Thread: The origin of life - won't be found here

Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere?

I find it quite short sighted (kind of like flat earth science) that science can't consider this as a realistic possibility. After all, while the universe is vast to us, it is tiny in the grand scheme of things. Kind of like how a fish bowl is the whole world to a goldfish yet it tiny compared to the windowsill it sits on.

Should a gold fish restrict looking for the answers to it's origin to that tiny goldfish bowl? How many hundreds of years should it restrict it's search to that goldfish bowl? How pathetic is that goldfish?

Is it blasphemy to suggest life originated elsewhere? I thought scientists weren't (on the whole) religious.


Meanwhile

Science IS looking outside of Earth for the origin of life, they just don't expect to find advanced or superior life, they still 'FEAR' that possibility.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11919

Science has mainly restricted it's search for life to finding water elsewhere, but this is apparrently restrictive as it is now thought life could exist in different forms to that which we know it on Earth......progress!

Considering that life can exist in different forms certainly opens up the possibilities some what.

Energy beings, beings of pure light perhaps?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...sing-link.html

Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere?

Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere?

Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned.

Your reaction is much kinder than mine would be. For my reaction to the OP is outrage at the statement "the origin of life eludes us presently" and fustration with the attitude that expects an immediate answer to all questions -- the immaturity implicit in this lack of patience with the process of investigation and discovery leaves me exasperated. Frankly this is all too reminiscent of the approach by the religious that prefer simple and quick explanations like "Goddidit" that require no effort of mind -- and thus it is MY FEELING that the "feeling" of this person is no different from the religious "feelings" of the fundamentalist YECs.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere?

Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned.

Your reaction is much kinder than mine would be. For my reaction to the OP is outrage at the statement "the origin of life eludes us presently" and fustration with the attitude that expects an immediate answer to all questions -- the immaturity implicit in this lack of patience with the process of investigation and discovery leaves me exasperated. Frankly this is all too reminiscent of the approach by the religious that prefer simple and quick explanations like "Goddidit" that require no effort of mind -- and thus it is MY FEELING that the "feeling" of this person is no different from the religious "feelings" of the fundamentalist YECs.

Good, now you know how I feel when people are short sighted and reject the idea that life on this planet could have originated by 'design'.

I am looking beyond your limited field of vision. It is you who is limited in your thinking and it is YOUR belief system that holds you back. You are more like a religious fundamentalist than I. There is no limit to my thinking, it is not confined by the box you find yourself in.

Considering that a superior being may have teraformed the planet and be responsible for initiating the process of our evolution, observing us and randomly interfering is not short sighted.

Science is now finally getting round to not only investigating the possibility that life DID NOT infact originate here but is now broadening it's understanding of what might constitute 'life' elsewhere.

I have been waiting decades for science to get to this stage, and I no doubt will wait a few more decades before it gets to the next.

But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that.

How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet. It might be blatantly obvious. Just because it's not clear here does not mean that is the case elsewhere. The reason it's not clear here is possibly simply because it did not start here.

Thus, the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.

With regards to studying these origins, accepting limitations is preferable to making it up as one goes along.

In other words, accept we may not ever know, just like the goldfish will NEVER know. They have neither the intelligence to comprehend or the means to observe, and so it could be for us and the alternate life forms that exist beyond our bubble.

No body can say with honesty that what I say is NOT possible, because simply they do not know. No one knows and know one can know. This is the beauty of our existance...it is strictly limited. We are limited. It is arrogant to assume otherwise, but I am all for trying. It makes things interesting.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by KALSTER

But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that.

How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet. It might be blatantly obvious. Just because it's not clear here does not mean that is the case elsewhere. The reason it's not clear here is possibly simply because it did not start here.

Thus, the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.

But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have in order to go with half baked ideas that have absolutely no evidence to support them at all.

Granted that life had to start somewhere and that you cannot endlessly postpone the origin of life to other planets, let me ask you WHY you would think that the origin of life would be more obvious on a another planet?

Why should anything be obvious? Was it obvious that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? Was it obvious that the sky is filled with galaxies? Was it obvious that light is both a wave and particles? These are things which are not simply historical events but part of the fundamental nature of the reality we live in. And so if these are not obvious then why should the nature of an event that happened long before the beginning of human history be obvious?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have

There is no 'evidence' if you think there is, present it here.

Meanwhile do forward this opinion to the leaders in the field and the world leaders who are pouring billions into seeking the answers to the origin of life on other planets and in space.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have

There is no 'evidence' if you think there is, present it here.

Meanwhile do forward this opinion to the leaders in the field and the world leaders who are pouring billions into seeking the answers to the origin of life on other planets and in space.

Ah, the penny drops! The search for life on other planets is distinct from the search for he origin of life on earth. If we found life, or the remains of, on other planets it would not significantly add to the possibility that life on earth originated elsewhere. Also, the search for life on other planets is one for actual physical life or the remains of, while the search for the origin of life on this planet is one of hypotheticals, how it could have originated. They are distinct from each other.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet... the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Granted that life had to start somewhere

Evidence? Any of you three?

'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic. :?

I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it?

Originally Posted by Pong

Evidence? Any of you three?

The evidence is so overwhelming that for anyone not to see it requires a willful refusal to see it. Just consider the obvious expectations.

If life designed by a perfect designer then you would not expect mistakes. And yet not only are genetic flaws abundant but we see in the fossil record evidence of species that no longer exist. Thus it is apparent that if life is designed then it is the product of trial and error and learning by a creator over a long period of time -- much like the history of planes or automobiles.

If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence. If life arrived from elsewhere then we would expect more such arrivals of life from elsewhere, but there is none.

