|
|
#1
10-02-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Abiogenesis
- Note - InTheDark is not now and has never been a biologist or even very good at biology.
I'm currently reading 'Life' by Richard Fortey and he states with little equivocation that life on earth began only once. I can see why this might be assumed and how it might be close to proven thanks to modern gene research. We lack any second, dissimilar life model that may have started at some other time and followed some different chemical organizational structure. If I've got this wrong please jump right in, but I assume that abiogenesis occured once and all earth life is some descendent of this prime event. I'd prefer to exclude the panspermia theory from consideration at this time. If the prime event is a one time only affair then it makes perfect sense the we have been unable to duplicate such a thing in the lab. The odds against abiogenesis must be huge indeed but there was quite a long stretch of time for random events pull together the first self-replicating, endothermic organism. Still, I wonder. Is there some level of human technology that you would assume the following: We have failed to create life in the lab and we should have, given the power of our technology. And if you assume such, where does that lead you? I think we're damn close to that point. All our technological prowess is unable to replicate what most assume to be a random hook up of random amino acids with no outside guidance. Sadly, I doubt I'll ever get any answer to this question. This from the man that insisted on attempting to duplicate the Miller-Urey experiment in high school. 
|
|
#2
10-02-2007, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
All our technological prowess is unable to replicate what most assume to be a random hook up of random amino acids with no outside guidance. [/ QUOTE ] If it's random and extremely rare, a lab experiment trying to duplicate the conditions has essentially no chance. A lab experiment won't duplicate the pattern of frost on my pint, does that imply my glass didn't frost up with that pattern? I could use some clarification of the question. luckyme
|
|
#3
10-02-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] All our technological prowess is unable to replicate what most assume to be a random hook up of random amino acids with no outside guidance. [/ QUOTE ] If it's random and extremely rare, a lab experiment trying to duplicate the conditions has essentially no chance. A lab experiment won't duplicate the pattern of frost on my pint, does that imply my glass didn't frost up with that pattern? I could use some clarification of the question. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] It's easy to identify events that have a probability that is less than 10^-81, the inverse of the sum of all assumed baryons in the universe. Shuffle two decks of cards and you're there. Pint glass frost as well. This prime event occured. We have some general idea how it may have happened yet there's no hint that we can duplicate it with an effort that is so much more focused than a puddle of thin amino acid soup. At some point on the technology curve I think we can say that since we've failed to replicate the prime event we can assume random chance 4 billion years ago also failed to generate the prime event.
|
|
#4
10-02-2007, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
This prime event occured. We have some general idea how it may have happened yet there's no hint that we can duplicate it with an effort that is so much more focused than a puddle of thin amino acid soup. At some point on the technology curve I think we can say that since we've failed to replicate the prime event we can assume random chance 4 billion years ago also failed to generate the prime event. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're exaggerating what we know of the conditions on early Earth. The Urey-Miller "early earth conditions" was mostly speculation - without knowing the composition early on, we can't really rule much out.
|
|
#6
10-02-2007, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This prime event occured. We have some general idea how it may have happened yet there's no hint that we can duplicate it with an effort that is so much more focused than a puddle of thin amino acid soup. At some point on the technology curve I think we can say that since we've failed to replicate the prime event we can assume random chance 4 billion years ago also failed to generate the prime event. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're exaggerating what we know of the conditions on early Earth. The Urey-Miller "early earth conditions" was mostly speculation - without knowing the composition early on, we can't really rule much out. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously, if early Earth conditions were known we could duplicate them and if after two or three billion years of observation we'd have some basis to reject the abiogenesis hypothesis if no life resulted. It's reverse engineering, not duplicating unknown conditions. There must be some level of technology where our failure to create life allows us to also reject the abiogenesis hypothesis. Again, I think we're close to this level of technology.
|
|
#7
10-02-2007, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This prime event occured. [/ QUOTE ] ok, I'll skip the probability question for now. What was the prime event you are referring to. Specifically WHAT occurred? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Abiogenesis occured, according to most, roughly 4 billion years ago.
|
|
#8
10-02-2007, 10:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
There must be some level of technology where our failure to create life allows us to also reject the abiogenesis hypothesis. Again, I think we're close to this level of technology. [/ QUOTE ] Our failure could just be that we're not trying very hard. I dont know much about it, but my understanding was that it wasnt a very active field since no-one really knows what earth was like so nobody knows what experiments to run.
|
|
#9
10-02-2007, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This prime event occured. We have some general idea how it may have happened yet there's no hint that we can duplicate it with an effort that is so much more focused than a puddle of thin amino acid soup. At some point on the technology curve I think we can say that since we've failed to replicate the prime event we can assume random chance 4 billion years ago also failed to generate the prime event. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're exaggerating what we know of the conditions on early Earth. The Urey-Miller "early earth conditions" was mostly speculation - without knowing the composition early on, we can't really rule much out. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously, if early Earth conditions were known we could duplicate them and if after two or three billion years of observation we'd have some basis to reject the abiogenesis hypothesis if no life resulted. It's reverse engineering, not duplicating unknown conditions. There must be some level of technology where our failure to create life allows us to also reject the abiogenesis hypothesis. Again, I think we're close to this level of technology. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly do you mean by close?
|
|
#10
10-02-2007, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abiogenesis
[ QUOTE ]
but my understanding was that it wasnt a very active field since no-one really knows what earth was like so nobody knows what experiments to run. [/ QUOTE ] so we run one, it works. wow. now we need to prove that's exactly how it happened. Or we run 5 varied experiments and 2 work. hmmmmm.. luckyme
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
