Abiogenesis Is Not Working, So What's Next? Panspermia.

[gnostic]

There is much less than a 1% chance that the universe will cease to exist in an eye blink. The same probability exists that abiogenesis somehow happened. So what you are saying is that since abiogenesis 'obviously' happened.

Abiogenesis is exploration of interaction between chemistry and biochemistry.

So far abiogenesis has focused on what conditions does amino-acid "form".

Amino acid is a combination of amine (NH2) and carboxylic acid (COOH).

Breaking down amino acid into their most basic atomic components, you would get carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen.

The reason why amino acid is so important in abiogenesis research, it is because it can be found in proteins.

Proteins is one of the essential ingredients (biological molecules) in life.

When biologists talk of genetic sequences and genetic codes in DNA and RNA, they are actually about the sequences of amino acid within the proteins.

So amino acid is therefore important in studies of nucleic acids:

1. RNA - ribonucleic acid
2. DNA - deoxyribonucleic acid

Discovering how amino formed on Earth (important in abiogenesis) or outside of Earth (eg amino acid found in meteorite, hence important in panspermia) are important in determining how life form in the first place.

So researchers (in abiogenesis and panspermia) are exploring in both avenues, but separately. Either ways, they are both exploring the most basic component for life, the biological compound called amino acid.

Personally, I don't see any problem exploring, investigating and experimenting either ones.

The real problem is the creationists hampering scientific discoveries in favour with myths of man being made out of dust (in the bible) or clay (in the Qur'an, and other ancient Middle Eastern religious literature.

No living creature, humans or animals, can be made (or created) from dust or clay. We are not plants requiring soils to sprout from the ground. That today creationists still think such myths are possible, only demonstrated they are still uneducated in science and still have superstitious ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

It's almost perfect except...

"I do not believe a hydrogen atom is alive." - Alfred Rogers
This is the fundamental error... allowing beliefs to cloud his view. The hydrogen atom is actually more complex than we originally thought.

Actually, you are wrong, Ponder This.

By itself, just element of hydrogen, either in gaseous or liquid states, are not alive.

Hydrogen atoms bonded with together other atoms, like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, as a MOLECULE or COMPOUND, is what make hydrogen useful as biological or organic matters.

Hydrogen has to be only one of the components in a biological MOLECULE or COUMPOUND, to make it alive.

Proteins, DNA, cells, genes, chromosomes, muscles, are made from many different compounds and molecules.

You should revisit your chemistry notes or textbooks, Ponder This. Chemistry 101:

1. Elements are just a collection of one type of atom.
2. Molecule is a collection of two or more different types of atoms (eg water is a molecule of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms).
3. Compound is a collection of different molecules.

Pure hydrogen are element, and they are certainly not alive. To give you another example of element. Pure carbon (element) is not alive; by themselves, they are either graphite or diamond.

Organic matter, like amino acid, is compound of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, bonded and arranged in certain ways.

Other acids have these exact same 4 different atoms, and what determine one acid from others, are

1. number of atoms,
2. and the arrangement or configuration of how the atoms are bonded.

To give an idea of what I mean by different configurations, in non-biology example. The computer processor or CPU (central processing unit), made by Intel, can be used on computers (desktop PC and laptop), on the tablets and mobile phones, network devices (servers, routers, switches, modems), in entertainment system (smart TVs, PVR, Bluray recorders), in cars (eg GPS), inside airbus cockpit, in spaceship, etc.

It is what used (other electronic components) with the processor or CPU, that determine the devices' applications. Some devices only required one CPU, but other required multiple CPUs.

Going back to atoms inside molecules or compounds. The collection of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms can be arranged, configured and bonded in a number different ways, therefore it can have number of different purposes. And how they configured determined if it organic and alive.

I will repeat that hydrogen by itself is not alive, but when they are bonded with other different atoms, then that's a whole different matter.

I hoped now you can understand what Rogers mean about hydrogen.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Actually, you are wrong, Ponder This.

By itself, just element of hydrogen, either in gaseous or liquid states, are not alive.

Hydrogen atoms bonded with together other atoms, like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, as a MOLECULE or COMPOUND, is what make hydrogen useful as biological or organic matters.

Hydrogen has to be only one of the components in a biological MOLECULE or COUMPOUND, to make it alive.

Proteins, DNA, cells, genes, chromosomes, muscles, are made from many different compounds and molecules.

You should revisit your chemistry notes or textbooks, Ponder This. Chemistry 101:

1. Elements are just a collection of one type of atom.
2. Molecule is a collection of two or more different types of atoms (eg water is a molecule of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms).
3. Compound is a collection of different molecules.

Pure hydrogen are element, and they are certainly not alive. To give you another example of element. Pure carbon (element) is not alive; by themselves, they are either graphite or diamond.

Organic matter, like amino acid, is compound of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, bonded and arranged in certain ways.