If life evolved from nonlife then we would expect to see a fossil record of a progression from simpler to more complex life forms over a very long period of time. This is exactly what we see. If life evolved from nonlife then we would find evidence that the environment of the earth at some time in the past was in a state that would be more conducive to abiogenesis. This is what the evidence supports.

So the expectations of which explanation are found in the observations of the earth? Not a design by a perfect creator. Not an arrival or planting of life by some alien agency. It is the expectations of evolution and abiogenesis that are seen in our observations of the earth.

These other theories require bending over backwards in some way. Creation by design requires supposing that someone planted all this false evidence to mislead us so that we have demons running around everywhere planting fake fossiles and genetic defects everywhere. The fossil record means that if life came from elsewhere then it arrived in a very primitive form. And if there is primitive life capable of surviving in space then we should find it everywhere in our explorations of the moon and mars.

Originally Posted by Pong

'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic. :?

You are very hard to comprehend here. The universe is fantastic. Life is fantastic. But what the evidence suggest is anything but the idea that life is constant - neither unchanging or omnipresent. We find life nowhere but here on this planet and the evidence that life has a history of tremendous changes.

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it?

Cannot make heads or tails of this. What do you mean by "exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics". Why should we do anything like that? And what are you talking about excluding?

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet... the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Granted that life had to start somewhere

Evidence? Any of you three?

'

mmmm

maybe you need to refer to a dictionary with regard to the meaning of 'evidence'

Our comments are NOT evidence that life originated on this planet which YOU claimed existed.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Pong

Evidence? Any of you three?

The evidence is so overwhelming that for anyone not to see it requires a willful refusal to see it. Just consider the obvious expectations.

If life designed by a perfect designer then you would not expect mistakes.

Herein the problem lies

WHO said the designer was 'PERFECT'?

Why are you assuming an alien race is PERFECT, impervious to mistakes?

Also a fossil record doesn't prove the first life form wasn't from out of space.

When I plant a seed in my garden, I am not responsible for what happens to it after that. I see it grow, develop (I can interfere if I wish) it will reproduce, spread, die and so on. The fact the flowers offspring exist and exist in different forms is not evidence I never planted that first seed or that I bought it from a shop, or from where that shop got that seed.

Where the seed came from is the subject of this thread not what happened to it afterwards.

Meanwhile, name the scientific source which cites the evidence of HOW life originated on this planet. Your claim that it exists is insufficient, you are NOT qualified to make this claim. I don't think world leaders will drop their research based on the strength of your unsupported opinion, do you?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence. If life arrived from elsewhere then we would expect more such arrivals of life from elsewhere, but there is none.

Not if our scope of observation doesn't reach far enough. Consider again the goldfish in the gold fish bowl. It might be able to see the room the bowl is in at a push but there is no way in hell it will ever see into space. Do not assume Humans can see everything that exists or as far as it exists.

With regard to an influx of alien life, that alien life may exist ina form we can neither see, sense or comprehend. In other words, you wouldn't know it if you saw it. Also, if their sense of time is different to ours, a thousand years to us could be but a day to them.

You are limiting your thinking to what we know which is NOT everything there is to know.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by Pong

Evidence? Any of you three?

refer to a dictionary with regard to the meaning of 'evidence'

Our comments are NOT evidence that life originated on this planet which YOU claimed existed. Rolling Eyes

OK I overreacted to those statements "life must have started somewhere". The impression given is like "music must have started somewhere". Sure music is unusual, but that doesn't mean all music in this universe must trace to a common place and time i.e. a first musician from whom all music is inspired. So I asked for evidence supporting "the fact" that "it did originate out of non-life somewhere".

If you folks mean "today's life on Earth must have origins" that is self-evident and thrusts no assumptions into the question.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence.

Well, can you see any diamonds or snowflakes, right now, from where you are? And if you do, is it rational to assume these pretty inevitables grow in jeweler's shops or in the air above your head only?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

abiogenesis

Seems a likely explanation for our Earth life, among others.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Pong

'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic. :?

You are very hard to comprehend here. The universe is fantastic. Life is fantastic. But what the evidence suggest is anything but the idea that life is constant - neither unchanging or omnipresent.

Yeah, that was sloppy. What I mean is:

1) We have no grounds to assume life - life in general - does not "just exist" as an integral part of our universe's mechanics. Kinda like crystalline hexagonal snowflakes "just exist" in this universe, though they must be rare indeed.

2) Given life as an integral feature of the universe (like crystals), we can say the universe just wouldn't work the same without it. Now consider the implications, especially if we grant (reasonably I think) that life is not confined to any particular frame (e.g. it may act on scales and timeframes totally intangible to our own). Life is then a constant force, essentially the force of pattern vs. chaos, we can try against the problem of entropy for example. That physics is out of my league but it seems to me life has not been taken into account, and it should be.

3) I can't accept a fantastic universe. It must be far simpler than our present model.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it?

Cannot make heads or tails of this. What do you mean by "exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics". Why should we do anything like that? And what are you talking about excluding?

I'm talking about life in general, not life on Earth today; and the universe in general, not our infinitely local frames. In this context "life must have originated somewhere" is meaningless: Suppose you are an ancient blacksmith playing with some shards of magnet passed down by your father. You might develop a good theory of magnetism, while assuming magnetism limited to those special bits of iron in your palm. Of course we now know "magnetism" is far broader. You should not assume "magnetism must have originated somewhere" because it you only note it in particulars.

So "life" can mean different things. In this thread, are we talking about Earth life, or life in general? It seems to me Theoryofrelativity is pushing the latter, as explaining the former. We're talking about both.

ToR's line of thinking seems very near my own.

