Was life on Earth inevitable?

[UM-Bot]

The appearance of life on Earth seems to face so many obstacles — sourcing the right ingredients, for example, and arranging them into living things (while being bombarded by meteorites) — that scientists often feel forced to regard it as almost miraculous. Now two US researchers suggest that, on the contrary, it may have been inevitable.They argue that life was the necessary consequence of available energy built up by geological processes on the early Earth. Life sprang from this environment, they say, in the same way that lightning relieves the accumulation of electrical charge in thunderclouds.In other words, say biologist Harold Morowitz of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and physicist Eric Smith of New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, the geological environment "forced life into existence".This view implies not only that life had to emerge on the Earth, but that the same would happen on any similar planet. Smith and Morowitz hope ultimately to predict the first steps in the origin of life based on the laws of physics and chemistry alone.

Morowitz and Smith admit that they don't yet have the theoretical tools to clinch their arguments, or to show what form this "inevitable life" must take. But, they argue, it probably used the same chemical processes that now drive our own metabolism — but in reverse.One source of geological energy would have been compounds called polyphosphates, made in volcanic processes. These are 'battery molecules', similar to those that now supply living cells with energy.

View: Full Article | Source: Nature.com

[Bella-Angelique]

After knocking myself in the head for a period of time trying to do the Kreb's in reverse, I am guessing that what they are stating is that life is a natural product of the spin involved in

electromagnetic force and the stabilization of photons. (Chemist!!)

[IamsSon]

So, basically, since they have absolutely no way of proving how life could occur by chance, and mathematically the probabilities of it occuring show it to be impossible, scientists are now simply changing the rules and saying, it had to happen because the environment was DESIGNED to harbor life, so of course life occured. I would venture to say that if one seriously applied Occam's Razor to this new idea, one would find the simplest answer is that life occured because God willed it to.

[Leonardo]

There is no conflict here between science and God. You could simply take the view that "Ok, conditions here made life inevitable, but what decided those conditions?" Hey presto! You still have a case for God

Science is not trying to replace God. If you accept the Bible may not be literally true but an allegory mixed with some historical fiction and non-fiction then there can be no chance of ever disproving God. If science moves the goal posts then religion can just move them back again just a little bit further.

[Ravinar]

So, basically, since they have absolutely no way of proving how life could occur by chance, and mathematically the probabilities of it occuring show it to be impossible, scientists are now simply changing the rules and saying, it had to happen because the environment was DESIGNED to harbor life, so of course life occured. I would venture to say that if one seriously applied Occam's Razor to this new idea, one would find the simplest answer is that life occured because God willed it to.

well thats a short sighted view. just because science doesn't know the answer now dose not mean we will never know nor dose it mean that "God did it". you seem to see science as another religion. that it seems to have all the answers. well it doesn't and thats the great thing about science it (unlike religion) doesn't clam to. there are many many things we don't know about the universe and world we live in. religion seems to be in the habit of making up lies just to give people an answer and then clams that those answers are the only ones. science (unlike religion) doesn't deal in absolutes. it has theories and ideas witch change over time as are understanding of the world grows. so next time don't confuse science with religion because its not its science!

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ravinar

[Raptor]

So, basically, since they have absolutely no way of proving how life could occur by chance, and mathematically the probabilities of it occuring show it to be impossible

Now just remember how many trillions of planets there are.

[Carrieola]

"Life sprang from this environment, they say, in the same way that lightning relieves the accumulation of electrical charge in thunderclouds."

They did not say the environment was DESIGNED to harbor life... Life seems to me that it could be a reaction... just a part of the cycle of the sub-atomic processes that govern our universe:.. energy just evolving, changing forms and producing more energy. I chuckle at the idea of occam's razor producing a 'divine entity'-related conclusion. It must be bliss to be so lazy as to solve every riddle with "Because God is all-knowing!" or "Because God willed it so!" I guess if I was that quick to put riddles to bed, I'd have a lot of free time to make up a lot of rituals and nonsense, you know?

"In other words, say biologist Harold Morowitz of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and physicist Eric Smith of New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, the geological environment "forced life into existence".

This view implies not only that life had to emerge on the Earth, but that the same would happen on any similar planet."

It's interesting to take this idea a little further... to follow this theory would be to say that "animals" appeared on earth as a reaction to the ammount of oxygen in the atmosphere produced by early plants. It's a trade off, you know? For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action. Yin and Yang, man... groovy.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Carrieola

[positron]

So, basically, since they have absolutely no way of proving how life could occur by chance, and mathematically the probabilities of it occuring show it to be impossible, scientists are now simply changing the rules and saying, it had to happen because the environment was DESIGNED to harbor life, so of course life occured. I would venture to say that if one seriously applied Occam's Razor to this new idea, one would find the simplest answer is that life occured because God willed it to.

You know that I am going to argue with you about this lol

[andy_604]

God is retarded along with whoever came up with such a theory of the existence of god.

I will show no respect to a religion originally built on lies and scandals for the well being of the church and the rich. A tool used by such groups to control the masses, the poor who had nothing to hold on to but "Faith" or in a more realistic term, false hope. The millions discriminated against or murdered in the name of god. Let's not forget the sex scandals disclosed in recent years of the abuse, molestation, and rape of children under gods roof.

Science will one day show religion to where it belongs, in the bin labelled primitive ideologies, covered in leeches, sitting on what was supposedly the flat earth and enshrouded in the notions of white supremeacy.

[Bella-Angelique]

Science will one day show religion to where it belongs

That will never happen. Science is the knowledge of how things work and gives no wisdom on how things should be used. It cannot recognize human rights and human longings. That area of wisdom will always belong to some type of religion.

Back on topic (hopefully) - I wonder if their theory might smack the strong force in the face a little if they find the process involved is an identicle match to electromagnetic ones.

[Shuriken]

QUOTE(andy_604 @ Nov 17 2006, 01:52 PM) *

Science will one day show religion to where it belongs

That will never happen. Science is the knowledge of how things work and gives no wisdom on how things should be used. It cannot recognize human rights and human longings. That area of wisdom will always belong to some type of religion.

Back on topic (hopefully) - I wonder if their theory might smack the strong force in the face a little if they find the process involved is an identicle match to electromagnetic ones.

Or, perhaps science will one day reveal that there is a creator after all. Religion, as andy_604 said, is ofcourse bulls***, but it does not exclude the possibility of a creator, especially if u consider the simulation theory as a possibility...

[p-rog]

I suggest all of you check out www.aiwor.com for similar debates and much more.