Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The question of Life

life evolution intelligence

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#16    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:23 AM

View Posttaniwha, on 09 February 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

It seems odd that evolution if true isnt in the process of evolving before our eyes.  Life is abundant enough but where are the new species at?  What is there left for life to evolve into or become anyway?

What would be the ultimate evolutionary design?  Have we already hit the limit of the scale?
There is no question evolution is true. You want an example of it happening before our eyes? Try dogs. With dogs natural selection has been replaced by intelligent design. The intelligent designer being us. If we can change wolves into dogs in a few thousand years with artificial selection just think what natural selection can do with billions of years to work with. Genome mapping has made evolution an observed fact not a theory but this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. There is no design to evolution just non-random survival of random mutation.


#17    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:33 AM

View Posttaniwha, on 09 February 2014 - 04:28 AM, said:

Yes how it all began is at the root of the problem.  You say DNA could not have been the origin of life so I wonder if the first life forms would have contained DNA at all and what they might have looked like or reproduced.
The first lifeforms would have been self-replicating polymers. No more than molecules that replicated themselves and would blur the line between life and organic chemistry. Monomers such as amino acids have been reproduced in the laboratory. The only question is how they first combined into polymers. It is thought to possibly either involve vulcanism or cometary impact. RNA probably came before DNA. BTW calling evolution a theory at this point is like calling gravity a theory. Technically correct but to doubt it is unreasonable

Edited by spacecowboy342, 09 February 2014 - 09:35 AM.


#18    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,976 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:20 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 09 February 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

The first lifeforms would have been self-replicating polymers. No more than molecules that replicated themselves and would blur the line between life and organic chemistry. Monomers such as amino acids have been reproduced in the laboratory. The only question is how they first combined into polymers. It is thought to possibly either involve vulcanism or cometary impact. RNA probably came before DNA. BTW calling evolution a theory at this point is like calling gravity a theory. Technically correct but to doubt it is unreasonable
But if it happened then, why is there not a current form of it happening today? As I said, natural selection I have no problem with - it is real and provable. But where did the original ancestor come from? And the frustration is felt on both sides of the argument, I assure you.  I would not like to be cast as a participant at the Scopes trial.  In fact there are PhD's out there who still ask these questions so I think Taniwha is right, it still is an open question to some extent. No one's life is really impacted by it after all - it is just a quest for more knowledge - and that should always be a good goal.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#19    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:52 PM

View Postand then, on 09 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

But if it happened then, why is there not a current form of it happening today? As I said, natural selection I have no problem with - it is real and provable. But where did the original ancestor come from? And the frustration is felt on both sides of the argument, I assure you.  I would not like to be cast as a participant at the Scopes trial.  In fact there are PhD's out there who still ask these questions so I think Taniwha is right, it still is an open question to some extent. No one's life is really impacted by it after all - it is just a quest for more knowledge - and that should always be a good goal.
How do you know there is not a current form of it happening today somewhere in the cosmos? No one knows how rare an occurrence it might be. If it was a common occurrence, I would think it would have been reproduced in the laboratory already. But, the fact that it might be rare does not mean it didn't happen. In the words of Lawrence Krauss, the universe is huge and old and rare things happen in it all the time. On average a type 1-A supernova happens once per century per galaxy. But if you go outside and look at a piece of the night sky you could cover with a dime, if you had a powerful enough telescope you would see a hundred thousand galaxies in that spot, and so could witness many type 1-A supernovae on any given night. Should we find the remnants of life on Mars or elsewhere in the solar system it might show the start of life to be more common than I think it might be but right now this is just unknown. But unknown does not mean magic is required.


#20    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2014 - 01:03 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 09 February 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

There is no question evolution is true. You want an example of it happening before our eyes? Try dogs. With dogs natural selection has been replaced by intelligent design. The intelligent designer being us. If we can change wolves into dogs in a few thousand years with artificial selection just think what natural selection can do with billions of years to work with. Genome mapping has made evolution an observed fact not a theory but this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. There is no design to evolution just non-random survival of random mutation.

Thanks, that is a really interesting insight you have given.  But is life really so simply complex?

Would you then go further and say that the purpose of planets is to evolve lifeforms?  In anycase why would a planet need to evolve life at all?  Why cant planets just orbit suns in ignorant bliss for eternity? :unsure2:?

I understand life as a physical and perhaps mental sense of 'being' and 'knowing'... can all life really just naturally 'sprout up'  throughout the universe with thoughtless abandon?  
Im not entirely sure about that.  At the very least it seems we are made of star stuff so it does make me wonder if stars are very intelligent indeed.

And without trying to be vague there is no doubt in my mind that life on Earth exists.


#21    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 10 February 2014 - 01:11 AM

View Posttaniwha, on 10 February 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

Thanks, that is a really interesting insight you have given.  But is life really so simply complex?

Would you then go further and say that the purpose of planets is to evolve lifeforms?  In anycase why would a planet need to evolve life at all?  Why cant planets just orbit suns in ignorant bliss for eternity? :unsure2:?

I understand life as a physical and perhaps mental sense of 'being' and 'knowing'... can all life really just naturally 'sprout up'  throughout the universe with thoughtless abandon?  
Im not entirely sure about that.  At the very least it seems we are made of star stuff so it does make me wonder if stars are very intelligent indeed.