The crux of uncertainty in theories of abiogenesis is that we do not understand how ribose could have formed abiotically, with our present understanding of early Earth. Amino acids etc we can explain; ribose, no. Extraterrestrial contributions are certainly considered.

Here's a relevant reference which is quite recent. Sadly, it still does not explain ribose.

These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code in modern biochemistry, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

Originally Posted by Pong

2) Given life as an integral feature of the universe (like crystals), we can say the universe just wouldn't work the same without it. Now consider the implications, especially if we grant (reasonably I think) that life is not confined to any particular frame (e.g. it may act on scales and timeframes totally intangible to our own). Life is then a constant force, essentially the force of pattern vs. chaos, we can try against the problem of entropy for example. That physics is out of my league but it seems to me life has not been taken into account, and it should be.

I'm talking about life in general, not life on Earth today; and the universe in general, not our infinitely local frames. In this context "life must have originated somewhere" is meaningless: Suppose you are an ancient blacksmith playing with some shards of magnet passed down by your father. You might develop a good theory of magnetism, while assuming magnetism limited to those special bits of iron in your palm. Of course we now know "magnetism" is far broader. You should not assume "magnetism must have originated somewhere" because it you only note it in particulars.

So "life" can mean different things. In this thread, are we talking about Earth life, or life in general? It seems to me Theoryofrelativity is pushing the latter, as explaining the former. We're talking about both.

The living things we see come from previous living things in a chain from ancestors to decendendants. Because of this your magnetism example is irrelevant. There is no spontaneous generation of hominids in same way that magnetism is produced immediately under the right conditions. There is no reason to bring into this some imagination of life elsewhere with no causal connection to our own. The question of this thread has
ALWAYS been where did the life we see and know to exist, come from? It is in that context that the claim was made that it must start somewhere. The universe itself started in the big bang and it is certain that life as we know it did not come into existence at the same time. Therefore that life started somewhere is the unavoidable conclusion.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The living things we see come from previous living things in a chain from ancestors to decendendants. Because of this your magnetism example is irrelevant.

Hum. I thought it a nice parable.

Seems to me you really don't wish to go there. Some reason.

Let's cut to the chase scene: What is life? Or is that question also "irrelevant"?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The universe itself started in the big bang and it is certain that life as we know it did not come into existence at the same time. Therefore that life started somewhere is the unavoidable conclusion.

Excuse me?

I thought Big Bang was a theory yet you cite it as fact. please provide a link to your reputable source that states it is now fact.

Meanwhile, noone here said that life did not start somewhere The subject of the thread is wondering why it is that some remain restricted to believing it can only have started here.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Excuse me?

I thought Big Bang was a theory yet you cite it as fact. please provide a link to your reputable source that states it is now fact.

Meanwhile, noone here said that life did not start somewhere The subject of the thread is wondering why it is that some remain restricted to believing it can only have started here.

Just like the Theory of Gravity there is quite a lot of more ot the Big Bang Theory than merely saying it is a 'theory'.

You act as if life has only began in one place in the universe. How do you know it didn't begin multiple places in the universe? If it happens once, given the vastness of the universe, it's bound to happen again. I don't think anyone in this forum doubts there is life elsewhere in the universe. Where do you suppose it began and how did Earth get seeded with life?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Excuse me?

I thought Big Bang was a theory yet you cite it as fact. please provide a link to your reputable source that states it is now fact.

Meanwhile, noone here said that life did not start somewhere The subject of the thread is wondering why it is that some remain restricted to believing it can only have started here.

The big bang theory is, as far as I understand, the best theory to date.

Life might've started here, elsewhere or both. Most likely both. The primordial earth had ideal conditions for life to have arisen. It is thought that life can arise in quite hostile conditions as well, it depends I guess, I'm not an expert, but life starting many places in the universe is a definite possibility. According to some biologists, life can be quite flexible (and could possibly even survive in empty space). But I wouldn't say postulating on how life arose here a waste of time, there's definitely a possibility. We might've been brought here by asteroids or aliens, but before considering such I would consider Occam's Razor.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

of more ot the Big Bang Theory than merely saying it is a 'theory'.

You act as if life has only began in one place in the universe. How do you know it didn't begin multiple places in the universe?

you say :

I 'act'.....


I never wrote it and don't think it. Therfore this is in your imagination.

[quote="Obviously"]

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

The big bang theory is, as far as I understand, the best theory to date.

It's still a theory though and should NOT be presented as a fact.

Re BB singularity ....Where's all the missing mass?

Meanwhile.....

I sincerely hope that in schools they make a clear definition between fact and fiction these days and do not teach kids that these theories are FACTS. I should hope they sue the establishment otherwise for teaching blatant lies.

In what way is science better than religion in this regard?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

It's still a theory though and should NOT be presented as a fact.

I'm sure you know what differs from a scientific theory and a normal theory/guess.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In what way is science better than religion in this regard?

Well, it teaches what the evidence tells us and not some baseless claim founded only on wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

It's still a theory though and should NOT be presented as a fact.

I'm sure you know what differs from a scientific theory and a normal theory/guess.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

In what way is science better than religion in this regard?

Well, it teaches what the evidence tells us and not some baseless claim founded only on wishful thinking.

On the whole true but also it teaches belief in certain theories as if they are facts, whether it be intentional or not. Arguing against an accepted theory (belief in theory) is like blasphemy.

This thread is a good example of that. A few posters have referred to theories as if facts and mentioned evidence for those when non exist.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

On the whole true but also it teaches belief in certain theories as if they are facts, whether it be intentional or not. Arguing against an accepted theory (belief in theory) is like blasphemy.

