that rests upon said experts - without actually being able to disseminate what they actually wrote and what problems they are specifically referring to.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

But this particular abstraction of the problem experts recognize is mine:
IT CANT TAKE A SHORTER TIME TO CONSTRUCT X THAN TO IMPROVE UPON X
Go ahead. Disprove me. I should be wrong, dont you think?

Well so far as your abstraction is concerned, if you apply it generally then you are wrong, there really is no space to debate that.

What a pity! A few remarks perhaps?
When you abstract from a statement you dont get a statement!
Only statements are possibly true!
What there is now is a statement function,
and its truth depends on how you replace whats been abstracted.
(And how you interprete the components of the function...
actually doing another hidden abstraction and exemplifying
changing the semantics sophistically)

Originally Posted by Kompi

The thing is that you are essentially using the waterfall method as the basis for your reason, and seemingly making the false assumption that all development follows that paradigm - which is not the case. It is understandable, mind you - the waterfall paradigm is in many ways the most immediately obvious because you have a problem, you work on a solution and then you test a solution in a very sequential manner - like a waterfall, hence the name. The issue with it is that as the problem increases in complexity, it becomes increasingly more cumbersome to deal with as you will have many more possible points of error that you have to address in retrospect, and each of these errors may or may not require altering a significant amount of what you already have done.

In response to these kinds of problems, a great deal of thought and research has been put into inventing other paradigms that avoid the problems the waterfall method faces with increasing complexity - several accomplish this by dividing the initial problem into many smaller problems which are then solved one or a few at a time - in my field, such methods are called "agile" methods.

I will not bore you with the entirety of the details (not to mention this is already a significant digression and I would rather not stray too far from the topic at hand), but suffice it to say that agile paradigms take a very Darwinian approach to development, creating a new iteration (or "generation", if you will) of the thing being developed with rather short intervals - usually every one or two weeks. This iteration is implemented, tested and observed at the end of its iteration and then the next iteration (or generation) will build from that version and implement a new version that is slightly more complicated, until the project arrives at the desired result. Essentially, you end up with a model where the very first version of the X you are creating is built in one or two weeks, but the final version that is ready for release can easily take up to 18 months (or, at worst, several years!) to complete.

Essentially, this manner of development model, where the time required to improve X is vastly longer than the time to create X,( no problem with that Sir!) the process that has created the web browser you are reading this on, the operative system that said web browser is running on, the HTTP protocol with which the web browser communicated with the server that hosts this forum and the HTML standard with which this text is encoded. Basically, if your abstraction was right in a general sense, I very much doubt you would be able to read this reply right now.

I would like to end this significant digression(its interesting reading you are hereby invited to construct more of the sort) with a question though, in the hopes that it takes my post somewhat back on the relevant track. Namely - considering how when we attempt to mimic an evolutionary development paradigm for human projects we end up with a situation where indeed creating an initial version of X is vastly swifter than improving upon X, does it not also reasonably follow that evolution itself would follow a similar sort of time curve? (Im not comfortable in using the consept "evolution itself")

(edit: reference links to certain concepts
Waterfall model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

coming to the end of interesting reading I express myself as simply as possible: I stated a problem! IF you solve it, THEN I will applaud you!

SigurdV - yes I think your statements/speculations/suppositions about the origins of life at the centre of a pre-Sun solar system - whether in a drop of water at the core or other variants - are impossible. Reasons include the very short period of time between being part of a molecular cloud and the formation of a protostar - estimated at ~100,000 years - during which any occurrances of liquid water would be short-lived and transient. Although not capable of fusion a protostar core is hot enough to emit microwaves and is too hot for biological chemistry. The entire 'body' of that protostar - mostly Hydrogen and Helium, not water - would preclude the existence of any stable body of water and not be conducive to biochemistry or the initiation of life.

Estimated 50 million years to enough heat and pressure for fusion, in evolutionary terms is short, even for stable bodies of liquid water which I think would not exist. The whole inner region of the proto-solar-sytem would be sterilised by that transformation of protostar into the sun - if it weren't devoid of life already. Further out would never have gotten warm enough for liquid water until after the protostar became the sun.

I say impossible.

Speculation about the possibility of life being initiated outside of planetary environments can be interesting but I would prefer a less confrontational discussion to encourage my ongoing participation. My own confrontational contributions are regretted.

I think a constructive start would be for you to describe in a credible way how conditions - such as enduring bodies of liquid water containing biochemical precursors - can exist in a proto-solar-system. Or reasons why short-lived ones would be sufficient for some exceptionally tough extremophiles to evolve and survive to seed Earth's oceans. Your speculations need some foundations in what is known about the formation of the solar system, what is known about bio-chemistry and what is known about abiogenesis. Or some reasoned criticisms and credible alternatives.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

YES! Isnt our analysis of the anatomy of analogies interesting in itself?

In a context discussing the intricacies of linguistics I might be inclined to agree - after all, language and the use of language is an interesting field that can say a lot both about human culture, the human mind and the specific user in general. Right now however, it is superfluous (and and a tad puzzling because I hardly found it a riveting observation so much as just noting what is in plain sight)

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I think you will find (in other words though) if you scroll back that I share your opinion. But IF my opponent does not refrain from changing the relationship between the concepts of "object" and "improvement of object" THEN Im free to do the same.

