For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

Page 86 of 98
  1. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not nececssarily true - it might have been as simple as things not folding properly, rendering combinations involving multiple handedness ineffective, in which case evolution would suffice for the rest of the job.

    Mimivirus - it shows some signs of being alive even though it's clearly a virus and clearly needs a host.

    Maybe the problem is that you need to take the blinkers off.

    Again, maybe this is an issue of blinkers rather than anything in the real world.

    Or do you honestly and earnestly believe that the first life that evolved on earth bore more than a passing resemblance to anything alive today?

    The self replicating vesicles are a good start because they have many characteristics of cells as we see them today. They may not be the ultimate answer, however, they're a step in the right direction.
     
    Trippy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1701

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy

    paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    And it gets harder as time progresses I would Imagine...at least with Evolution and Earth based Abiogenesis.
    Perhaps as we progress beyond Earth's confines, we may eventually find something.

    But irrespective, Evolution and Abiogenesis do obviously remain rock solid as always.
     
    paddoboy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1702

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. humbleteleskop

    humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Your interpretation of what I said is very literal, for some reason. You missed the mark.

    What is molecule of organisms? The answer is: family
    What is molecule of families? The answer is: society
    What is molecule of societies? The answer is: race
    What is molecule of races? The answer is: ecosystem
    What is molecule of ecosystems? The answer is: planet
    What is molecule of planets? The answer is: solar system
    What is molecule of solar systems? The answer is: galaxy
    What is molecule of galaxies? The answer is: universe
    What is molecule of universes? The answer is: it does not compute


    Do you see what is supposed to be the meaning of the word "molecule"? Should I say "symbiosis"? What word do you suggest we should use to describe this relation between parts and their collective self?
     
    humbleteleskop, Jul 6, 2014
    #1703

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,076
    Oh, that just sounds wrong to me. The earth's moon "rules" the collective self of the Solar system? Perhaps I misunderstand.

    I keep hearing "irreducible complexity". No one has found an irreducibly complex system yet. Everything is reducible to its smallest "components" or "behaviors" (such as wave/particle duality of photons).

    In the end there seems to come down to the Four fundamental forces.
    Read David Bohm (physicist). In my limited fashion I use his model of "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as my baseline of metaphysics.
    I feel comfortable accepting David Bohm's expertise as he was an eminent published physicist.
     
    Write4U, Jul 6, 2014
    #1704
  8. leopold

    leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't think viruses (virii?) are alive.
    i mentioned a fact.
    what it actually means remains to be seen.
    the fact is, earth life is DNA based.
    can the two be interchanged?
    what applies to RNA life might not apply to DNA life.
    so no, what is represented on the site does not represent earth life.
    on the other hand, if this can happen (RNA becoming a bonifide cell) i believe it would disprove an outside lifeforce that depends on DNA to manifest itself.
    yes it's a good start, for no other reason than to learn about "real cells".
     
    leopold, Jul 6, 2014
    #1705
  9. krash661

    krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    answer: interdimensional hypothesis
     
    krash661, Jul 6, 2014
    #1706
  10. leopold

    leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i'm sitting here trying to figure out how i can add to this.
    i can reach only one conclusion:
    with that one sentence you have said it all.
     
    leopold, Jul 6, 2014
    #1707
  11. humbleteleskop

    humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Just because it's artificial only makes it "alien", it doesn't make it any less "alive". Does it?
     
    humbleteleskop, Jul 6, 2014
    #1708
  12. leopold

    leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't know.
    i would assume the structure of RNA is not compatible with DNA.
    this would rule out any outside life force that depended on DNA. (if RNA becomes valid that is).
    there are questions about this though.
    example:
    what caused the wholesale transfer from RNA to DNA?

    i honestly don't think it's "proof" of any kind of earth life, although it DOES have merit.
     
    leopold, Jul 6, 2014
    #1709
  13. dumbest man on earth

    dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Collection(!) ; Set ; Aggregation ; Caboodle ; Compilation ; Assortment ; Cluster ; Heap ; Pile ; Trove ; Whole ; Omnibus ; Muster ; Group ; etc...
     
    dumbest man on earth, Jul 6, 2014
    #1710
  14. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's your opinion nothing more. The scientific community, on the other hand, has been debating that for the last 100 years or so. They thought they had it settled and then along came mimivirus which has a size and complexity comparable to many bacteria that was also able to express its own proteins and reignited the debate.

    But hey, if you're secure in your false certainty then who am I to argue?