I think you're being a bit hard here. I can't relate to the belief in theories. In school everything is just factual, I can't recall any theory mentioned to have been claimed proven, there was only focus on the facts and evidences and what they imply. I learn about alternative theories in a science magazine I've subscribed to called Illustrated Science. There's no bias and only focus on the evidence. Science works through the scientific method, unbiased and skeptical. Everything else is just bad science, as far as I understand it.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

This thread is a good example

of topic sabotaged by OP. ToR you may notice where others agree with you and build on that.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

This thread is a good example

of topic sabotaged by OP. ToR you may notice where others agree with you and build on that.

Sorry, but I find it very hard taking someone with the name of 'pong' seriously.

There is a game in the Uk, called ping pong, you might be the pong end of that, but the more familiar use of 'pong' in the Uk, is to refer to a bad smell.

ie:

'What is that awful pong?'

I'll try harder to see past it.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by BumFluff

of more ot the Big Bang Theory than merely saying it is a 'theory'.

You act as if life has only began in one place in the universe. How do you know it didn't begin multiple places in the universe?

you say :

I 'act'.....


I never wrote it and don't think it. Therfore this is in your imagination.

The argument I was trying to make was perhaps it began somewhere else as well as here. Throughout this thread you've argued towards your opposition for this theory. If life on Earth did evolve in some other place we're still left with the question of how life evolved in that particular place. Cosmologists, scientists, physicists, etc... all think of exogenesis, which you are proposing, to explain the origins of life as laughable. Why? Because exogenesis doesn't explain the origin of life. All it does is point us toward some other problems.

With you believing so certainly in some all powerful being that made life and (in another thread) used his zapper to zap macro-evolution (An example of which was given in that other thread) into different creatures what are your evidences of this all powerful being? You laugh at there being, you believe, no evidences for life evolving here. How abotu the other way around?

[quote="BumFluff"]

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

(An example of which was given in that other thread)

You need to stick to the topic and content of the thread, meanwhile I am open to ALL possibilities.

[quote="Theoryofrelativity"]

Originally Posted by BumFluff

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

(An example of which was given in that other thread)

You need to stick to the topic and content of the thread, meanwhile I am open to ALL possibilities.

...it is part of the topic. It's exactly the same argument. What I am asking is where do you think life originated from. You aren't an agnostic because you believe there is a God. That is someone who believes in all possibilities yet you continue to disuade everyone that speaks as if evolution is the truth.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

On the whole true but also it teaches belief in certain theories as if they are facts, whether it be intentional or not. Arguing against an accepted theory (belief in theory) is like blasphemy.

I think you're being a bit hard here. I can't relate to the belief in theories. In school everything is just factual, I can't recall any theory mentioned to have been claimed proven, there was only focus on the facts and evidences and what they imply. I learn about alternative theories in a science magazine I've subscribed to called Illustrated Science. There's no bias and only focus on the evidence. Science works through the scientific method, unbiased and skeptical. Everything else is just bad science, as far as I understand it.

"Its only a theory" rhetoric is just nonsense. A scientific theory is something that explains the facts - a huge accumulation of such facts. Those who demand proof just have their head in the clouds inventing reasons for not accepting what is front of their faces. Proof has nothing to do with life. The only discipline where proofs are of any significance is in mathematics. But consider the fact that one of the things that you can actually prove is that you cannot prove that mathematics is consistent. Which means that you cannot even prove that the proofs that you can make are even meaningful.

Theories like relativity and evolution have such an enormous body of supporting evidence now that any contrary evidence cannot amount to anything but an interesting peculiarity. This is not a matter of being closed minded it is a matter of whether you are interested in science and the methods it uses to discover things or not. If you prefer science fiction and fairy tales that is just fine. Nobody can make you have any interest in science. But to go around pretending that the conclusions of science are other than what they are is just lying to yourself.

[quote="BumFluff"]

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by BumFluff

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

(An example of which was given in that other thread)

You need to stick to the topic and content of the thread, meanwhile I am open to ALL possibilities.

...it is part of the topic. It's exactly the same argument. What I am asking is where do you think life originated from. You aren't an agnostic because you believe there is a God. That is someone who believes in all possibilities yet you continue to disuade everyone that speaks as if evolution is the truth.

My definition of God isn't the same as in most religions, mine could quite as easily be a scientist from another world who is long dead, and the new recruits now check out the joint.

Meanwhile, I don't have an idea of where life originated from, I just feel it is narrowminded to solidly assume it originated here, but hey, NOW I@M JUST REPEATING MYSELF.

Is it clearer 4th time round?

Re evolution, I believe in it, very much so. I never said I did not. I won't bother repeating what I did say on that topic as you are just a lazy reader who assumes too much.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

On the whole true but also it teaches belief in certain theories as if they are facts, whether it be intentional or not. Arguing against an accepted theory (belief in theory) is like blasphemy.

I think you're being a bit hard here. I can't relate to the belief in theories. In school everything is just factual, I can't recall any theory mentioned to have been claimed proven, there was only focus on the facts and evidences and what they imply. I learn about alternative theories in a science magazine I've subscribed to called Illustrated Science. There's no bias and only focus on the evidence. Science works through the scientific method, unbiased and skeptical. Everything else is just bad science, as far as I understand it.

"Its only a theory" rhetoric is just nonsense. A scientific theory is something that explains the facts - a huge accumulation of such facts. Those who demand proof just have their head in the clouds inventing reasons for not accepting what is front of their faces. Proof has nothing to do with life. The only discipline where proofs are of any significance is in mathematics. But consider the fact that one of the things that you can actually prove is that you cannot prove that mathematics is consistent. Which means that you cannot even prove that the proofs that you can make are even meaningful.

