Self-Replicating Molecules.

[Khandro]

How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?

[Khandro]

jim; //the main idea is that aliens visited Earth early in the history of human culture and influenced it somehow.//
The proposal isn't that some form of organic life came somehow to the planet in the "history of human culture" - that was really only yesterday-* but something came 3 1/2 billionyears ago (give or take a week) which enable the whole evolutionary process to start.
* The history of the planet described against a scale of one year, humans appeared at one minute to midnight on New Year's Eve, so I was told as a boy, in HG Wells' 'Short History of the World', - someone correct me if this now shown to be wrong please.

[naomi24]

Jim, And neither is it exactly pleasant to be told I have no understanding of ‘science’ (I am not entirely devoid of scientific credentials, albeit in the grand scheme of things, rather meagre), or to have what I consider to be intelligent and valid opinions dismissed as ‘nonsense’ – but enough said.

LG, //Can you show me where this concept is automatically aligned with the supernatural in modern science?//

I can cite your first post here on the subject where you said // like water dowsing, or ghosts, or a divine spark to create life, or a god is an astronaut scenario is being proposed, that phenomenon should be demonstrable and repeatable and even measurable.//

In my experience, that’s par for the course – but I’ve no idea why. It makes no sense to me.

[jim360]

I think you're about right, Khandro, with that analogy (though I can never remember if it's a minute in a day or a minute in a year, but either way it's not all that important).

My point is that there are really two "Star Trek" theories, and you have to be careful which you mean as they are almost certainly not related. First is that life was brought here deliberately at its very start. Second is that we were visited recently enough for our very culture to be influenced by these aliens. I get the feeling you mean the first one -- but I think Naomi talks often about the second.

And then of course, why is either theory less dodgy than the one that proposes life emerged here? As well, perhaps, as elsewhere separately. Surely if it emerged at all, somewhere, then there's no reason to have stopped it from occurring here independently (again, perhaps with some help from space material)?

Naomi described the earth as "relatively young", and is I think half-right, but in a 14 billion-year-old Universe a 4 billion-year-old planet has an age that could be said to be comparable. There's no reason to suppose that life didn't emerge elsewhere first -- indeed it's surely far more likely than not! -- but the figures are of the same order of magnitude, so if there was plenty of time for life to emerge in the Universe as a whole, there is also plenty of time for it to have emerged here in particular.

I don't think that we will "need" life to have emerged elsewhere in the end. Though it probably did anyway. Indeed as my claim was that life could emerge spontaneously very easily in the right conditions then you'd expect it to have happened at several places loads of times across the entire Universe. Which brings us back to the Drake Equation, sort of.

[jim360]

We both say as we find. It's a shame that things turned sour.

[LazyGun]

@Naomi "I can cite your first post here on the subject where you said // like water dowsing, or ghosts, or a divine spark to create life, or a god is an astronaut scenario is being proposed, that phenomenon should be demonstrable and repeatable and even measurable.//"

For the sake of brevity I included it in a list of other issues of contention that have cropped up here and elsewhere, including but not exclusively divine or supernatural. God is an Astronaut is neither divine nor supernatural, and no scientist I am aware of thinks that way. Its a speculation,a hypothesis that has some merit but little or no evidence to support it.

But why is asking that a phenomenon be testable, measurable, repeatable or demonstrable wrong, or close minded, or shutting down the debate, or rejecting the hypothesis? If its a genuine event/phenomenon/happenstance, then there will be evidence to support it - observational, experimental, etc, and you should be able to make testable or falsifiable predictions or outcomes in consequence - and to date, their is little to actively support the notion beyond an acknowledgement that it could be possible.

[Khandro]

LG //and to date, their is little to actively support the notion beyond an acknowledgement that it could be possible.//
Please see post #1.

[jake-the-peg]

The 'Star trek' Scenario is not helpful.

This 'something' that kick started life has to either be living itself in which case the answer mere switches to where it came from.

Or if it's not living (some sort of catalyst) it simply becomes another hypothetical ingredient in the mix.

It fails Occam's razor - it's an additional complication which is unnecessary

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro. I have. Your point?

