Gigantic Mind Chasm Between Prehumans and Man

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Yes.  That is a hard nut to crack.  Especially the formation of primitive RNAs and eventual emergence of cellular "life".

Yep.  Darrwin theorized that life showed up spontaneously in warm little ponds.  However, it has since become clear that the earliest forms of life on Earth did not need oxygen.

Quote

2018 study published in Nature report that oxygen in the atmosphere didn’t rise to significant levels until after complex life arose  * * *Scientists believe there was no oxygen for Earth’s first two billion years, and then, some 2.3 to 2.5 billion years ago, a little bit of oxygen showed up * * * . That leaves a 2.1-billion-year period during which there was minimal oxygen — but, strangely, still evidence of life.  Yasmin Tayag, “Volcanic Rock Discovery Calls Theories About Life’s Origins Into Question,” Inverse, Jan 3, 2018, online at  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/volcanic-rock-discovery-calls-theories-about-life-s-origins-into-question?utm_source=pocket-newtab .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Doesn’t hypothesizing that life on earth had its origin from elsewhere in the universe simply delay having to answer the most critical unanswered question posed by evolutionary theory, that being precisely how life spontaneously emerged from that which is not alive without an intelligent agent to understand and initiate the process?

Depends on whether one believes in infinity.  LDS theology posits no starting place at all, but rather continuous reproduction down through time, without beginning or end.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on whether one believes in infinity.  LDS theology posits no starting place at all, but rather continuous reproduction down through time, without beginning or end.

Of course, I asked my question with a particular focus on the theory of evolution itself, and on the unresolved issues that are still being grappled with by those who subscribe to it.

Yes, personally I do believe in the Book of Mormon’s “one eternal round,” and the uncreated eternity of life, light, intelligence, truth, law, and all manifestations of energy and matter.

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Doesn’t hypothesizing that life on earth had its origin from elsewhere in the universe simply delay having to answer the most critical unanswered question posed by evolutionary theory, that being precisely how life spontaneously emerged from that which is not alive without an intelligent agent to understand and initiate the process?

Evolution means change. There could be no change in life until life was already here. You are talking about two very different things as if they are the same. Evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis. 

[teddyaware]

24 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Evolution means change. There could be no change in life until life was already here. You are talking about two very different things as if they are the same. Evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis. 

When did the bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup, thereby fortuitously creating the first life form on earth, cease to be part of the organic evolution narrative? I remember there was a time when the electrified amino acid soup theory was widely accepted as the most likely explanation for the origin of life.

What are the latest theories pertaining to the origin of life among those who believe some action of abiogenesis is responsible for the appearance of life on earth?  Or have scientists simply given up on theorizing how life may have first appeared on earth?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

When did the bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup, thereby fortuitously creating the first life form on earth, cease to be part of the organic evolution narrative?

You are probably thinking of basic biology texts for high school and college or more elementary courses that like to present all subjects in biology or science as a whole story as opposed to how those who specialize in the subjects approach them.  Popular approaches were often the same, understandably so. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Calm

[katherine the great]

22 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

When did the bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup, thereby fortuitously creating the first life form on earth, cease to be part of the organic evolution narrative?

I've taught out of six or seven popular college level anthropology textbooks. None of them say anything about a bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup or anything remotely like that. These are science books.

 

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I remember there was a time when the electrified amino acid soup theory was widely accepted as the most likely explanation for the origin of life.

Okay. If you say so.

 

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What are the latest theories pertaining to the origin of life among those who believe some action of abiogenesis is responsible for the appearance of life on earth?  Or have scientists simply given up on theorizing how life may have first appeared on earth?

I don't know and I don't care. Again--I'm an anthropologist. We study e-vo-lution, not how life first appeared on earth. Very much the same way Newton didn't concern himself with how the object being pulled to the earth got up in the air in the first place. 

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

When did the bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup, thereby fortuitously creating the first life form on earth, cease to be part of the organic evolution narrative? I remember there was a time when the electrified amino acid soup theory was widely accepted as the most likely explanation for the origin of life.

What are the latest theories pertaining to the origin of life among those who believe some action of abiogenesis is responsible for the appearance of life on earth?  Or have scientists simply given up on theorizing how life may have first appeared on earth?

Although David O. McKay and the entire biology faculty at BYU believe in biological evolution, scientists have never been able to establish how or when life appeared on Earth.  Biologists are certain that they  understand natural selection and adaptation (survival of the fittest) as the most powerful engine of evolutionary change, but have never been able to create life in a lab, nor to come up with a convincing theory as to how life began.

[nuclearfuels]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Doesn’t hypothesizing that life on earth had its origin from elsewhere in the universe simply delay having to answer the most critical unanswered question posed by evolutionary theory, that being precisely how life spontaneously emerged from that which is not alive without an intelligent agent to understand and initiate the process?

Yes but the scope of Darwinism has decreased as the assumptions in his arguments were pointed out by the authors I mentioned, and others.

