91–100 of 134 posts
> Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now demonstrated a chemical pathway that — in principle — could have made A, U, C and G (adenine, uracil, cytosine and guanine, respectively) from basic ingredients such as water and nitrogen under conditions that would have been plausible on the early Earth. The reactions produce so much of these nucleobases that, millennium after millennium, they could have a…
1. Simple chemical droplets can divide and multiply in the right conditions: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01571v1.pdf
2. “Evolution” from that simple beginning may be enough according to the theory of dynamic kinetic stability: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3843823/
> Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now demonstrated a chemical pathway that — in principle — could have made A, U, C and G (adenine, uracil, cytosine and guanine, respectively) from basic ingredients such as water and nitrogen under conditions that would have been plausible on the early Earth. The reactions produce so much of these nucleobases that, millennium after millennium, they could have a…
There's a multiverse theory that there are many possible or existing universes with different physical constants, affecting everything from chemistry to orbital mechanics, and the reason we are having this conversation is because this universe was conducive to the formation of highly organized lifeforms capable of abstract thought. In this line of reasoning "Why this set of constants" doesn't matter, because only the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anthropic principle doesn't depend on a multiverse.
Not on a multiverse directly, but I think there is merit to @hinkley's claim. Say there's a one trillionth chance that life forms on an earth-like planet. There are likely trillions of earth-like planets, so chances are good (given the assumptions) that life forms on (at least) one of those planets. People on that planet (Earth) will marvel that life was created and search for reasons that seem plausible and likely f…
If we do the chemistry and figure out the mechanism and it looks like it happens all the time, then that tells us one more term in the Drake equation and gives us a reason to go check out the exoplanets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the alternative theories that are more plausible, in your opinion?
DNA teleportation.., the recent discussion on HN about the hydrophobic effect of DNA basically proves it is true... naysayers be damned! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_teleportation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051949 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic_electric_effects.html
A while ago I read somewhere that the odds of life creating itself via basic chemical pathways are so miniscule, that there must be quite a few instances of mechanical clocks creating itself by rocks beating together over the aeons in the universe before the first dna based organism appeared. Might be very wrong but still a beautiful picture.
The fundamental point underlying the Nature article is that we don't actually know "the odds of life creating itself via basic chemical pathways". What we do know is that life appeared on Earth quite soon after liquid water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No invisible hand is required. Any life form that has reached the cognitive capability to reason about itself will be amazed by the sheer "coincidence" of their habitat. "wow, isn't it amazing that our planet's atmosphere is composed of the very ammonia we need to survive in?" No invisible hand required. Also evolution is "intelligently selective". Surviving and reproducing is a pretty intelligent mechanism. It will…
> Any life form that has reached the cognitive capability to reason about itself will be amazed by the sheer "coincidence" of their habitat. "wow, isn't it amazing that our planet's atmosphere is composed of the very ammonia we need to survive in?" Isn't this a non sequitur? Whether any life form would wonder about its existence (probable or otherwise) has no bearing whatever on whether it evolved or was designed or…
I'm sure there is a Douglas Adams passage that illustrates this but I can't remember it.
> Carell, an organic chemist, and his collaborators have now demonstrated a chemical pathway that — in principle — could have made A, U, C and G (adenine, uracil, cytosine and guanine, respectively) from basic ingredients such as water and nitrogen under conditions that would have been plausible on the early Earth. The reactions produce so much of these nucleobases that, millennium after millennium, they could have a…
I agree, but keep in mind abiogenesis is probably one of the tallest orders for chemistry. I'm glad scientists are at least exploring possible explanations, even if it means possibly disproving the mechanisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Neo-Darwinists are downvoting me, no doubt. I don't buy the Christian fairytale, either. In fact, I'm happy to accept that none of us know what the origin of life is. Life is just too complicated to be an accident of random, purposeless matter. Life is also too complex and multi-faceted to be explained by any religion's mythos.
It is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.
Also, what "purpose" narrative?
Is contradicting the Neo-Darwinist model of life somehow not allowed?
Does contradicting it make me a closet Christian, in your eyes?
Because I don't see an answer in Neo-Darwinism or any religion.
I'm happy not knowing, just as I'm happy to criticize people who claim to know.