OT: How life came to Earth

The giant leap is the first DNA-based reproducing cell. Evolution can mostly take over from there.

It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.

But archaea have left geological traces from 3.8 billion years ago, far earlier than modern life forms. That makes everything before 'evolution' basically imponderable and an hypothesis of 'planted' at that time is untestable; science can't digest such an hypothesis. Occam's razor applies.

Lol! Yes, we can invent anything we wish. However, that does not make it remotely a viable theory.

No one has mocked the idea of God. Some may not believe in a God and may point out the inherent contractions in such a belief, but where was anyone mocking?

You invoke a "presence" that created life and brought it to earth with no evidence of this "presence" and no explanation at all of what it might be. That is sufficiently close to a God to be labeled as such.

You also criticize other theories without actually pointing to any of them. You seem to think that research in an area is akin to people believing in a theory as reality.

What research is there into identifying your "presence" or showing how it brought life to earth?

And how did the master designer come about?

By magic?

Spontaneous self-creation?

Spores dropping from space? (and how did they come about?)

Jeroen Belleman snipped-for-privacy@nospam.please wrote in news:su6aa1$1tf$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

snip

Ever see the movie "Lucy"?

If not, you should check it out. Fiction... yes. Very cool flick... hell yes.

I see no need for that hypothesis. Peptides have a tendency to chain in complementary pairs, and those chains will separate and then make new complements if the conditions are right. It certainly started off quite inefficiently, but it gradually got better at it. That, and evolution, was all that was needed.

The initial conditions haven't quite been nailed down, is true.

Also, the evolution of intelligent life --as we know it-- isn't very likely. Only one species out of several million on this earth made it that far, and that only just.

Jeroen Belleman

whit3rd snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Of course. All OM is (ordinary matter). One would suppose that dark matter is as well, but then there are "other dimensions" which may or may not exist.

It wasn't to this guy or any of the folks that looked at his work... to this very day.

Srinivasa Ramanujan

It's pretty likely that life began with RNA and eventually proteins et al. DNA came far later, from the RNA world. Much of the ancient RNA word still exists, as the underlying machinery of modern DNA-based critters.

Joe Gwinn

Biologists aren't successful at a calculation? So?

Oh, no; theories are valued for a reason: they're applicable, useful, consequential. A theory can be rich (making predictions), or not; it can be provable (like a mathematical theorem) or not; it can be broad (connect many events or phenomena together). It should, in science, at least be testable (rich with consequential predictions).

The value of a hypothesis 'an incident of implantation occurred' in explaining observations is nil. We can't make that generate a useful or testable result, and it's not generating any predictions, isn't provable, and doesn't connect to anything except a disparate bunch of mystics and religions (who claim connection to... everything anyhow).

Sjouke Burry snipped-for-privacy@ppllaanneett.nnll wrote in news:nnd $29c813ca$02166fd8@938b15c86ca9cbd3:

Different plane of existence? Different dimension(s)?

So big that we are all "inside" of it right now.

Humans cannot conceive of anything other than ordinary matter type "flesh".

Though many may have been "shown" throughout history.

Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Srinivasa Ramanujan... all claim to have "been enlightened" during meditation and there is a claim that a universal knowledge exists to tap into that 99.999999999999999999999% of us will never see, use, or much less grasp.

That's one of the factors in the Drake equation. People will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through prejudice.

Tom Gardner snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:su6ok6$ado$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Same question I asked JB... ever see the movie "Lucy"?

total fiction but great... fun movie nonetheless.

As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

Obviously something very impressive happened.

DNA can't evolve until DNA exists, with the recipes to make itself and all its support and reproductive systems. A little polymerization won't do that.

Not quite!

If life is created spontaneously, it must have happened on a trillion planets across the universe, billions of years ago. That has possibilities.

Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

Some lab jock should invent some.

You are demonstrating that anti-theology inhibits even speculating about alternates to spontaneous generation in promordial soup.

I dare you to suggest something else.

Have you seriously considered the flying spaghetti monster?

It is very impressive, and there's no evidence it is DNA-based.

If it lasted that long. A "civilisation" that includes Donald Trump and John Larkin has several fairly obvious failure modes.

Not to waste on John Larkin's ill-informed speculations.