It will continue to do so as more and more data become available

[teddyaware]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although David O. McKay and the entire biology faculty at BYU believe in biological evolution, scientists have never been able to establish how or when life appeared on Earth.  Biologists are certain that they  understand natural selection and adaptation (survival of the fittest) as the most powerful engine of evolutionary change, but have never been able to create life in a lab, nor to come up with a convincing theory as to how life began.

And I believe that’s likely why the electrified  primordial soup theory of my high school years is no longer in vogue. They probably jolted every conceivable combination of organic compounds in water with various strengths of electric current and came up empty after thousands of tries. 

[teddyaware]

41 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I've taught out of six or seven popular college level anthropology textbooks. None of them say anything about a bolt of lightening striking a pool of primordial soup or anything remotely like that. These are science books.

 

Okay. If you say so.

 

I don't know and I don't care. Again--I'm an anthropologist. We study e-vo-lution, not how life first appeared on earth. Very much the same way Newton didn't concern himself with how the object being pulled to the earth got up in the air in the first place. 

I don’t know where you’ve been, but I just did a search under “primordial soup experiments”.and got all kinds of hits. I guessing you’re much younger than I am.

[katherine the great]

12 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t know where you’ve been, but I just did a search under “primordial soup experiments”.and got all kinds of hits. I guessing you’re much younger than I am.

Not likely but we probably hang out in very different places. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Okay. If you say so.

I remember being taught lightning in the air above the soup. Lightning striking stuff would fry it. Amino acids formed in the water/gas vapour and fell into shallow seas, iirc. 
 

But that was the chemistry experiment that was origin of life, not evolution.  I have never thought of it as the same that I can recall, so doubt my teachers taught it as the same.  They are two very different processes.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And I believe that’s likely why the electrified  primordial soup theory of my high school years is no longer in vogue. They probably jolted every conceivable combination of organic compounds in water with various strengths of electric current and came up empty after thousands of tries. 

 

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t know where you’ve been, but I just did a search under “primordial soup experiments”.and got all kinds of hits. I guessing you’re much younger than I am.

You are not misremembering at all.  Not only were the primordial soup experiments in vogue back in the 1950s when I was studying high school biology, but credulous adults even claimed that they had been successful -- that is, actually producing life.  Of course, anyone can produce organic chemicals in a lab, amino acids among them, but life has never been created in a lab.  However, I have repeatedly predicted on this board, that life will probably be sythesized in a lab in this century.

That 1952 Miller-Urey "soup" consisted of "water (H₂O), methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and hydrogen (H₂). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile 5-liter glass flask connected to a 500 ml flask half-full of water. The water in the smaller flask was heated to induce evaporation, and the water vapour was allowed to enter the larger flask. Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture, and then the simulated atmosphere was cooled again so that the water condensed and trickled into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

[mfbukowski]

Though I do not hold the view I am about to present, I can see that one might put forward the idea that "life" is simply a natural process not unlike the growth of crystals in the right environment, and no more meaningful than that.

The difference is that we ourselves want to privilege life as something important rather than a random process, a fluke of chemistry.

As always it is a matter of definitions, and the way humans derive meaning from one definition and not another.

I cannot think of a way to argue against that position to show that life is inherently valuable and different than other chemical processes, other than accepting that view has another paradigm, like ours, that cannot be proven, simply because we value life.

It is like trying to use arguments about chemistry to show that murder is wrong. Can't be done.

It is a clash of two different ways of seeing the world.

Edited May 14, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 5/13/2020 at 3:02 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You are not misremembering at all.  Not only were the primordial soup experiments in vogue back in the 1950s when I was studying high school biology, but credulous adults even claimed that they had been successful -- that is, actually producing life.  Of course, anyone can produce organic chemicals in a lab, amino acids among them, but life has never been created in a lab.  However, I have repeatedly predicted on this board, that life will probably be sythesized in a lab in this century.

That 1952 Miller-Urey "soup" consisted of "water (H₂O), methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and hydrogen (H₂). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile 5-liter glass flask connected to a 500 ml flask half-full of water. The water in the smaller flask was heated to induce evaporation, and the water vapour was allowed to enter the larger flask. Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture, and then the simulated atmosphere was cooled again so that the water condensed and trickled into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Just confirming that yes, I recall that as well.

How would we know that "life" is synthesized when it happens?   How do you think it would be defined?

I am definitely not up on any of the research in this area.  I am wondering if these scientists actually have a definition of what precisely would determine what "life" is if and when they find it.  I have to read up on this sometime!

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just confirming that yes, I recall that as well.

How would we know that "life" is synthesized when it happens?   How do you think it would be defined?

I am definitely not up on any of the research in this area.  I am wondering if these scientists actually have a definition of what precisely would determine what "life" is if and when they find it.  I have to read up on this sometime!

Not exactly deep research but there's always good old wikipedia to solve any possible problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Quote

 

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. Other definitions sometimes include non-cellular life forms such as viruses and viroids.