And without trying to be vague there is no doubt in my mind that life on Earth exists.
Well I'm not claiming to have any certainty here but I don't think planets have any purpose. I think people get too hung up on the idea that there is always some reason for everything. I think things just exist. We as conscious creatures must find our own purpose. I like the idea that we are the way the universe contemplates itself. but I think it just worked out that way


#22    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 10 February 2014 - 01:16 AM

I too have been contemplating a similar question about life beginning. How could DNA (or perhaps RNA) come into existence by accident? How could this accident then find its way into a cell? Without that question answered, any other question you ponder becomes meaningless.

That being said, evolution appears undeniable.


#23    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe, passing each day in peaceful contemplation"

Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:25 AM

They have created basic ingredients of RNA - Ribonucleotides - In the Lab

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

Posted Image

#24    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:17 AM

Life can spring from a game on graph paper. It's really not that hard to imagine.

its a simple logical fact that the only things that can exist into the future are things that find a form of stability. The laws of physics are constant. Some forms of complex chemistry are bound to find processes to extend themselves into the future by sheer virtue that all the ones that didn't would not be here. We are left with chemical processes that can, because after billions of years only the rare and best at continuing processes would still exist.

All we really need is a complex set of rules and plenty of time and life should be inevitable in some places. Even if its 1 in a 10 billion chance on any given planet, there simply is enough space for even the rarest of things to happen.

This dosnt say anything about design. it could just have easily been designed that way.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 10 February 2014 - 04:19 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#25    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:16 PM

Thanks for the info Ideal ex.

But the "warm little pond" hypothesis by Charles Darwin was made at a time when Darwin had no idea how complicated a single cell was.

Plus the RNA had to find its way into a functioning cell and then repair the cell, replicate the cell, feed its self etc, while not being alive.


#26    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe, passing each day in peaceful contemplation"

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:02 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 10 February 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the info Ideal ex.

But the "warm little pond" hypothesis by Charles Darwin was made at a time when Darwin had no idea how complicated a single cell was.

Plus the RNA had to find its way into a functioning cell and then repair the cell, replicate the cell, feed its self etc, while not being alive.

Although RNA seems well suited to form the basis for a self-replicating set of biochemical catalysts, it is unlikely that RNA was the first kind of molecules to do so. From a purely chemical standpoint, it is difficult to imagine how long RNA molecules could be formed initially by purely nonenzymatic means. For one thing, the precursors of RNA, the ribonucleotides, are difficult to form nonenzymatically. Moreover, the formation of RNA requires that a long series of 3′ to 5′ phosphodiester linkages form in the face of a set of competing reactions, including hydrolysis, 2′ to 5′ linkages, 5′ to 5′ linkages, and so on. Given these problems, it has been suggested that the first molecules to possess both catalytic activity and information storage capabilities may have been polymers that resemble RNA but are chemically simpler. We do not have any remnants of these compounds in present-day cells, nor do such compounds leave fossil records. Nonetheless, the relative simplicity of these “RNA-like polymers” make them better candidates than RNA itself for the first biopolymers on Earth that had both information storage capacity and catalytic activity.

Posted Image

#27    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:33 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 10 February 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Life can spring from a game on graph paper. It's really not that hard to imagine.

its a simple logical fact that the only things that can exist into the future are things that find a form of stability. The laws of physics are constant. Some forms of complex chemistry are bound to find processes to extend themselves into the future by sheer virtue that all the ones that didn't would not be here. We are left with chemical processes that can, because after billions of years only the rare and best at continuing processes would still exist.

All we really need is a complex set of rules and plenty of time and life should be inevitable in some places. Even if its 1 in a 10 billion chance on any given planet, there simply is enough space for even the rarest of things to happen.

This dosnt say anything about design. it could just have easily been designed that way.
I agree it could well have been designed that way but is there really any reason to think so? Occam's razor says the simplest solution is usually the best, and I haven't seen a reason to suppose a designer is necessary.


#28    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:37 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 10 February 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the info Ideal ex.

But the "warm little pond" hypothesis by Charles Darwin was made at a time when Darwin had no idea how complicated a single cell was.

Plus the RNA had to find its way into a functioning cell and then repair the cell, replicate the cell, feed its self etc, while not being alive.
The simplest of cells, even hypothetical protocells must have been a later evolutionary development after the first self-replicating polymers came into being, I would think. RNA must have preceded DNA, but something must have preceded that as well. The warm little pond idea of Darwin is too simple, I think but we have learned a lot more about conditions of the early earth since then. I think the fact that amino acids have been found in comets is no coincidence

Edited by spacecowboy342, 10 February 2014 - 10:39 PM.


#29    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,512 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:53 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 10 February 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I agree it could well have been designed that way but is there really any reason to think so? Occam's razor says the simplest solution is usually the best, and I haven't seen a reason to suppose a designer is necessary.
Well my friend, I know you are a smart guy... But evaluate these 2 statements. "Occams razor"  or "super intelligence". Why as a smart intelligent person would you think that Occam's razor is anything but a philosophical hang up. Just read Jung for a while. Oh know... No one reads reads real thinkers anymore. :(

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#30    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 10 February 2014 - 11:26 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 10 February 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

Well my friend, I know you are a smart guy... But evaluate these 2 statements. "Occams razor"  or "super intelligence". Why as a smart intelligent person would you think that Occam's razor is anything but a philosophical hang up. Just read Jung for a while. Oh know... No one reads reads real thinkers anymore. :(
Got no use for Jung try Hume. I agree that Occam's razor proves nothing, but it is a tool for thinking critically. Hey, it lead Einstein to relativity.






Also tagged with life, evolution, intelligence

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users