The Origin of Life
My previous article did little to describe the early earth that might have made “life” possible, so I will try to describe the situation a little better so that we have a better chance of describing the characteristics of life.
The accepted theory is based on a preparatory chemical evolution where small compounds with reduced carbon atoms were formed. These compounds reacted with the then volatile environment (catalyzed by clay) to form larger amino acids, sugars, and nitrogenous bases to create a prebiotic chemical “soup”. Eventually, large polymers of these compounds created the proteins and complex sugars we are familiar with today.
Life became possible when one of these large, complex molecules (most likely RNA) gained the ability to make a copy of itself. Thus, chemical evolution gave way to biological evolution.
Replication is certainly an important aspect of life because it creates two vital characteristics: selection (survival of the fittest) and ego, but is it what creates life?
KarmaDude
Jan 18, 04:26 PM
You seem to be really sure about this, if this is the formula for creating life from scratch, then why haven’t we been able to duplicate it?!
The problem is, that even the most basic of life, a single celled organism, or even a virus, is just too complex to justify such a simple explanation.
The method to the workings of the DNA is too complex to say that it was the creation of a random process. Not only does it contain the codes to create complex proteins and other building blocks of life, but it contains the plans that make the parts function, so that the whole can survive, and propagate life. It’s an open framework from which infinite forms of life can be generated.
I have to be skeptical here and be open to the idea that maybe life did not start here, maybe Earth was the fertile ground;the oasis in the desert;for seeds of life, which originated somewhere else. Till we find the truth, we should not get stuck in a well, but think beyond what has already been thought of, and maybe someone will find the truth.
dhom
Jan 18, 06:38 PM
I have to agree with KarmaDude. There is a huge amount of disagreement in the primary journal for this subject (Origins of Life and the Evolution of the Biosphere). I get the impression as I read the articles that people believe life evolve here because they want to and then go looking for evidence. One result is that there are a dozen or so incompatible theories all trying to explain the same thing.
Anonymous Coward
Jan 19, 02:25 AM
God created the heavens and the earth. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. That’s the answer. :)
Stu
Jan 19, 03:49 AM
In response to KarmaDude, the issue here is – can something simple lead to produce something complex?
A question that has always seemed to have an obvious answer, i.e. you need a complicated machine to make something simpler than itself, not the other way around.
However to realise this is not the case you only need to see how simple mathematical rules can create fractals such as the mandlebrot set, or how you can ‘evolve’ complex computer programs from a very simple set of rules in systems such as Tierra
We progress science by not filling unknown gaps with Aliens and Gods.
However, it is a mistake to speak any science as ‘Truth’, it is simply our closest understanding. I’ll leave truth to the philosophers if there is such a thing.
KarmaDude
Jan 19, 08:52 AM
Stu: Talking of something as simple is all about perception. Now computer programs are a bad example of simplicity, sure for the high level programmer it looks simple,but there is a whole world of complexity beneath that simplicity, maybe the person who created the compiler or intepreter can tell you that.
If we are going to cliam something is simple, then we must first dig into the simple system, and ascertain that it is indeed simple beneath the covers.
Take a cell or example, when we first learn about it, we are given such a simple view of it, but a cell is no simpler if you look at the parts that make up a cell. Even for that matter, an atom is no simpler.
It is all about abstraction, we block out the complexity, so that it does not distract us in our quest to build bigger and better things. But the truth lies in the complexity, and till we can see that, the origin of life theories are up for debate.
Of course, you can always go the route of anonymous coward, and be happy with your beliefs!
Pi.
Jan 31, 03:23 AM
The debate over evolution versus creation (Intelligent Design) is likely to last long into the future. In the comments above there are two possible answers to the problem which, if one allows a little thought and less prejudice to creep in, complement each other.
Evolution is a definite. The human being and other creatures have evolved over the centuries from lower, less capable life forms into rather more capable but not perfect life forms today. That evolution is continuing as the world we live in, our environment and standards, alter.
That doesn’t mean that the original life form – regardless of whether human or otherwise – couldn’t have been created by a superior being. It merely means that man must re-think what he believes that superior being to be, and perhaps accept that a god – or whatever – capable of creating life on this small, insignificant mass of chemicals, might just have been / be a single cell creature capable of simple fission.
Pi.
Thame
Jan 31, 06:35 AM
That is the best middle ground that we can hope for between Creationists and evolution.
cashmaniac
Feb 21, 04:27 PM
oh my