However, when the analogy you constructed was meant as a figure to explain what you felt that I said, and I then corrected it by showing what I actually said; attempting to change it again without qualification is nothing but attempting to put words in my mouth rather than addressing the actual point.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

When you abstract from a statement you dont get a statement!
Only statements are possibly true!

So first you ask me to show your abstraction as wrong, and then when I do so, this is what you fall back to? Really?

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Im not comfortable in using the consept "evolution itself"

Well if you do not mind me saying so, that would seem to explain a great deal.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

SigurdV - yes I think your statements/speculations/suppositions about the origins of life at the centre of a pre-Sun solar system - whether in a drop of water at the core or other variants - are impossible. Reasons include the very short period of time between being part of a molecular cloud and the formation of a protostar - estimated at ~100,000 years - during which any occurrances of liquid water would be short-lived and transient. Although not capable of fusion a protostar core is hot enough to emit microwaves and is too hot for biological chemistry. The entire 'body' of that protostar - mostly Hydrogen and Helium, not water - would preclude the existence of any stable body of water and not be conducive to biochemistry or the initiation of life.

Estimated 50 million years to enough heat and pressure for fusion, in evolutionary terms is short, even for stable bodies of liquid water which I think would not exist. The whole inner region of the proto-solar-sytem would be sterilised by that transformation of protostar into the sun - if it weren't devoid of life already. Further out would never have gotten warm enough for liquid water until after the protostar became the sun.

I say impossible.

Speculation about the possibility of life being initiated outside of planetary environments can be interesting but I would prefer a less confrontational discussion to encourage my ongoing participation. My own confrontational contributions are regretted.

I think a constructive start would be for you to describe in a credible way how conditions - such as enduring bodies of liquid water containing biochemical precursors - can exist in a proto-solar-system. Or reasons why short-lived ones would be sufficient for some exceptionally tough extremophiles to evolve and survive to seed Earth's oceans. Your speculations need some foundations in what is known about the formation of the solar system, what is known about bio-chemistry and what is known about abiogenesis. Or some reasoned criticisms and credible alternatives.

Thank you for being reasonable!
You have my permission to stay confronting.
Im comfortable with any reasonable argument however confounding.

I dont usually care HOW a relevant semantic content is packaged.
Please continue to resist searching for insulting interpretations of my text.

That said I ask if the spot
at the center of the system
always was hot?

There is a difference between impossible and improbable. It is impossible (isnt it?) that clouds have spots in their centers that always were hot. At some time in their past there was a time when the density and temperature of the "hotspot" allowed H2O not to be a gas! I deny that stellar clouds begin with a hotspot attracting all other matter to it. But ok... that is still not enough for life to begin...perhaps conditions were such that frozen water instead of melting into water went immediately to gas! But that cannot be said of all conditions from the center out towards the rim of the cloud in consideration. (I think)

Somewhere on the radius defined by the hotspot is a first borderpoint defining the beginning of a segment of the radius around where water in the form of ice, for a period however short, exists as ordinary water. Then comes a second borderpoint at the other side of which water is found only in frozen form all the way out to the rim.

The picture is a simplification. There should be more radius segments defining volumes within the cloud where planets will be formed using elements originating from the defined volume its formed in...

(EDIT: I notice you think water in liquid form did never exist elsewhere in the system before planets were formed.
I ask: Why couldnt water be liquid where the Earth later was formed? In the "proto earth".)

Whether life will form somewhere in the system or not, should be a function (among other variables) of time and volume. And my layman guess is that the time in question is more than 100000 million years and that the volume is more than one Earth. Reducing the probability of Earth containing the point of origin of life in our system.

Perhaps the system was not always in the form of a disc defined by a center? I think that line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the hotspot once was cold and gradually heated up, and at a certain point in time allowing water to exist as a liquid in the form of disconnected drops.This period when water drops exists at the center may be short, but I dont see how I may dare to conclude the impossibility of there being at least one drop where life against odds happened to begin. I can not on my own make the step from improbable to impossible. Please help.

Above is my INITIAL response to the very first reading of your post. I will soon look closer at it and try to locate and understand the points of yours proving the impossibility of life beginning "near the center of our system". Im not in a hurry so Ill now post this reaction in case ive made mistakes already.

But I feel a comment is needed: Personally I dont care much WHERE nor HOW life began in the system.
I think its but an interesting detail in a big picture. Im more interested in the question "WHY?":

BECAUSE: (I suspect that) most stellar clouds (except the first) will create (But not NECESSARILY sustain) life somewhere in the transition from a stellar cloud to a Solar System.

IZ DAT ZO!? What are then the consequences? Will, for example, life extend or diminish the expected duration of the period within which our universe is able to change?

Next: #Reading your relevant post more carefully.#

My initial reaction on beginning second reading is that you are not only reasonable but also FRIENDLY...
A most astonishing fact.
I will immediately consider you to be a friend! Done. At the moment I have no further comments.

EDIT: After checking this whole thread, I would like to ask you if you ever, anywhere but here, saw discussed the difference between the time it took for evolution to "form the first primitive cell on Earth" and the time it took to "form the first complex cell"? If so: Where?