Theories like relativity and evolution have such an enormous body of supporting evidence now that any contrary evidence cannot amount to anything but an interesting peculiarity. This is not a matter of being closed minded it is a matter of whether you are interested in science and the methods it uses to discover things or not. If you prefer science fiction and fairy tales that is just fine. Nobody can make you have any interest in science. But to go around pretending that the conclusions of science are other than what they are is just lying to yourself.

the origin of life as it stands at the moment is less than a theory. Does that help? Ie there are NO facts to support it. A hypothesis.

If there is evidence cite it and your source.

Not a single one of you 'evidence supporters 'has cited your reputable source demonstrating that evidence. Not VERY scientific.

Re that little speech you gave at the end there, tell it to the world leaders and scientists who spend billions looking for the origin of life elsewhere, I'm sure they'd value that opinion, think of the money they will save. You don't seem to get it do you? I am in sympathy with THE advanced thinkers and scientists of our time not the backward ones.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I don't have an idea of where life originated from

You do have ideas. You mean you're undecided. As we all should be ... :wink: .

We need more evidence; we'll get it. In the meantime we can open all possible contexts ...mindsets/worldviews... to hopefully receive this info right, from the start. I don't want us flat-earthing life so to speak.

So if you have a pet theory ToR, I'm glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

the origin of life as it stands at the moment is less than a theory. Does that help? Ie there are NO facts to support it. A hypothesis.

WRONG! A hypothesis is something we make in order see what conclusions can be drawn from it that evidence might either agree or disagree with those conclusions. When all the predictions implied by the hypothesis confirm rather than deny it, it is no longer hypothesis anymore. It becomes a fact itself. When this fact then becomes a tool of anyalysis for the construction of new hypotheses, predictions and understandings of new observations, then it becomes something much more than just a fact: it becomes a scientific theory. That it is called a theory has nothing to do with uncertainty - as a tool of science itself, it becomes indistinguishable from anything else we would call knowledge. For that is what knowledge is. Knowledge is that which we live by. And thus as the tools by which scientists conduct their investigations, scientific theories are the substance of scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

If there is evidence cite it and your source.

That I did already. You refuse to see it. You refuse to be interested in science and its methods. Your choice. I like science, but that does not mean that you must like it too. You are free to choose to believe what you like just as I am free to choose to believe what I do. I believe that 2000 years ago the creator of the universe set aside all his power and knowledge to become a helpless infant in order to grow among us like one of us. You are free to reject that belief of mine just as you are free to reject the theories of evolution and relativity. But it is plain foolishness for you to deny that I believe what I do - to deny that this is what Christians believe, and so likewise it is foolish for you to deny that these theories of evolution and relativity are conclusions of science and are the content of what we call scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Not a single one of you 'evidence supporters 'has cited your reputable source demonstrating that evidence. Not VERY scientific.

LOL LOL LOL

I am a reputable source. But if you want, consult a biology professor. I might not like his religious views but Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and is a professorial fellow of New College, Oxford.

What in the world do you want to call a "reputable source"? Your guru? Your alien abductors? Your scriptures? Your dreams? The truth of science is not based on authority such that these things are true because somebody says so. As I said before if you are not interested in the methods of science you are free to spend your time on other pursuits and you can go ahead and believe whatever your guru, aliens, scriptures or dreams tell you.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Re that little speech you gave at the end there, tell it to the world leaders and scientists who spend billions looking for the origin of life elsewhere, I'm sure they'd value that opinion, think of the money they will save. You don't seem to get it do you? I am in sympathy with THE advanced thinkers and scientists of our time not the backward ones.

Your statements here are incomprehensible. Scientists look for life elsewhere precisely because they believe that life arose here on this planet by abiogenesis. It is for that reason they continue to look for life elsewhere even though they have yet to find it ANYWHERE but on the earth. They know that mars is not the right environment for life but is is the closest among those that are in reach and so they looked for signs of life but not having found any does not mean they will stop looking because they believe life arose from non-life here on the earth and so the same thing might happen elsewhere. But the one thing they do in this search of theirs is look for places that are similar to the one place where we know that life exist, BECAUSE if life arose here then it might also arise in a place that is similar.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But to go around pretending that the conclusions of science are other than what they are is just lying to yourself.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

My definition of God isn't the same as in most religions, mine could quite as easily be a scientist from another world who is long dead, and the new recruits now check out the joint.

Meanwhile, I don't have an idea of where life originated from, I just feel it is narrowminded to solidly assume it originated here, but hey, NOW I@M JUST REPEATING MYSELF.

Is it clearer 4th time round?

Re evolution, I believe in it, very much so. I never said I did not. I won't bother repeating what I did say on that topic as you are just a lazy reader who assumes too much.

Love the personal attacks. You have constantly stated in this and other threads that you believe life did not originate here and that you believe it originated somewhere else. This is narrowminded in itself. How do you propose on proving such a thing? And even without proving it life did originate somewhere. As I said before you are merely using exogenesis as a means of describing how life originated on Earth. This still poses the question of "How did life evolve?" You are merely explaining one problem with another problem.

The same components of matter are available in the laboratory as are available in that place where life evolved. Currently scientists are just now attempting to find life that didn't originiate on Earth. All you need do is look at what they are currently doing on Mars to get some kind of idea of this.

Could life have originate somewhere else? Yes it's a possibility but it by no means explains how life originated. I find it highly doubtful that aliens had anything to do with it. I find it more probable, if this were true, that the building blocks of life arrived on one of the many meteors that have crashed into the Earth and from there, through evolution, we came to be.

There is no reaction without an action, no effect without a cause. And to finalise, it takes two to tango.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

That I did already. You refuse to see it.

You have NOT cited a single reputable source for your evidence. YOU are not a reputable source.

