Self-Replicating Molecules.

[Khandro]

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

[naomi24]

Khandro, are you saying God must have dunnit - and that's the view that you will cling to? Where's the logic in that? Rather than adopt a completely unfounded explanation, why not simply say you don’t know?

[Khandro]

//why not simply say you don’t know?// I don't know, and have never said I did; primeval soup or a higher power? It's a leap of faith either way.

[naomi24]

Khandro, Since you haven't found a plausible reason to change you view, I assumed you had a view.

[Khandro]

Probably the most honest answer was the first answer to my post, by heathfield.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you have elevated ungraciousness to new heights, well done. Do you not realise that numerous responders to your question actually did make honest attempts to answer your question and just got the rude and derisory replies that you churn out so thoughtlessly. Had I known that 'probably' reading the Scentific American would have made me a scientist I wouldn't have bothered with those exams and qualifications. I'm off to the newsagent now to become landed gentry, shouldn't take that long to read through 'Horse and Hound'.

[Khandro]

jomifl; As you have neither answered the question nor had the honesty to say you don't know, but stated only unfounded, and therefore unscientific guesses, the value of all 'those exams and qualifications' would seem at this moment to be in doubt.

[jomifl]

Khandro, Do you need everthing spelt out in simple sentences? I suggested how things could have come about, ergo I don't Know and haven't suggested that anyone else does know. The unfounded 'guesses' are based on some, if inadequate information based on fact. If we followed your reasoning the entire fund of human knowledge and understanding would be junked and we would end up sitting in mud huts chanting to imaginary gods.
If we are all to declare what we don't know to conform to your lopsided view of honesty the we would need to know what we don't know which is a lot more than we do know. Why don't you give it a try yourself before you expect others to do it.

[jake-the-peg]

Of course panspermia is neither here nor there to the question.

It is irrelevant whether the first self-replication occurs on Earth or came on the back of a pink elephant

The question remains how it occurred.

Similarly - 'God dunnit' is merely dodging the question - the response is then Where did God come from and the answer is invariably 'He's always been there' for which there is no evidence produced other than Magic books

[Khandro]

jake; You have, as always, my respect. I don't know who said 'God dunnit', but it wasn't me, I have never mentioned the G word at all, I said in agreement with Stephen Hawing that life very likely originated outside this planet, which, as I have also said, kicks the can down the road, but it must point to a life-giving force of enormous magnitude, something unknown and probably unknowable.
To the anoyance of jomifl, may I quote the 6th cent BC philosopher, Lao-tzu;
'There is something obscure which is complete
before heaven and earth arose;
tranquil, quiet,
standing alone without change,
moving around without peril.
It could be the mother of everything.
I don't know it's name,
and call it Tao.'

[jim360]

"... but it [extraterrestrial origin of life] must point to a life-giving force of enormous magnitude."

Why? Why not just that it points to "the necessary conditions for the chemical origin of life occurred initially elsewhere"?

[naomi24]

//it must point to a life-giving force of enormous magnitude, something unknown and probably unknowable. //

Why must it?

[jomifl]

Khandro, when you agreed with your old mate Stephen Hawking you should have listened more carefully. Here is a link to the transcript of what he said;

http://www.panspermia-theory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:stephen-hawking-why-we-should-go-into-space&catid=24:videos&Itemid=97
'
Did you notice the word 'likely' or more likely the word 'possible'?
Do you understand the difference? Distorting 'facts' to suit your argument is not clever and rarely works so why do it? Possibly because you cannot admit that you are likely barking.........up the wrong tree.

[jomifl]

Not in the least Khandro, I think you have been given enough rope to do the job and have succeeded.

[Khandro]

jomifl; A person may study facts, pass exams, and carry out an entire career in science, but without imagination, remain trapped within the pedestrian cohort, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Albert Einstein.

[jim360]

Then again, having a career in Science does help you understand the subject, rather.

[jomifl]

Khandro, If you had the slightest inkling of what science is about you would realise how silly you sound. Science all about imagination combined with logic whereas the arts are about imagination combined with emotion. I'd have thought you would have known that. You forgot to attribute the originator of your latest homilie by the way . Why don't you use your own words rather than hiding behind giants.

[jake-the-peg]

I didn't point the G word at anybody in particular

It's just as far as I can see that there are only 3 options:

Life arose on Earth from natural processes

Life arose elsewhere from natural processes and was transported to Earth

Life arose from supernatural forces (Gods, spirits) call it what you will


Whether life arose naturally on Earth or elsewhere is irrelevant to the question of how it arose (but very relevant to understanding the process)

Those who put forward the latter always fudge the question of where their God or creator spirit came from

Now you might counter that we don't know where the laws of physics came from - and that's true - there are many things we do't know. The difference is we are (or should be) open to persuasion through evidence.

Personally I think there are some big problems with Panspermia

Particularly the times and distances involved - true extremophiles can survive in space for short periods of time but it's hugely unlikely that they could survive the lengths of time needed to travel from another solar system and as Mars was under the same heavy bombardment that the Earth was under in the early solar system it's no more likely that the first spark of life happened there than on Earth

[jomifl]

Jake, my thoughts are congruent with yours, although it is possible that life on earth originated elsewhere, a bit of simple maths doesn't support the idea. If we assume that life developed from the combination of simple molecule to form more complex molecules able to replicate, then the biggest source of these molecules by far would have been Earth based processes. Even if the experiments on molecule production on a prebiotic
Earth yielded barely detectable numbers of molecules the number
produced on an Earth wide scale over a billion years or so must have been truly enormous and would have exceeded the amount of extra terrestrial organic material arriving I would guess by perhaps many orders of magnitude. The problem with the idea of life developing extra terrestrially but within the solar system is that any water would be frozen and chemical processes would be almost zero compared with the soup cauldron of Earth. Anything arriving from outside the solar system within the lifetime of the universe would probably be the ejecta of supernovae, or from the debris cloud of the supernova from which the solar system is believed to have originated. If there was any life before these supernovae it would have been cooked and irradiated to oblivion, along with any gods that were wafting around.

[Khandro]

jim; //having a career in Science does help you understand the subject, rather.//
Yes, but to understand and appreciate opera, you don't have to be a great singer. Nietzsche understood the arts more fully than most practising artists, but (as far as I know) was a lousy painter. :-)
jomifl; Read my post again, it's all just me and Albert.

jake; Do you entirely rule out the 'Star Trek' option?

[jim360]

With all respect to the Arts, the level of understanding required is somewhat different. Art speaks to all of us in some way we can never quite fully understand, but it happens almost without our knowing. Understanding Science is equivalent to understanding a completely new language. The better comparison then, would be with speakers of French, or Mandarin. And you certainly need to have studied those at some level or be an actual native speaker to have an idea of how it all works.

No matter how you twist it, an armchair understanding of Science is no replacement for a career in it or at least for a meaty qualification or two.