I vaguely remember reading something about it
but it may have been more than twenty years ago
and it probably was not on internet.

Further, I expect to see a proper citation to the expert's work you keep referring to, within 48 hours. If I don't, this thread goes into Speculations, or worse.

Still waiting. Time is running out Sigurd.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Time is running out Sigurd.

I had a hunch that John was one of those apocalypse beleivers.

Don't go opening the closet door!

SigurdV, don't assume I am friendly; I'm just being polite.

I said liquid water could be only be very short-lived phenomena and it would need to be long-lived for any reasonable chance of life to initiate. If, by some infinitesimal chance it did initiate, it would be doomed. As far as I'm concerned that is effectively the same as impossible. The time during which temperature and pressure are right for the existence of liquid water would be very short and most of the matter will be hydrogen and helium which would mix quickly once H2O is not solid- a mixture that is not suitable for biochemistry. Actually I think any bodies of ice would be shattered, scattered and mixed into that molecular cloud long before sufficient heat and pressure existed for liquid water to exist. Being at the centre of that gravity anomaly makes it unlikely that material is going to be ejected and more matter, compression and heat would follow.

I say it's impossible.

Given that large enduring bodies of water came into existence (still in existence) after the Earth formed, where variety of processes across a variety of environments produce complex biochemicals that can be precursors, it's much more reasonable to think that the waters of Earth are where Earth's life initiated.

I ask: Why couldnt water be liquid where the Earth later was formed? In the "proto earth".

There was permanent liquid water there, after the Earth was formed. Liquid water before and during Earth's formation as a planet, with extremes of temperature and pressure and turbulence that even long adapted extremophiles couldn't survive seems an unlikely to the point of impossible environment for life to initiate. Even the early oceans are believed to have boiled off repeatedly from the heat energy of meteoric bombardments before becoming a permanent feature. I say impossible.

As for more 'conventional' ideas of panspermia - Earth being seeded by life that initiated elsewhere - I think can ultimately be shown to be true or reasonable (or not) by sampling other planets, asteroids, comets and other material in space.

I think your "theory of life" is nonsense and you are completely ignoring what is known about the formation of our solar system. You are speculating about extreme (to the point of impossible) improbabilities when reasonable and obvious possibilities are right in front of you.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Further, I expect to see a proper citation to the expert's work you keep referring to, within 48 hours. If I don't, this thread goes into Speculations, or worse.

Still waiting. Time is running out Sigurd.

You might as well do it at once. I have no chance to deliver in time:

1 The knowledge must stem from a book or a paper...New Sciemtist...Scientific American or such: READ perhaps twenty years ago!
So I havent the faintest idea if it was stephen gould , jared diamond etc etc behind the anomaly staying in my memory.

2 And why do you you want it? Will the problem be solved by knowing exactly who told me about it? After all Its not secret knowledge. Its supposed to be scientific knowledge and therefore not dependent on its first discoverer!

3 Isnt it a scientific fact that it took 100000 million years before single cells appeared on Earth?
And isnt it a scientific fact that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear?

WHY? must I be able to inform you who told me this?? Is it normal Scientific Procedure john?
To me it looks like something else.

Im going to find something substantial if it IS scientific knowledge...If I dont...
Then ill decide that I dreamed the whole thing and claim Discovery Rights.

Maybe I should ask the questions in blue in other forums? That might speed up
the search for the answer to your question? Some scientific moderator
will perhaps confirm it as scientific knowledge...Would you accept a quote then?

Isnt it a scientific fact that it took 100000 million years before single cells appeared on Earth?
And isnt it a scientific fact that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear?

Surely you've learned how to use Google Scholar by now.

If you "think" you read it in a science reporting magazine years ago, then there should be a paper or two(thousand) if you search on the subject.
If you "think" a particular report was about a particular scientist's work, then there should a paper or two(hundred) if you search on the person's name.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

SigurdV, don't assume I am friendly; I'm just being polite.

I said liquid water could be only be very short-lived phenomena and it would need to be long-lived for any reasonable chance of life to initiate. If, by some infinitesimal chance it did initiate, it would be doomed. As far as I'm concerned that is effectively the same as impossible. The time during which temperature and pressure are right for the existence of liquid water would be very short and most of the matter will be hydrogen and helium which would mix quickly once H2O is not solid- a mixture that is not suitable for biochemistry. Actually I think any bodies of ice would be shattered, scattered and mixed into that molecular cloud long before sufficient heat and pressure existed for liquid water to exist. Being at the centre of that gravity anomaly makes it unlikely that material is going to be ejected and more matter, compression and heat would follow.

I say it's impossible.

Given that large enduring bodies of water came into existence (still in existence) after the Earth formed, where variety of processes across a variety of environments produce complex biochemicals that can be precursors, it's much more reasonable to think that the waters of Earth are where Earth's life initiated.

I ask: Why couldnt water be liquid where the Earth later was formed? In the "proto earth".

There was permanent liquid water there, after the Earth was formed. Liquid water before and during Earth's formation as a planet, with extremes of temperature and pressure and turbulence that even long adapted extremophiles couldn't survive seems an unlikely to the point of impossible environment for life to initiate. Even the early oceans are believed to have boiled off repeatedly from the heat energy of meteoric bombardments before becoming a permanent feature. I say impossible.