A reputable source may include the latest peer reviewed scientific publication on this topic in reputable scientific journal.

Cite your source with link, then I will comment. Till then I regret that I unable to read the rest of this post or any other you write.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But to go around pretending that the conclusions of science are other than what they are is just lying to yourself.

I agree.

Science has YET to conclude what is the origin of life on this planet.



Zzzzzzzzzzz

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Science has YET to conclude what is the origin of life on this planet.



Zzzzzzzzzzz

Guess what, people say there's a scientific consensus on evolution, gravity and atom theory, when in reality there's no scientific consensus on anything! There's ALWAYS uncertainty involved, and things can only be proved to be likely, not 100% true. Even if there's no conclusive evidence to "wrap it all up", a theory remains valid UNTIL it has been proven invalid, and that is what scientists are doing. They study the evidence and create likely hypotheses as to how these studied phenomena works, they then attempt to DISPROVE those hypotheses (which make up a model), and along the process of trying to disprove the hypotheses they might get confirmed or proven invalid. As more and more date starts to confirm it, the model which makes the best predictions and accounts for all the data is by definition the best theory to date.

In the end it all boils down to evidence and logic, even if it turns out to be wrong. By the standards of the scientific method something is bound to be proven false eventually, if it is, whilst research is still being done. It really doesn't matter if there's another explanation, it will be found through this process.

So even if science doesn't consider all ideas equal and focuses its attention upon that which is most likely, the answer will be found even if the researched idea is proven to be false. The very thing that might bring one theory down can confirm another, thus making that the best explanation. It really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I don't have an idea of where life originated from

You do have ideas. You mean you're undecided. As we all should be ... :wink: .

We need more evidence; we'll get it. In the meantime we can open all possible contexts ...mindsets/worldviews... to hopefully receive this info right, from the start. I don't want us flat-earthing life so to speak.

So if you have a pet theory ToR, I'm glad to hear it.

The only thing that is real is maths, we are not real as we perceive ourselves to be, we are complex mathematical equations so complex we believe (or have acheived) form, expression, growth, death. We are numbers which have evolved to make this possible. The maths can be seen in the fractal composition of all things.

How is this for a 'pet theory' ..........

edit: sources found
http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2005-06/v18n2/04.shtml

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

The game called 'life' check the source link above and then read this:

"What is Life (the game) Good For?
Studying the patterns of Life can result in discoveries in other areas of math and science.

The behavior of cells or animals can be better understood using simple rules. Behavior that seems intelligent, such as we see in ant colonies might just be simple rules that we don't understand yet. Take a look at this simulation of termites piling up woodchips. (click here) There are only 2 rules in this system, and yet, a seemingly "intelligent" pattern emerges. What does this say about the nature of intelligence?

Traffic problems might be solved by analyzing them with the mathematical tools learned from these types of simulations. (Unjamming Traffic with Computers)

Computer viruses are also examples of cellular automata. Finding the cure for computer viruses could be hidden in the patterns of this simple game.

Human diseases might be cured if we could better understand why cells live and die.

Exploring the galaxies would be easier if machines could be invented that could build themselves. Imagine sending a probe to Mars that could build a copy of itself. Although this is theoretically possible, it hasn't been invented yet!"

Maths has no beginning, it has no end.



http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/21.html

"In "Life on the Scales," Science News recently wrote that some simple mathematical equations, known as quarter-power scaling laws, can explain the metabolic rates of living organisms. For example, "an animal's metabolic rate appears to be proportional to mass to the 3/4 power." And this "3/4-power law appears to hold sway from microbes to whales, creatures of sizes ranging over a mind-boggling 21 orders of magnitude." The ecologists, physicists and chemists behind this research are now successfully applying this equation to plants, fish, full ecosystems and even biology and genetics, by adding a new key parameter: temperature."



Cute theory......

Is it THE theory though?

I shall keep my whole theory to myself......for now. It evolves.

Given my latest theory on life as seen above I declare this thread nul and void on account of the OP has changed her mind...

for the moment...

God is presently a mathematician and I am sure everyone here would agree, mathematicians generally think THEY are God. so...........

Uh OK. Was about to say what I like about these perspectives and ideas. How inappropriate to these forums that would be. Let's not go there.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I just feel it is narrowminded to solidly assume it originated here ...

To my knowledge, none of the replies on this thread espouse this idea, and likewise researchers who study the question have not reached such a conclusion either. The search for an origin of life on Earth revolves around understanding early Earth chemistry (particularly redox chemistry) at a variety of sites that provide some analog to what may have been present billions of years ago (hydrothermal vents, clays subject to periodic wetting/drying, and other). It is more practical to study chemical potential at these sites than on another planet, after all. The search for life on extraterrestrial sources (Murchison meteorite, north pole of Mars, etc) is as important, and points directly to the open-mindedness of the scientific community as regards teh origin of life.

It is true, however, that science is by its nature more limited than imagination, and both are useful in understanding the universe.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

... the world leaders and scientists who spend billions looking for the origin of life elsewhere,

Exactly - the search for the origin of life is not limited to Earth. Apologies if I am being thick here.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Scientists look for life elsewhere precisely because they believe that life arose here on this planet by abiogenesis. It is for that reason they continue to look for life elsewhere even though they have yet to find it ANYWHERE but on the earth. They know that mars is not the right environment for life but is is the closest among those that are in reach and so they looked for signs of life but not having found any does not mean they will stop looking because they believe life arose from non-life here on the earth and so the same thing might happen elsewhere. But the one thing they do in this search of theirs is look for places that are similar to the one place where we know that life exist, BECAUSE if life arose here then it might also arise in a place that is similar.

Aha, this is the bone of contention. Apologies to TOR again.

