Origin Of Life.

[Theland]

https://youtu.be/E4uRWk06Wo0

Atheist, with a name like that, it seems you have already closed your mind and donned a straightjacket.

But to hold your belief, or lack thereof, I expect you to possess satisfying answers to questions such as these.

[Theland]

Am off to another category then.

[andy-hughes]

Fine - but try and leave your preaching and whining here, or you'll simply finish up flouncing off from there as well.

[Khandro]

beso //Self catalysing molecules can even be subject to evolution.

What in God's name are self catalysing molecules?

[Atheist]

Khandro, try this (I haven't read it yet). Or were you being humorous with your reference to god?

[Khandro]

Try what?

[beso]

Autocatalysis is where the products of a reaction include a molecule that is a reagent in the reaction thus affecting the rate of the reaction.

It generally occurs in a series of reactions that result in an oscillation between two states where one direction of conversion dominates until virtually all reagents are consumed when the reverse reaction takes over and converts everything back. They are known as "clock reactions".

This is very different to most chemical reaction where the forward and back reactions reach an equilibrium and no further change in the concentration occurs.

The best known biological example occurs as a stage in Glycolysis where the concentration of fructose 6-phosphate affects the direction of a reaction.

In effect these reactions defy the law of entropy where disorder is supposed to inexorably increase.

[nailit]

//It generally occurs in a series of reactions that result in an oscillation between two states where one direction of conversion dominates until virtually all reagents are consumed when the reverse reaction takes over and converts everything back. They are known as "clock reactions"//

Blimey. Feel as though Ive just walked into an alternate universe where everyone speaks Klingon after reading that :-)

[Khandro]

Beso; Self-replication requires 'life', molecules do not contain life, not even the DNA molecule.
Molecules are simply conjoined atoms.

[Theland]

I have listened to so many lectures on this and remain unconvinced by abiogenesis and evolution.
The so called evidence is always reliant on given assumptions, which are supposed to be the bedrock of the whole structure, which must never ever contradict a materialist worldview. The very opposite of honest scientific investigation.

[rowanwitch]

Watched a Prof Brian Cox prog last night, I found it hard to understand but it made sense. I will stick with big bang, the goldilocks zone and all the other science stuff. My personal reasoning in the very core it feels right and logical.

[Khandro]

rowanwitch; The big bang was (possibly) the origin of (this) universe, not the origin of life.

[Theland]

I would like to post a few videos of the lectures and debates I have sat through, as it is easier for the scientists to do the explaining, and not me, but doing that upsets a few ABers, ("this is not a cinema, it's for debates!"), foe example, so to be honest, although I would like to share this stuff and get a response, I can't bear the thought of being on the receiving end of aggressive cross examination from some, and pedantic comments from others. Sometimes better to just have a laugh somewhere or go and watch the telly.

[rowanwitch]

The whole process including the coalescence of matter, the creation of the moon, comets leaving water and other essentials, the mixing of molecules in the nitrogen heavy environment and the laws of chance all part of one journey with many destinations. We will one day find life in similar zones around other planets, not like us but also the result of random interactions and reactions. Some of that life may be evolved to seem God like to us, but by then we may seem like God's to other primitive creatures... that's my feeling at a level my mind can cope with.

[Old_Geezer]

Difficult to discuss when there is no accepted single definition of what life is.

Taken from a page just googled:

"However, some initial agreement is possible. Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria."

Just some ? It seems to me rather likely that a collection of minerals that happen to have formed a complex unit is probably going to be able to achieve much of the list. Yet would remain undefined as life. So is there really such a barrier between non-life and life ? We can recognise higher developed forms of life but maybe we are just dismissing the precursors, looking for a border that only exists in our mind.

[Theland]

Crystals are well organised clusters of molecules, and they grow according to some physical law.
But no stretch of the imagination could describe them as even a stepping stone to life.

[beso]

No Khandro. There are molecules that catalyse reactions that produce more of the catalyst. The catalyst molecule has reproduced itself.

The boundary between living and non-living is not so easily defined.

Take giant viruses for example. Viruses are generally considered non-living but giant viruses are like a cell in that they support metabolic activity even though they cannot reproduce without a host.

[beso]

Actually Theland, life is not unlike a very elaborate crystal.

Can you describe exactly in abstract terms, what characteristics are essential for something to be considered alive?

[Khandro]

OG; I agree with the author of your googled premise, but not in your conclusion.
The world does not consist of meaningless bits of stuff, which have
somehow accidentally sprung into life (the flimsy Dawkins assertion - much loved of many ABers). Matter matters! but in asking whether or not the universe has an ultimate goal, we reach a boundary beyond which it is not possible to go.

[nescio]

I can recommend a book relevant to the topic:

Life Ascending, by Nick Lane. Well worth reading.

[Khandro]

beso; I don't know from where you are getting this from, a virus isn't a molecule, it usually consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, it is that combination which allows it to self generate on a host.