As for more 'conventional' ideas of panspermia - Earth being seeded by life that initiated elsewhere - I think can ultimately be shown to be true or reasonable (or not) by sampling other planets, asteroids, comets and other material in space.

I think your "theory of life" is nonsense and you are completely ignoring what is known about the formation of our solar system. You are speculating about extreme (to the point of impossible) improbabilities when reasonable and obvious possibilities are right in front of you.

I will come back to you... Im not done with you yet.
Read and comment this:

"Let's take a look at prebiogenesis (as I like to think of it), or as archeo-organic chemistry. Have you heard this reasoning before?

Assume a very large body of water, comprising those terrestial regions where depth is less than 10 meters, along coastlines. Assume massive amounts of solutes from lava-water interaction, and volcanic dusts. Assume massive amounts of ammonia, CO2, N2, Sulpher in various guises, many acidic. Assume large temperature (thermal) fluctuations, lightning bolts, solar radiation, and cosmic radiation due to lack of ozone. In other words, "Soup" Assume a lot of Time.

We know from experiments that a virtually unlimited variety of carbon compounds will eventually result out of this Soup. Many species of molecule will be relatively common, other rare. Consider that we have a huge number of "test tubes" available for natural chemistry experiments: hidden coves, caves, mudflats, tidal flats, beach zones, pools, lakes, etc. The Earth is a big place, so 10 to the 10th power of cubic-meter sized "test-tubes" is plausible. Let the average lifetime of each "test-tube" be a year, so in a billion years, we have 10^19 chemistry experiments.

We are concerned only with experiments where molecules of a minimum size can form; say an atomic weight of 100,000. that would be around approx 7,000 to 10,000 Carbon atoms in the molecule. Naturally, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, with traces of iron, sulfur and phosphorus would make up the rest, since those are the most common.

What we are looking for is NOT "life". We are looking for chemical reactions that reproduce molecules. For example, A + B + C + energy => D + E.
But E + 2F + energy => 2B + G. As you can see by inspection, the molecule B (whatever it is) will tend to multiply. There may be other reactions going on that destroy B, but if over time the average production per cycle is > 1, then B will multiply.

However, if B's average percentage of all chems changes that much, then we have changed the chemical environment, and now we have a "different" experiment, that enables (or retards) other reactions. Even in one "test tube" (a cubic meter of Soup) we would not be surprised to see that every time we visited it, the "recipe" in that test tube has changed, perhaps drastically.

Over Time (big T, millions of years) what we're going to see is that there are a large number (billions?) of molecules that are favored. They will be in cyclical reactions that produce them much faster than they die off. They probably play a role in many of those reactions, such that the greater the presence of B, the faster B is produced. up to a point of course.

The presence of so many concentrated species of molecules is constantly changing the landscape of both chemistry and environment. As this occurs, the average molecular weight of the dominate species also increases. More complexity and more complex reactions become possible. All it takes is more Time for a species of molecule to arrive on the scene that directly makes (near) copies of itself. For example:
J + 10K + 22L + 16M + 4 N => 2J + 32P + 8Q + 8R
Here, J would be the first proto-RNA molecule.

"J" would spread all over the Earth, using many if not most of the 10^19 test tubes. The experiment evolves--and this is the key point. From this time onwards, we are not doing RANDOM experiments, we are doing RANDOM experiments on "J". Progress speeds up. Eventually, we have an experiment where J' is produced much more efficiently than mere J. Or maybe it is less fragile. Or maybe one of its side-effect molecules produced (ie, "8Q") assemble to protect the J'. It takes over, elbowing out the ordinary J.

Now we have a NEW experiment. 10^18 to 10^19 test tubes using J'.
Then a NEWER experiment with all those test tubes using J''.
Side reactions and the environment change as well, until happenstance produces reactions that support/protect/enable J" production, perhaps by producing a "cell wall". Clay has been suggested as a catalyst for this.

That's as far as I'm going. Or need to. We have a self-reproducing proto-RNA molecule that affects its own environment."

Theres a problem with time... Or so somebody thinks:

"I appreciate you writing this down. I have heard this before.

I do understand that this is the core of the prevailing theory for abiogenesis. I do think it appears more than a little bit wishful. Fundamentally, the statistical issue is that the first prokaryotes were pretty complex little creatures. That is, it appears subjectively that the increase in complexity from prokaryote to mammal is smaller than the increase in complexity form inorganic precursor to prokaryote. If we generally accept the 3.5 billion year age for the first prokaryote, and 4.5 billion year age of the planet, we optimistically get maybe 500 million years between adequate earth cooling and water aggregation and the generally-accepted life arrival date. Ancient prokaryotes had not just macromolecules, but organized enzyme systems with product-reactant feedback loops (just like mammals to) organized into physical deployment structures that optimize biochemical throughput.

I think that if you give youself 10^10 testubes, and put actual DNA bases, RNA bases (heck, throw in the sugars and the phosphates) and amino acids and bufferred the environment at 7.2, we would probably still have trouble getting a self replicating prokaryote in 500 million years in one of the test tubes. You can quibble with this, but this really is problematic. It is really tough to make the math work, given the size of the DNA in a prokaryote.