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think anyone disagrees with 'we don't know'

I go further I think we can never know

There may indeed be more than one way in which it can occur, more than one solution (although I doubt there's a solution that doesn't involve liquid water)

[jomifl]

LG, I think Khandro(rinpoche?) is having difficulty coming to terms with the idea that the lineage of his re-incarnation extends back to a few randomly combined molecules.

[Khandro]

jomifl; With so many sentient beings gone before us that isn't a problem, but I have for some time on this thread teetered on the brink of raising the mind-blowing issue of 'Consciousness'.
(Actually, I'm impressed with your increasing vocabulary, - you must be quietly researching somewhere.) :-)

[naomi24]

LG, //But why is asking that a phenomenon be testable, measurable, repeatable or demonstrable wrong, or close minded, or shutting down the debate, or rejecting the hypothesis? //

It isn’t – and I haven’t suggested it is…. but read on…

//If its a genuine event/phenomenon/happenstance, then there will be evidence to support it -//

I believe there is evidence to support it, but in general because we think the unthinkable is … well … unthinkable, we either ignore it, or we assume it’s the result of primitive imagination, or we allocate whatever potential evidence there might be to a more comfortable slot, as archaeologists do when they see ancient models, which to today’s eye, are clearly aeroplanes, and designate them ‘stylised birds’. I’ll give you one example. Years ago the much maligned Eric von Daniken postulated an hypothesis that an extraordinarily descriptive vision of 'God' recorded by the biblical prophet Ezekiel was actually the arrival of a powered flying machine. An aeronautical engineer working at NASA – Joseph Blumrich – pounced upon the idea with every intention of debunking it. However, his investigations resulted in his agreement that what Ezekiel saw and described was very likely to have been a powered flying craft. As far as I’m aware, no reputable scientist to date has further investigated that, or any of the many, many similar accounts contained within ancient texts the world over. I know science wants evidence – any rational person wants evidence - but if such evidence is buried within ancient texts it will not conveniently fall into the lap of science without being sought.

I think I’ve helped lead this discussion way off course – sorry ‘bout that – so I’ll just say that it’s possible that aliens seeded life on this planet, it’s possible that life arrived here via meteors, and it’s possible that life developed here of its own accord. None of us know, and no conclusion can be reached - but all the possibilities are worthy of discussion – and very interesting it is too. :o)

[jomifl]

Sorry to disappoint you Khandro another assumption too far on your part.
I see your 'conciousness' obsession is gaining preponderance in your errr..... conciousness. When can we expect to gain enlightenment through your profound wisdom and comprehension of matters mystical.?

[solvitquick]

Well, well. well,
Khandro certainly knows how to put the cat amongst the pigeons!
I've said a lot on here, so I think it best to stay out for the moment.
I'll just say that all the contributors have proven their impressive intellectual credentials both here and elsewhere and there is no need to get into disputes along those lines. Ty everyone for such a debate.
Science or not it's fascinating and great fun.
Kindest Regards to all,
SIQ.

[Khandro]

jomifl; what do you me exactly by "matters mystical" ?
Are you into crystal balls or crystal meths?

[jomifl]

I was rather hoping that you would be more forthcoming than that Khandro. If you are having trouble putting your thoughts into words it is probably because you either do not have access to appropriate words or do not have coherent thoughts. Please do try though, I'm sure it would make fascinating reading.

[naomi24]

Khandro, so raise the ‘mind-blowing issue of consciousness' and move the discussion on. Tell us what you're thinking.

[Khandro]

jomifl; I know nothing of mystical matters and wonder why you wish to bring it into a thread predicated to science. In fact, I think it fair to say you seem to be developing a rather unhealthy obsession with this subject.
If you know of a connection between self-replicating molecules and mysticism then perhaps you should enlighten us. I for one await with interest.

[Khandro]

That naomi would take us into the realms of dualism, and this thread might run longer than The Mousetrap.
Basically, the view that the world consists of, or is explicable as, two fundamental entities; mind and matter. So far only the latter has been discussed here.

[jomifl]

Khandro, I'm surprised that you aren't aware of the connection between mysticism and dualism, perhaps you should do more research :-)