 

The way that is written I suspected there was a circular definition in there around the notion of "physical entities"- particularly the idea of "entity".  What IS an "entity" in this context- doesn't that already presume a kind of "living thing" that has all the properties of being "alive"?

You could define an "entity" as a cell, or anything else that has something defined as a " biological process".  What distinguishes a living "biological process" from a non-living "biological process"?   

The word "biological" has already poisoned the well!!  If the process is not biological it is not alive- or it would not be biological!!

And then we have the word "self" used twice in supposedly different situations!   How can there be a "self" that is not "alive" in some sense??   The whole thing is simply a circular argument!!

Even given all the poor argumentation, the conclusion is still that there is "no consensus regarding the definition of life"

So much for wikipedia, I hope there is something better out there.

So we really need a pro in this area to give us a definition I suppose if we want to pursue it. 

But I suspect I got it right in my post about it that I quoted above

Again as in all things spiritual, all this means is that the fact that we value "life" is a spiritual concept and just as undefinable as other spiritual concepts, which are not open to empirical or objective examination.

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Even given all the poor argumentation, the conclusion is still that there is "no consensus regarding the definition of life"

In biology, the basic unit of life is considered the cell. For instance, we don't consider viruses as types of life and yet they have some of the attributes of living things. Building blocks of life would have preceded life itself.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

In biology, the basic unit of life is considered the cell. For instance, we don't consider viruses as types of life and yet they have some of the attributes of living things. Building blocks of life would have preceded life itself.

So I am understanding that to mean is that viruses may have been precursors to cells?

What characteristics of life then are found in cells that are not found in viruses?

It seems logically then that those characteristics would be what defines life.

[katherine the great]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I am understanding that to mean is that viruses may have been precursors to cells?

What characteristics of life then are found in cells that are not found in viruses?

Well, a cell has a cell wall for starters. It's a kingdom unto itself with little organelles that help it function. Some cells are a life all by themselves (single cell organisms). Others are part of millions of cells that make up a life form. So anything that is "alive" is either a cell or is made up of cells. A virus is a tiny, tiny, tiny strand of genetic material-either DNA or RNA. It can only function and replicate inside a cell so its kind of like an invasive parasite. Whether it was a precursor to cells is an interesting question. I don't know the answer to that. We need to keep in mind though that life has had billions of years to become what we see around us today so who knows what it was like at the beginning?

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems logically then that those characteristics would be what defines life.

Yes. The simplest cell: wall (or membrane), cytoplasm, ribosomes, DNA and a tail.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just confirming that yes, I recall that as well.

How would we know that "life" is synthesized when it happens?   How do you think it would be defined?

I am definitely not up on any of the research in this area.  I am wondering if these scientists actually have a definition of what precisely would determine what "life" is if and when they find it.  I have to read up on this sometime!

The key requirement is that it be self-replicating.  Something like a simple one-celled organism, like an E. coli bacterium, alga (the largest), fungus, amoeba,  protozoan, or paramecium.  I had to look it up.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The key requirement is that it be self-replicating.  Something like a simple one-celled organism, like an E. coli bacterium, alga (the largest), fungus, amoeba,  protozoan, or paramecium.  I had to look it up.

Fair enough.

But viruses are self replicating, and supposedly not "alive". When crystals grow, is that "replication?

And for life to appear in a laboratory would it require a cell wall?

I'm just really unhappy with these definitions, they all seem very vague to me and big enough to drive a truck through.

I see so many of these discussions as semantics conflicts, with arbitrary definitions.  How can people think that any of them "correspond to reality"? 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

We need to keep in mind though that life has had billions of years to become what we see around us today so who knows what it was like at the beginning?

That's the problem I think with the definition. 

If you don't know what something "is like" how could you define its characteristics?

How did cell walls and organelles evolve?

Can non-living things evolve to become alive?  But wait!

Isn't that the same question we asked at the start? Have we advanced any?

 

[katherine the great]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But viruses are self replicating, and supposedly not "alive".

They are not alive. They need to invade a host in order to replicate. They're like disembodied spirits who need to invade a human body to really cause trouble. 😊

 

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the problem I think with the definition. 

Do you have a better definition? 🤷‍♀️ Welcome to the gray areas of science. I feel kind of the same way about the term "species". There really is no consensus on the definition but everyone "kinda" knows what is means. This is because we have a bunch of humans trying categorize something neatly that does not conform to neat boundaries.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fair enough.

But viruses are self replicating, and supposedly not "alive". When crystals grow, is that "replication?

And for life to appear in a laboratory would it require a cell wall?

I'm just really unhappy with these definitions, they all seem very vague to me and big enough to drive a truck through.

I see so many of these discussions as semantics conflicts, with arbitrary definitions.  How can people think that any of them "correspond to reality"? 

The problem with viruses is that they are not self-replicating.  They use actual living organisms to reproduce, which is why they are often dangerous to us and other animals.  Defining a virus as "life" is very problematic.