I don't have an issue with keeping this alternative open as a option. I just don't default to this model being reasonable.

Science does often show us surprises (heavens, particle physics comes to mind) so we can't rule your model out. But goodness, it certainly is not a comfortable hypothesis."

Originally Posted by adelady

Isnt it a scientific fact that it took 100000 million years before single cells appeared on Earth?
And isnt it a scientific fact that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear?

Surely you've learned how to use Google Scholar by now.

If you "think" you read it in a science reporting magazine years ago, then there should be a paper or two(thousand) if you search on the subject.
If you "think" a particular report was about a particular scientist's work, then there should a paper or two(hundred) if you search on the person's name.

Thank you very much! I wouldnt have expected your being that kind!
Not only are you not attacking,you are trying to help a gentleman in distress!
No I havent heard about Google Scholar before.
I rarely search the net for solutions, i use more primitive methodologies.
Taking a walk, scratching my head, admiring the nightsky...
Í will look it up if and if i dont find it ill return with a cry for help.

PS: Would you mind if we continued our earlier debate?
I suspect you are the only one in here capable of carrying on
conversation with me without blowing a fuse.

I suspect you are the only one in here capable of carrying on conversation with me without blowing a fuse.

It's entirely possible that it might seem that way ... because I avoid or retreat from discussions where that is a likely outcome. I especially avoid discussions where it appears that one or more participants are avidly seeking to trigger the melting points of the available fuses.

I'll continue to keep my "blowing a fuse" point to myself.

If that makes you less likely to want to enter any discussion that I'm involved in, that's OK. Of course, when I abandon discussion it's just as likely to be because I find the direction it has taken to be no longer interesting.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by John Galt

Further, I expect to see a proper citation to the expert's work you keep referring to, within 48 hours. If I don't, this thread goes into Speculations, or worse. Still waiting. Time is running out Sigurd.

You might as well do it at once. I have no chance to deliver in time:1 The knowledge must stem from a book or a paper...New Sciemtist...Scientific American or such: READ perhaps twenty years ago!So I havent the faintest idea if it was stephen gould , jared diamond etc etc behind the anomaly staying in my memory.2 And why do you you want it? Will the problem be solved by knowing exactly who told me about it? After all Its not secret knowledge. Its supposed to be scientific knowledge and therefore not dependent on its first discoverer!3 Isnt it a scientific fact that it took 100000 million years before single cells appeared on Earth?And isnt it a scientific fact that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear?WHY? must I be able to inform you who told me this?? Is it normal Scientific Procedure john?To me it looks like something else.Im going to find something substantial if it IS scientific knowledge...If I dont... Then ill decide that I dreamed the whole thing and claim Discovery Rights.Maybe I should ask the questions in blue in other forums? That might speed up the search for the answer to your question? Some scientific moderator will perhaps confirm it as scientific knowledge...Would you accept a quote then?

only the fact I am posting from an unfamiliar tablet stops the transfer occurring now..Making claims that do not match consensus scientific wisdom require citations. It is standard forum practice. If you paid more attention to what went on around you rather than narcissistic composition you might have been aware of that.It did not take 100 billion years for single cells to appear. You have been repeating the same silly error for some time now. It smacks of incompetence. What do you think causes it?

Originally Posted by John Galt

[only the fact I am posting from an unfamiliar tablet stops the transfer occurring now..Making claims that do not match consensus scientific wisdom require citations. It is standard forum practice. If you paid more attention to what went on around you rather than narcissistic composition you might have been aware of that.It did not take 100 billion years for single cells to appear. You have been repeating the same silly error for some time now. It smacks of incompetence.

((((((nice to have somethin soothing to think about...I still feel uncomfortably hot )))))))
Did I really say that it took 100 billion years for single cells to appear. and two billion years for complex cells to appear?
How can John believe I claimed that complex cells existed before single cells did?
Why didnt he confront me about that:

Originally Posted by sigurdV

If we stick to the story ive been told
then single cells were there instantly (in geological terms)
as soon as the Earth was cool enough to sustain life.

Then Earth had to wait two billion years
until two cells decided to join company.
IF I was told the truth then the question is:
Why wait so long?

Lets compare: In this very post I wrote:
Isnt it a scientific fact that it took 100000 million years before single cells appeared on Earth?
And isnt it a scientific fact that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear?

How did "instantly" become 100000 million? ...Ill check

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 19th, 2012, 06:08 AM
John Galt

We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

The apparent short delay (say 100 million years) between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained in three ways.

1) Life arises easily. (Pssst! I agree...when conditions exist the "arising" is chemichally fast)
2) Life arrived from elsewhere.(I think so)
3) Blind luck. (No! every stellar cloud somewhere in its development produces right conditions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha! YOU DID!!Or the mistake arose when I took your figure and put it into my writings...
somehow THREE Zeroes got added without me noticing it! DID YOU DO THAT JOHN?
It WAS you raising this silly question about them numbers...
But to be fair... I conclude that it was only me doing a copying error!

You didnt show competence though...
Maybe I should repeat so you get it?

