ChatterBank0 min ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
On the subject of waiting, I think we're all waiting for answers to various questions, including why the "Star Trek" option is not "dodgy science", and why must an extraterrestrial origin of life "point to a life-giving force of enormous magnitude, something unknown and probably unknowable"? And plenty of other questions besides, but those are enough to be getting on with I'm sure.
jim; As this is the first time you or anyone else has asked those questions it is not surprising you have not received an answer.
1. Is putting the 'Star-Trek option' and 'dodgy science' together a new question, if so can you please re-formulate it in relation to something I have said.
2. It is my personal speculation that if a life-giving entity was strong enough to travel through such conditions and have the ability to initiate life on this planet it would point to something rather powerful elsewhere wouldn't you say, or would you see that as simply a matter of fact in an accidental universe?
1. Is putting the 'Star-Trek option' and 'dodgy science' together a new question, if so can you please re-formulate it in relation to something I have said.
2. It is my personal speculation that if a life-giving entity was strong enough to travel through such conditions and have the ability to initiate life on this planet it would point to something rather powerful elsewhere wouldn't you say, or would you see that as simply a matter of fact in an accidental universe?
Here are 2 questions plus a comment for all.
(a) In their search for life elsewhere in the universe why are astronomers and astrophysicists seeking out planets with a similar envronment to that of Earth (at any stage in the other planet's evolution), if there was insufficient evidence that our life forms began and evolved here?
(b) Why do the comet protagonists concentrate on the fact that amino acids similar to earth can be found on/in them, although we know they can almost always have been formed here?
Note: The comet protagonists are composed of lots more amino acids than any found in any extraterrestrial body and no extraterrestrial DNA, mRNA etc fragments have been discovered.
So perhaps we should all get our feet back on the ground - here on Planet Earth and stop over-complicating the issue of life's genesis (some chance for certain contributors!).
Looking forward to the answers,
SIQ.
(a) In their search for life elsewhere in the universe why are astronomers and astrophysicists seeking out planets with a similar envronment to that of Earth (at any stage in the other planet's evolution), if there was insufficient evidence that our life forms began and evolved here?
(b) Why do the comet protagonists concentrate on the fact that amino acids similar to earth can be found on/in them, although we know they can almost always have been formed here?
Note: The comet protagonists are composed of lots more amino acids than any found in any extraterrestrial body and no extraterrestrial DNA, mRNA etc fragments have been discovered.
So perhaps we should all get our feet back on the ground - here on Planet Earth and stop over-complicating the issue of life's genesis (some chance for certain contributors!).
Looking forward to the answers,
SIQ.
Well naturally I think it is a question. You described the Star Trek option as "...an ideal solution and everybody wins; the atheist/scientists can stop bending over backwards trying to come up with preposterous dodgy science..."
By implication, therefore, the "Star Trek option" is not dodgy science, or at least is less dodgy. This, however, despite the fact that there is no firm corroborating evidence (though there may be some hints of a sort), nor is it clear that there ever will be, nor is it clear how you can test such an idea. On such ground I think it's fair to say that it is certainly no more scientific than any other theory and probably rather a lot less in fact. Furthermore it only solves the problem about the origin of life here, and not in the Universe as a whole. That still, therefore, leaves open the question of how it started anywhere in the first place -- and the answer to that is likely to lie in chemical processes that are in some way a lot easier than it might seem. In that case, the most scientific approach is to try and replicate or investigate how those processes might have occurred.
We would still be left with the three main options: from space, possibly deliberately, or just here on its own. But the first self-replicating molecules presumably spontaneously occurred somewhere, and aliens or not that is a process that we should still try to investigate. In the Star Trek option, the story cannot end there.
By implication, therefore, the "Star Trek option" is not dodgy science, or at least is less dodgy. This, however, despite the fact that there is no firm corroborating evidence (though there may be some hints of a sort), nor is it clear that there ever will be, nor is it clear how you can test such an idea. On such ground I think it's fair to say that it is certainly no more scientific than any other theory and probably rather a lot less in fact. Furthermore it only solves the problem about the origin of life here, and not in the Universe as a whole. That still, therefore, leaves open the question of how it started anywhere in the first place -- and the answer to that is likely to lie in chemical processes that are in some way a lot easier than it might seem. In that case, the most scientific approach is to try and replicate or investigate how those processes might have occurred.
We would still be left with the three main options: from space, possibly deliberately, or just here on its own. But the first self-replicating molecules presumably spontaneously occurred somewhere, and aliens or not that is a process that we should still try to investigate. In the Star Trek option, the story cannot end there.
//In their search for life elsewhere in the universe why are astronomers and astrophysicists seeking out planets with a similar envronment to that of Earth (at any stage in the other planet's evolution), if there was insufficient evidence that our life forms began and evolved here?//
I think there’s a bit of confusion there. I don’t think planets similar to earth are being sought to establish that life originated in space, but simply to establish whether or not life can or does exists on other planets.
I think there’s a bit of confusion there. I don’t think planets similar to earth are being sought to establish that life originated in space, but simply to establish whether or not life can or does exists on other planets.
Back in May 2012 I asked the question 'Alone' - Does Ming the Merciless really live on planet Mongo?; http://
to which my old friend jomifl had the final word, he seemed less curmudgeonly then than he appears now. :-)
to which my old friend jomifl had the final word, he seemed less curmudgeonly then than he appears now. :-)
Dear Naomi,
There is no confusion in my queston (a).
Astromers/astropysicists have been doing both: (i) searching for planets similar to Earth's qualities and (ii) randomly sending out messages in various forms notably radio signals and even that famous plaque of the 1990's(?) depicting a diagram of man & woman etc. trying to contact extraterrestrial life.
The search for Earth-like qualities (i) seemed most appropriate on this site.
In this search a list of criteria have long been established principally including : the existence of: carbon (the essential building block for life because of it's fascinating chemical versatlity in molecule-formation); water (the ideal solvent and reactant in which and with which life forms can be created and thrive; warmth (within chemically acceptable boundaries) and protection (like magnetic field and ozone layer which protect DNA etc from destruction by radiation from the obligatory nearby star).
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
There is no confusion in my queston (a).
Astromers/astropysicists have been doing both: (i) searching for planets similar to Earth's qualities and (ii) randomly sending out messages in various forms notably radio signals and even that famous plaque of the 1990's(?) depicting a diagram of man & woman etc. trying to contact extraterrestrial life.
The search for Earth-like qualities (i) seemed most appropriate on this site.
In this search a list of criteria have long been established principally including : the existence of: carbon (the essential building block for life because of it's fascinating chemical versatlity in molecule-formation); water (the ideal solvent and reactant in which and with which life forms can be created and thrive; warmth (within chemically acceptable boundaries) and protection (like magnetic field and ozone layer which protect DNA etc from destruction by radiation from the obligatory nearby star).
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