    Saying life is 'DNA based' is both wrong an meaningless. RNA ful-fils roles in the coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that without RNA life as we know it could not exist. The difference between us and most virii is that where we use DNA to encode genetic information most virii use RNA.

    Your stance puts you in opposition to mainstream science which considers that "It is generally accepted that current life on earth descends from an RNA world."

    I mean look at what we see in nature, where we see the following progression:

    Viroid: 'free floating' RNA that utilyses host cell enzymes to replicate itself. No proteins involved. Just enough RNA to cause its own replication.
    RNA Virii: More complicated than a Viroid. RNA encapsulated by a protein. RNA encodes for its own reproduction and the production of proteins. The human Hepatitis D virus might almost be considered a transitional form between viroids and virii.
    DNA Virii These still function as virii, however, the use DNA instead of RNA a transitional form between RNA and DNA virii may not be possible because it may not be 'that simple', but then again, nothing predicts that it should neccessarily that way. Alternatively we have the likes of Mimivirus which might represent a transitional form between virii and the simplest cells as it has some of the properties of both.

    At this juncture, I'm not convinced you actually understand what that means.
     
    Trippy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1711
  15. dumbest man on earth

    dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Seriously, Trippy.
    That was stuff I learned in 9th Grade Biology, back in '69 or '70.
    Heck, I even remember the "mnemonic" I utilized to Grok : gram-negative Bacteroides.
    It was : hemorrhoids - ask me if I want them - answer = negative, Ergo : gram-negative Bacteroides.

    Trippy, I realized decades ago that the more I learn and truly understand (Grok!), just adds to my realization that there is so very, very much more to be learned and truly understood(Grok'd!).
     
    dumbest man on earth, Jul 6, 2014
    #1712
  16. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Actually, molecules can control what atoms do.

    Unless you think that the oxygen atom in tert-butanol is somehow magically different from the oxygen atom in n-butanol? While they might have some chemistry in common, there are some reactions that can be done with one that can not be done with the other.

    Likewise, atoms exert at least some control over how electrons behave - this is related to factors like which orbital the electron is and things like effective nuclear charge. Likewise, molecules can influence what an electron does - for example, when a bond becomes delocalized (eg benzene).

    Likewise individual planets have had significant impact on the evolution of the solar system. On the face of it, what you're saying is simply wrong at every level.
     
    Trippy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1713
  17. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And that's fine. I wasn't suggesting you didn't understand those points, however, not all of the participants in this conversation have the level of understanding of biology that you and I have. I was simply making them explicit for those that might not otherwise have been aware of them.
     
    Trippy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1714
  18. humbleteleskop

    humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    I agree with everything about Panspermia except about "transportation" of life via meteorites and such. If a planet does not have what it takes on its own then I don't think any meteorites could change that, unless the "meteorite" was not a whole planet by itself or something like that, but otherwise I find it as insignificant since many planets are already supposed to be teaming with life anyway.
     
    humbleteleskop, Jul 6, 2014
    #1715
  19. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Then you demonstrably do not understand panspermia.
     
    Trippy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1716
  20. humbleteleskop

    humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Very interesting. It must be true, at some level at least. We see cells tend to organize in aggregate of cells where they are usually better off because of it. It's just a matter of choosing words then to describe their collective interaction as "symbiosis", and that just fits the description.
     
    humbleteleskop, Jul 6, 2014
    #1717
  21. humbleteleskop

    humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    And so you say. In any case, if I do not understand panspermia then please forget I compared my opinion with it.
     
    humbleteleskop, Jul 6, 2014
    #1718
  22. dumbest man on earth

    dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Whoa...Trippy, please do not misunderstand what I Posted, please...please!
    I was merely expressing my incredulousness that what I Grok'd nearly 45 years ago earned me a "nod in agreement".

    I have not gotten a lot of them in the past 10-months or so on SciForums.

    So...I completely understood that you were explicitly stating that I did understand!

    Not a Biggie!
    Cool Beans, aye!!
     
    dumbest man on earth, Jul 6, 2014
    #1719
  23. paddoboy

    paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That depends on the meteorite/comet, and what basic ingrediants it has to start the necessary chemical reactions to bring forth life from non life.
    It is not Impossible.
    You forget, that it only needs to start reacting in one spot. The hard part with life is the beginning...life from non life...Once life is established and has a foothold, it is pretty hardy and will spread and take hold.
     
    paddoboy, Jul 6, 2014
    #1720
Page 86 of 98

Share This Page