1 I say "a geologically short period"
2 You say 100 million years
3 I read you , copy and get:
4 100000 million years!

Go to a mirror John! Do you now recognize an expert?
All i conclude is that you are not trigger happy...

Originally Posted by John Galt

[
Making claims that do not match consensus scientific wisdom require citations. It is standard forum practice. If you paid more attention to what went on around you rather than narcissistic composition (rather nicely put really!)you might have been aware of that.It did not take 100 billion years for single cells to appear. You have been repeating the same silly error for some time now. It smacks of incompetence.

I cant understand why I didnt notice that period one suddenly got a thousand times longer...
nor why YOU didnt notice any change? Does it smack of incompetence?
Did you misread below or didnt you bother checking John?]

Originally Posted by sigurdV

[
If we stick to the story ive been told
then single cells were there instantly (in geological terms)
as soon as the Earth was cool enough to sustain life..

"Instantly" means 100 billion years to you?



Originally Posted by John Galt Further, I expect to see a proper citation to the expert's work you keep referring to, within 48 hours. If I don't, this thread goes into Speculations, or worse. Still waiting. Time is running out Sigurd.

Can we now leave this INSTANTLY behind us?
And instead adress my original question?
I cant believe I forgot to ask anything...

If you dont find any questions to comment Ill repeate them... 48 hours ok?

Post Scriptum: "Narcissistic Compositions"?
Hmmm... am I autistic?
Iz dat Y Im funny?
Naah!

This affair has been stupidly handled by everybody (including me) from the start. I, on my part, forgot that one should proceed posting in a step by step manner with clear statements or questions. Instead I try to present a ...eh...somewhat sketchy grander painting. And I suppose readers gets so impressed by my unusual style of writing so while admiring they forget elementary understanding.

I confess I get tired of looking at miniscule details on my mental map of the everything so I will change perspective.
You dont have to join me on my trip to the edge of Metaphysics... Lets begin at Big Bang ok?

Our first duty to Science is to refuse "supernatural causes". Right?
Our universe then begins as a highly compressed finite amount of ENERGY.Right?
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (which we have no proof that our universe actually is an example of)
the amount of energy never changes, instead the Second Law informs us that ENTROPY always changes in the same direction.Right?
It grows. Right? (If I remember things correctly, I often mistake plus for minus as perhaps was done in the matter of elementary particles.)
Life was defined by a certain Nobel Price Winner to be a "Thermodynamic Dissipative System far from Equilibrium". Right?
Which when simplified simply means it degrades available energy thereby raising entropy. Right?

Part one finished:

The first question we should enquire into (I think) is whether we should expect life to be a low probability phenomenon.
(As the religiously devoted seem to believe.) Will any copy of our Universe also produce life?
You may object that not all facts needed for the decision are presented...I would agree...
but I think there may be preliminaries to consider.
Any suggestions?

I am aware that whatever is being posted here by experts of the subject is written in simplified manner so as to be understood by ignorant but curious readers like me and cannot be made simpler. I don’t claim to have grasped and understood everything. Nevertheless, it is interesting.

I am admiringly awed at sigurdV’s claim and lonely stand. He is doing fine.

I may be wrong butI found 2 of John Galt’s statements contradictory.

One. We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

Two. Making claims that do not match consensus scientific wisdom require citations. It is standard forum practice.

Regarding the subject above, no point in threats of moving this thread to Pseudoscience. sigurdV is just full of life energy.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Our first duty to Science is to refuse "supernatural causes". Right?

Then why not just delete the word from the dictionary and never use it again? Oh, it's because then the likes of Dawkins would have one less argument against religions.

But there is no such thing as 'supernatural' is there? how can anything ever be 'supernatural'? it's only a word invented to be applied inacurately to God in order to claim that God cannot exist. If I had a concept of God, there would be nothing supernatural about it. Everything conforms to the laws of nature.

My question is: if we don't know all about the laws of nature... then isn't it arrogant to call something supernatural? Doesn't it presuppose that you actually know the limits of nature and the laws of nature in their entirety?

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I am aware that whatever is being posted here by experts of the subject is written in simplified manner so as to be understood by ignorant but curious readers like me and cannot be made simpler. I don’t claim to have grasped and understood everything. Nevertheless, it is interesting.

I am admiringly awed at sigurdV’s claim and lonely stand. He is doing fine.

I may be wrong butI found 2 of John Galt’s statements contradictory.

One. We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

Two. Making claims that do not match consensus scientific wisdom require citations. It is standard forum practice.

Regarding the subject above, no point in threats of moving this thread to Pseudoscience. sigurdV is just full of life energy.

Hi! Im not lonely I got you and truth on my side

Hey! I think I see your point:
We lack understanding so lots of quotes surely will help! Man youre sharp!

Edit:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-artic...-of-multiverse




!

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Our first duty to Science is to refuse "supernatural causes". Right?

Then why not just delete the word from the dictionary and never use it again? Oh, it's because then the likes of Dawkins would have one less argument against religions.

But there is no such thing as 'supernatural' is there? how can anything ever be 'supernatural'? it's only a word invented to be applied inacurately to God in order to claim that God cannot exist. If I had a concept of God, there would be nothing supernatural about it. Everything conforms to the laws of nature.