Mitchell, your grasp of science is laudable (not that I expect my opinion to mean anything!) , and you sound to be a reputable source to me, however your claims in the above quote are not correct.

Many of us* fully expect to find life on Mars. Some of us hope that it happens in the next few months. Also, as I mentioned on the top of page 2, science cannot explain an origin of ribose on Earth, and this is the single biggest problem with Earth as the source of the original bit of 'life.'. There are no known places on early Earth where the redox chemistry and other factors would have allowed its stable production. Ribose is necessary for any conceived replicon (DNA, RNA, ribozymes, other versions) which could serve as the original genetic material, a key requirement for life.

We hope to find other environments elsewhere in the solar system that might allow the production of this compound. Enceladus and Europa have both become very intriguing possibilities. Titan also.

*"Us" working in the fields of planetary science and biogeochemistry.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I declare this thread nul and void on account of the OP has changed her mind.......

Bother I came to the party too late.

Allow me to join into the discussion now XD

Originally Posted by free radical

Also, as I mentioned on the top of page 2, science cannot explain an origin of ribose on Earth, and this is the single biggest problem with Earth as the source of the original bit of 'life.'. There are no known places on early Earth where the redox chemistry and other factors would have allowed its stable production. Ribose is necessary for any conceived replicon (DNA, RNA, ribozymes, other versions) which could serve as the original genetic material, a key requirement for life.

Wrong. Replicator, including RNA, is not a prerequisite of life.

RNA-world theory is long been ruled out. It is improbable. The current theory is metabolism-first model. Read this article from Scientific American published in February 2007: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...rigin-for-life

Coincidentally I'm doing a review for this theory for my biology course right now. This theory basically suggest that energy-driven network of small molecules, similar to the metabolism pathways we know today, may occur in places such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents where there is a naturally occuring thermocline (I hope you understand what's the implication of having a thermocline).

These primordial life has what scientists called "compositional genome" in which hereditary information is stored in a collection of small molecules, similar to a grocery list. As the lipid bilayer enlarges to a certain extent, it will spontaneously divide, and with simple thermodynamics each "cell" will contain the same collection of these small molecules.

Originally Posted by Scientifc American

The small-molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands on nature: a compartment, an external continuous energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, a chemical network that includes that reaction, and a simple mechanism of reproduction. These requirements are general in nature, however, are immensely more probable than the elaborate multistep pathways needed to form a molecule that is a replicator.

Life is completely capable of developing on Earth, and on extraterrestrial planet.

I suggest you read the whole theory as it is quite hard to summarize it. The hot topic now is about extremophile in deep sea vents, not the RNA/DNA-world theory that has been long outruled a decade ago.

Ooooohhhhhh.

Does pre-nucleic acid life, in this scheme, contain some version of coding capacity - ie are the daughters programmed to be copies of the parents or do divisions allow random distribution of 'cellular' molecules??

Originally Posted by arkofnoah

RNA/DNA-world theory that has been long outruled a decade ago.

It has not been ruled out *that* long ago! Nor at all, from skimming the literature. A google scholar search limited to 2007 - 2008 returns articles such as this :

Oligonucleotides are structurally similar to short RNA strands. Therefore, their formation via non-enzymatic reactions is highly relevant to Gilbert's RNA world scenario (1986) and the origin of life. In laboratory synthesis of oligonucleotides from monomers, it is necessary to remove the water molecules from the reaction medium to shift the equilibrium in favor of oligonucleotide formation, which would have been impossible for reactions that took place in dilute solutions on the early Earth. Model studies designed to address this problem demonstrate that montmorillonite, a phyllosilicate common on Earth and identified on Mars, efficiently catalyzes phosphodiester-bond formation between activated mononucleotides in dilute solutions and produces RNA-like oligomers. The purpose of this study was to examine the sequences and regiospecificity of trimer isomers formed in the reaction of 5'-phosphorimidazolides of adenosine and uridine. Results demonstrated that regiospecificity and sequence specificity observed in the dimer fractions are conserved in their elongation products. With regard to regiospecificity, 61% of the linkages were found to be RNA-like 3',5'-phosphodiester bonds. With regard to sequence specificity, we found that 88% of the linear trimers were hetero-isomers with 61% A-monomer and 39% U-monomer incorporation. These results lend support to Bernal's hypothesis that minerals may have played a significant role in the chemical processes that led to the origin of life by catalyzing the formation of phosphodiester bonds in RNA-like oligomers.

and this:

The origin of life remains a highly speculative field, mainly due to the shortage of our knowledge on prebiotic chemistry and basic understanding on the essence of life. In this context, computer simulation is expected to play an important role. For instance, the scenario concerning the genesis of the widely accepted RNA World remains blurry, though we have gathered some circumstantial evidence and fragmented knowledge on several supposed stages, including formation of polynucleotides from a prebiotic nucleotide pool, emergence of RNA replicases (RNA molecules catalyzing their own replication), and evolution of RNA replicases. It is highly valuable to simulate the stages as a continuous process to evaluate the plausibility of the supposition and study the rules involved. Here we construct a computer simulation on the process using Monte Carlo method. It demonstrates that primordial RNA replicases may appear and spread in a nucleotide pool provided they could recognize their own sequence and their complements as catalytic targets, and then may evolve to more efficient RNA replicases. Apart from its indication on the genesis of the RNA World, the vivid simulation of emergence of the “first replicative molecules” and their subsequent evolution is impressive and may help to get insight into “how could self-replication and Darwinian evolution, two key features of life, emerge in a non-life background?” thus improve our understanding of “what is life” when studying origins of life.

...and over 100 others.

