Earliest forms of life

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by blobrana, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    “Yale University researchers believe that the earliest forms of life on Earth were single strands of nucleotides, which performed some of the complicated cellular functions proteins are known to carry out at present.”

    Read more
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Interesting, thanks!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Where is the science? Where is the fossil evidence?

    Metaphysical speculation is not very scientific. This belongs in the religion forum.

    At least we have scientific evidence for archaea and cyanobacteria.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dexter ROOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    689
    nucleotides are known to function as enzymes. ribosomes are really just bound up nucleotides that function to create proteins from reading other nucleotides. Its not as much science as it is common sense. Recall that miller's experiments were able to form basic nucleic acids, and other organic compounds under electric charges. This makes sense to me.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Yikes!
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Where is the admin with the courage to kick your sorry ass out of this forum?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    I've left him to the wolves, Ophi. Have at it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Fossils are not the only evidence admissible in the "courtroom" of science. Since its discovery, DNA has sometimes provided more complete and compelling evidence than fossils. Other types of evidence including "circumstantial" are also admissible.

    Since no scientific theory can be proven true (that can only be done with mathematical theories, which are based on pure abstraction and need no corroboration from reality), the best we can do in our courtroom with a scientific theory is to prove it "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Some theories have so much evidence of so many different kinds that they rise to the level of canonical theories, cornerstones of science. There are other theories that do not have such a preponderance of evidence, even if they have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. These theories are accepted, but they do not become components of the scientific canon, at least not until they've endured for a couple of centuries without refutation.
    This is hardly metaphysical speculation. It's logical deduction. Not a canonical theory that serves as a cornerstone of science, but nonetheless a science theory, properly derived.
     
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    "Belief" does not qualify as science. Belief is religion.
     
  13. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Blobrana, member who begins threads on interesting subjects, announces he is leaving. But Oil sticks around. It is a sorry state of affairs.
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Time to wipe the dipstick clean?
     
  15. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    There is just as much scientific evidence for gods and angels as there is for Archean nucleotides as the first lifeform. When scientists discover or even speculate about some new lifeform that predates Archean nucleotides, you'll all say you knew it all along and what geniuses you are.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2008
  16. dexter ROOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    689

    There is quite a bit of data and understanding backing up this hypothesis. Relating it to gods and angels probably is'nt the smartest thing you could do. The basic transcriptional machinery is all 'archean nucleotide'. It is also used largely in genetic identification, because it is widely conserved throughout life's history. Nucleotides can multiply too, because of their ability to be copied. So they can be copied, and they can perform biochemical processes. That sounds like a good foundation of life to me. Of course it is science, and it does need to be observable, but it is a very good hypothesis.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    My thoughts exactly.
     
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Right. That's what we call science.

    So far it's merely a metaphysical theory based upon pure speculation.
     
  19. dexter ROOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    689


    Um, I also stated that it was a hypothesis. That is how science starts, with a theory explaining natural phenomena. It then undergoes testing. It is a good hypothesis concerning the origin of life, or what we consider life at the moment. The idea is based on a scientific, biochemical understanding of basic nucleotide enzymatic reactions, as well as an understanding of the theory of evolution and genetics. I think it is a very valid scientific hypothesis.
     
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    It's mere hypothesis. I'd like to see evidence with a date attached to it, not appeal to authority fallacy because someone at Yale thinks it "might" be true. What will you say when scientists speculate about a living organism that predates archean nucleotides?
     
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    See, OIM is right.
    We should dismiss all ideas out of hand until we have hard evidence that we are, in fact, thinking....:bugeye:
     
  22. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    I didn't say dismiss it. I said it's a priori metaphysics. Science requires a posteriori data.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    We have the data. It is in long conserved sequences of DNA. It is in the known environment of the early Earth. It is in the demonstrable chemistry of the early Earth.
    Note that there are two posteoris at work here. We can't get much more posteori than four billion years after the event. The other one is the arse you are making of your argument.
     

Share This Page