My question is: if we don't know all about the laws of nature... then isn't it arrogant to call something supernatural? Doesn't it presuppose that you actually know the limits of nature and the laws of nature in their entirety?

Actually, it is my understanding that the term Supernatural seems like it may have been coined to support religion by the religious, not to oppose it by the irreligious (see its latin origin: "above nature"). The idea, to my understanding, basically being that as a response to the growing understanding of nature calling many religious claims into question, it was stated that a God was above the natural world and thus was not required to obey the natural laws.

Once you eschew the supernatural, any previously supernatural entity (like a God) or mystery or miracle would be required to function within the confines of naturalism, at which point many notions would be subject to simple measurement.

(edit: as a potentially humorous aside, I think Dawkins would very much agree that yes, declaring something supernatural and thus above our ability to measure is highly arrogant - in fact, I would suspect that the tendency to declare things as supernatural is one of the many reasons why he vehemently opposes religion)

Actually Im fond of Dawkins! As a result of a backfiring joke im now the founder of the first and only Scientific religion there is. So I sorta have to be above ALL suspicions dont I? There ARE no supernatural phenomena...Ok? So we are free to proceed are we?
Im planning to do a lecture on chapter three of Dawkins popular book "The God Delusion"later on I invite you all to it when I start it.

Where was I hmmm...YES! Theres not much choices left is there? Life is a natural consequence of big bang and we know there is life in the one solar system we visited. The question of how probable life is has been religiously interpreted? The idea is that life is miracle of sorts needing supernatural assistence. So why do we still tend to assume life is a low probability event? Why dont we assume every stellar system harbours life? Is there anything else besides outmoded religious thinking advising us in the embarrASSing matter at hand? Isnt it a scientific fact that so far to our knowledge 100 % of visited solar system harbours life? Have we any Scientific reason to suspect things will continue very differently in the future when we visit other stellar systems. I would like to hear any onjection now...Im an impatient sort I hate waiting ...Ok Here I go:

LIFE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY EVENT

Feels nice to see the statement...Since its me saying it I expect to be harassed for saying it...Pick up your tomatoes and rotten eggs and try to hit me Of course its difficult to predict the future but... eh...How many civilisations might there be at the moment in our galaxy? And how many galaxes are there in the universe? Well then: How many civilisations should we reasonably expect there to be in our universe? I have, as painfully been shown, difficulties in appreciating numbers so Ill answer in a layman way:

EMBARRASSINGLY MANY

One important question a Theory of Life should answer is what the consequenses of this somewhat unusual perspective are: What are the chances for human survival in a heavily populated universe? ZERO?
What then should our policy be?

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Our first duty to Science is to refuse "supernatural causes". Right?

Then why not just delete the word from the dictionary and never use it again? Oh, it's because then the likes of Dawkins would have one less argument against religions.

But there is no such thing as 'supernatural' is there? how can anything ever be 'supernatural'? it's only a word invented to be applied inacurately to God in order to claim that God cannot exist. If I had a concept of God, there would be nothing supernatural about it. Everything conforms to the laws of nature.

My question is: if we don't know all about the laws of nature... then isn't it arrogant to call something supernatural? Doesn't it presuppose that you actually know the limits of nature and the laws of nature in their entirety?

I like your attitude! Its a peculiar blend of what is good in science and religion! I will defend your position to the utmost of my ability...But we must face Reality:

Immoral Science...seen for example in Auswitz
and Immoral Religion seen for example in South America must both be combatted first!

There is nothing wrong in trying to understand the minutest details of Reality and its nothing wrong in
admiring the beauty of Reality and hope there also is a satisfactorily explanation for it all!

So let us join forces! Insanity must end! Thank you!

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by John Galt

We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process. We have many intriguing and partially detailed proposals, but none of these provide a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway. As a consequence predictions as to the probability of life are, at present, of little scientific value.

The apparent short delay (say 100 million years) between the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment Phase and the emergence of life can be explained in three ways.

1) Life arises easily.
2) Life arrived from elsewhere.
3) Blind luck.

Until we are well advanced in developing a complete, logical, testable, demonstrable pathway, then it will be impossible to distinguish between these. (Occam's razor can be applied with equal veracity to each.)

A point of error already pointed out by others needs to be emphasised: life did not pause in development for two billion years. Claiming so, as Sigurd does, betrays fundamental flaws in his knowledge and calls into question his competence to be commenting on the origin of life. Either, Sigurd, you admit it was a silly comment, or - if you wish to be more chary - you could dis those who argue otherwise.


Sigurd you appear to think you are clever by your reference to Scylla and Charybdis (hotla and coldbdis and the Oddysey of Life). If you want to show off your education why don't you post in Greek.

It's nice to witness some perspective on the matter. I do admire you're concise yet detailed comments which do seem to cut straight through nonsense and get to the facts of the matter.

I just want to defend Sig a little by pointing out that this statement: "We lack an understanding of how life arose. More to the point we lack any sound, well structured proposal for that process." betrays fundamental flaws not only in John's knowledge, but everybody elses also, and calls into question the competence of any Human alive to be commenting on the origin of life.