Ok

Here's a question for ya

Deep sea vents

Little fishy living in hot temps that will boil it if it were not for the bacteria that lives on it's skin protecting it from those temps

The particular bacteria concerned cannot exist without that fish and the fish cannot exist without that bacteria in this environment

So

Q1) how did these two things come to exist at all in that environment


see new thread related to these little fishies
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=130792#130792 and the soul............

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Q1) how did these two things come to exist at all in that environment

Evolution.

Indeed!

the little bacteria that started there were not symbionts. They radiated (evolution), and moved on, and fish eventually appeared (evolution, elsewhere) and some moved back, and those with appropriate symbionts adapted (evolution) to fill the niche at the vent.

Originally Posted by free radical

Ooooohhhhhh.

Does pre-nucleic acid life, in this scheme, contain some version of coding capacity - ie are the daughters programmed to be copies of the parents or do divisions allow random distribution of 'cellular' molecules??

From what we know now the prevailing theory is the "compositional genome" model. Random distribution of cellular molecules results similar metabolic reactions within parent and daughter "cells". In no way is it as precise and accurate as those that involve DNA and RNA, but considering how simplistic these metabolic pathways is, there is no need for precision as the probability of a functioning metabolic pathway "inherited" to "daughter cells" is immense.

It has not been ruled out *that* long ago! Nor at all, from skimming the literature. A google scholar search limited to 2007 - 2008 returns articles such as this :

You so-called "rule out" a scientific model or theory when there are better theories available. This is all Occam's Razor - if there's a simpler way to explain something, it is favored. People may still research in the RNA-world theory, but as of now there are more evidence against than for it.

Originally Posted by theoryofrelativity

Little fishy living in hot temps that will boil it if it were not for the bacteria that lives on it's skin protecting it from those temps

This is a typical symbiosis question. High school biological students can explain the evolutionary advantage of symbiotic relationships between bees and pollinating plants, algae and hermit crab, anemone and clown fish, legume and rhizobia, human and lactobacilli perhaps even the evolution of all eukaryotes if you are familiar with the endosymbiont theory.

To put it simply, these little fishy do not originally belong to the niche around sea vents, while these heat-tolerating bacteria called thermophiles is able to live in these hot conditions. Through time some bacteria evolved so that they might feed on whatever that is present on skin on these fishes, or possibly move with the fish, giving them access to a new ecological niche. Now these bacteria have an extra food resource which obviously is an evolutionary advantage, in exchange these fishes also have access to a new ecological niche near the sea vents, maybe to feed on the special type of planktons that lives near these sea vents. This is a case of mutualistic symbiosis where both organisms benefits from this relationship.

Similar with clown fish that live near sea anemone, which offers them protection. Those that do not have the instinct to hide in sea anemone will be more likely to be eaten by predator, and those which evolved the instinct to do so will more likely to survive and pass on their genes. In turn these clown fishes feeds on harmful bacteria on sea anemone, and their faeces provide nutrients. Those that do not accomodate the clown fish will have less food resource than those who do, and will eventually die from illness. Those who do are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

Symbiosis.

Originally Posted by arkofnoah

It has not been ruled out *that* long ago! Nor at all, from skimming the literature. A google scholar search limited to 2007 - 2008 returns articles such as this :

You so-called "rule out" a scientific model or theory when there are better theories available. This is all Occam's Razor - if there's a simpler way to explain something, it is favored. People may still research in the RNA-world theory, but as of now there are more evidence against than for it.

Ah. Merely a difference of opinion then, on two counts - firstly a line to divide life from non-life, a discussion which we are unlikely to resolve :-D , and secondly the rationale for, and meaning of the notion of, 'ruling out' something, a difference of opinion which may be a moot point as we seem to generally agree on the larger issue. (ie it's not worth the bother to hammer away at the differences.)

Originally Posted by free radical

Mitchell, your grasp of science is laudable (not that I expect my opinion to mean anything!) , and you sound to be a reputable source to me, however your claims in the above quote are not correct.

Many of us* fully expect to find life on Mars. Some of us hope that it happens in the next few months. Also, as I mentioned on the top of page 2, science cannot explain an origin of ribose on Earth, and this is the single biggest problem with Earth as the source of the original bit of 'life.'. There are no known places on early Earth where the redox chemistry and other factors would have allowed its stable production. Ribose is necessary for any conceived replicon (DNA, RNA, ribozymes, other versions) which could serve as the original genetic material, a key requirement for life.

We hope to find other environments elsewhere in the solar system that might allow the production of this compound. Enceladus and Europa have both become very intriguing possibilities. Titan also.

I am not quite sure what it is that I said that you think is incorrect. I certainly have no contention with what you claim here. It does not surprise me that scientists continue to look for signs of biological molecules elsewhere in the solar system. BUT the "bone of contention" is that the motivation for this search is NOT because scientists believe in an extra-terrestrial source for life on earth but just the opposite, because finding these molecules in non-terrestrial environments would be a great confirmation that abiogenesis is possible.

My point was nothing in regards to any expectation of finding evidence of life on Mars or elewhere in the Solar System (though I think that this can at most be called a hope rather than an expectation), but rather the fact that if we do not find life on mars or in this Solar System this will certainly not mean that we will cease in our expectations of finding evidence of life elsewhere.

Originally Posted by arkofnoah

Wrong. Replicator, including RNA, is not a prerequisite of life.

RNA-world theory is long been ruled out. It is improbable. The current theory is metabolism-first model. Read this article from Scientific American published in February 2007: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...rigin-for-life

Well I would agree with free radical that you overstep yourself in these claims but I DO think you are right in the sense that I VERY much agree that it is the metabolism first approach that is the correct one. I have been pushing people to read that SA article for some time now and I am glad to see that someone else here has read it.