So in my fairly humble and yet completely jumped up opinion... it's all good as long as none of us take ourselves too seriously.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Kompi

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Our first duty to Science is to refuse "supernatural causes". Right?

Then why not just delete the word from the dictionary and never use it again? Oh, it's because then the likes of Dawkins would have one less argument against religions.

But there is no such thing as 'supernatural' is there? how can anything ever be 'supernatural'? it's only a word invented to be applied inacurately to God in order to claim that God cannot exist. If I had a concept of God, there would be nothing supernatural about it. Everything conforms to the laws of nature.

My question is: if we don't know all about the laws of nature... then isn't it arrogant to call something supernatural? Doesn't it presuppose that you actually know the limits of nature and the laws of nature in their entirety?

Actually, it is my understanding that the term Supernatural seems like it may have been coined to support religion by the religious, not to oppose it by the irreligious (see its latin origin: "above nature"). The idea, to my understanding, basically being that as a response to the growing understanding of nature calling many religious claims into question, it was stated that a God was above the natural world and thus was not required to obey the natural laws.

Once you eschew the supernatural, any previously supernatural entity (like a God) or mystery or miracle would be required to function within the confines of naturalism, at which point many notions would be subject to simple measurement.

(edit: as a potentially humorous aside, I think Dawkins would very much agree that yes, declaring something supernatural and thus above our ability to measure is highly arrogant - in fact, I would suspect that the tendency to declare things as supernatural is one of the many reasons why he vehemently opposes religion)

On the other hand the creation of a super human such as God, although God is in many cases not seen as human, is purly power driven. How can super natural be a part of natural development. If religion throws us a curve ball in terms of a superhuman who does not need the same developing process as the natural human does, would translate that there is a phenomenon outside of the natural evolution functioning independently which is the super version.

On taking things seriously:

1 Are there "wrong" ways of practicing Science?
2 (Adding spice): Is it a scientific question?
3 If not: What shall we do with "unscientific" questions?

Comment: I dare not comment this seriously.

Why dont YOU do it?

1 Are there "wrong" ways of practicing Science?

What we do here is not "practising" science. We just talk about it, refer to papers, reports and data, teach a little to people who are new to various topics (and there's a forum member who knows about it) and show people how to work things out or work through concepts or direct them to other, more suitable, resources.
Information, guidance, assistance to put it very briefly.

3 If not: What shall we do with "unscientific" questions?

Two options.
1. Convert a poorly expressed question into scientific terms / concepts that can develop into a worthwhile discussion.
2. That's what trash cans are for.

Originally Posted by adelady

1 Are there "wrong" ways of practicing Science?

What we do here is not "practising" science. We just talk about it, refer to papers, reports and data, teach a little to people who are new to various topics (and there's a forum member who knows about it) and show people how to work things out or work through concepts or direct them to other, more suitable, resources.
Information, guidance, assistance to put it very briefly.

Theres no need here to look into forum/thread details. I leave that as an exercise.
I meant my question in a more general and serious way:
Details on how to build atom bombs, teaching (AND researching) how to torture efficiently...
to name but a few examples.

I notice a tendency of "Religion Bashing" (myself included) and since I feel that pure thought needs guidance
from pure hearts I felt I had to ...sort of... at least... try to be objective about it:

Here I claim that "supernatural" guidance
must be removed from our agenda ...
Shouldnt I in all fairness and sincerity ask what is left to us?

Originally Posted by adelady

3 If not: What shall we do with "unscientific" questions?

Two options.
1. Convert a poorly expressed question into scientific terms / concepts that can develop into a worthwhile discussion.
2. That's what trash cans are for.

I think the trash can is the dominant option isnt it? Where is the thread where the first option is demonstrated?
Is it this one? Bah! Let us leave our past behind us, asking instead what really SHOULD be done!

We want to "unite"(in lack of better word) the two possibly strongest political forces on Earth:

Science and Religion!

And my question can perhaps now be formulated very short: HOW?

I have tried thinking about it several times and I refuse to be ridiculed once again: NO COMMENTS!

We want to "unite"(in lack of better word) the two possibly strongest political forces on Earth: Science and Religion!

No chance.

They are unrelated ways of viewing reality. Mainly because religion allows unreality a seat at the table.

If you like you can see them as parallel lines of reasoning, but there is no crossover. Religion has nothing to offer science. Even when we talk about a scientific study of religion it is in the usual scientific or academic way of looking in from the outside.

Originally Posted by adelady

We want to "unite"(in lack of better word) the two possibly strongest political forces on Earth: Science and Religion!

No chance.

They are unrelated ways of viewing reality. Mainly because religion allows unreality a seat at the table.

If you like you can see them as parallel lines of reasoning, but there is no crossover. Religion has nothing to offer science. Even when we talk about a scientific study of religion it is in the usual scientific or academic way of looking in from the outside.

While I was thinking about your parallel lines I was doodling this:

0 Def: x is god only if x is a cause of reality
1 every x has a cause not identical to x (scientific principle?)
2 there is reality (Scientific fact?)


And I asked myself...What is the conclusion...That there is a god?

And as you know the whole bloody forum accused me of "sacrilege"...

Instead of saying that science now has "something" to offer religion.

Im tired. Good Night EVERYBODY!