Other acids have these exact same 4 different atoms, and what determine one acid from others, are

1. number of atoms,
2. and the arrangement or configuration of how the atoms are bonded.

To give an idea of what I mean by different configurations, in non-biology example. The computer processor or CPU (central processing unit), made by Intel, can be used on computers (desktop PC and laptop), on the tablets and mobile phones, network devices (servers, routers, switches, modems), in entertainment system (smart TVs, PVR, Bluray recorders), in cars (eg GPS), inside airbus cockpit, in spaceship, etc.

It is what used (other electronic components) with the processor or CPU, that determine the devices' applications. Some devices only required one CPU, but other required multiple CPUs.

Going back to atoms inside molecules or compounds. The collection of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms can be arranged, configured and bonded in a number different ways, therefore it can have number of different purposes. And how they configured determined if it organic and alive.

I will repeat that hydrogen by itself is not alive, but when they are bonded with other different atoms, then that's a whole different matter.

I hoped now you can understand what Rogers mean about hydrogen.

That is correct. Hydrogen by itself is interactive, hence why it is even capable of bonding with other elements...they interact with each other. Hydrogen is not what we would term "living". However, given the right conditions and a sufficient amount of time, certain elements may combine to form more complex and more interactive compounds or forms...the most highly interactive of which we call life.

 

[Ponder This]

I hoped now you can understand what Rogers mean about hydrogen.

He defines life in terms of complexity.

But there are no simple objects, only simple models for them.

Just because he believes the hydrogen atom is not alive doesn't mean it's not alive. Just because some models are simple doesn't mean the atom is actually simple (in fact its more complex). Once he assumes the Hydrogen atom is not alive, he builds his theory and shows that nothing is alive. He doesn't prove that the Hydrogen atom is not alive or not complex. He simply believes it... and expects everyone to nod their heads in agreement.

He creates a special exception for the complexity that we typically view as "life". Because he is familiar with the complex models that have emerged from studying what we typically view as "life", he defines "life" in terms of complexity.

Pure hydrogen are element, and they are certainly not alive. To give you another example of element. Pure carbon (element) is not alive; by themselves, they are either graphite or diamond.

See. This is the problem. Graphite and Diamond are alive.

Going back to atoms inside molecules or compounds. The collection of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms can be arranged, configured and bonded in a number different ways, therefore it can have number of different purposes. And how they configured determined if it organic and alive.

There needs to be a consistent definition of what it means to be "alive". If he wants to go back to using an "organic compound" definition of "life" then we come full circle back to the questions of abiogenesis, panspermia, creationism, etc, etc. We didn't actually go anywhere or solve anything. What exactly was he trying to show? And how is it relevant to the thread?

He points at an object and says, "That thing right there is not alive." Then he pours a little moisture on it and Ta Da!

 

[Runewolf1973]

He defines life in terms of complexity.

But there are no simple objects, only simple models for them.

Just because he believes the hydrogen atom is not alive doesn't mean it's not alive. Just because some models are simple doesn't mean the atom is actually simple (in fact its more complex). Once he assumes the Hydrogen atom is not alive, he builds his theory and shows that nothing is alive. He doesn't prove that the Hydrogen atom is not alive or not complex. He simply believes it... and expects everyone to nod their heads in agreement.

He creates a special exception for the complexity that we typically view as "life". Because he is familiar with the complex models that have emerged from studying what we typically view as "life", he defines "life" in terms of complexity.


See. This is the problem. Graphite and Diamond are alive.


There needs to be a consistent definition of what it means to be "alive". If he wants to go back to using an "organic compound" definition of "life" then we come full circle back to the questions of abiogenesis, panspermia, creationism, etc, etc. We didn't actually go anywhere or solve anything. What exactly was he trying to show? And how is it relevant to the thread?

He points at an object and says, "That thing right there is not alive." Then he pours a little moisture on it and Ta Da!

The terms life and consciousness are great and they have their uses for sure, but they sure lead to a lot of unscientific mumbo jumbo. Since there is no clear definition or understanding of life or consciousness, rather than saying that things are "alive" or "conscious", it makes more sense (for me anyways) to just say that everything is interactive. Some things are more interactive or complex than others. I personally think it would benefit human understanding to remove the terms life and consciousness from scientific study and vocabulary altogether. Don't get rid of it, but just leave the subjective stuff for the philosophers. Science already knows that we are complex, highly interactive forms of matter, they just haven't quite got the chemistry right yet, but that's all it is...chemistry. There is nothing that I see as subjective about that.

 

[gnostic]

See. This is the problem. Graphite and Diamond are alive.

No, these are not alive.

Pure carbon are not living matters.

It is only carbon atoms when bond with other atoms (with hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen), and bonded in certain configurations, that they become living or organic matters.

Carbon alone doesn't make matters "living". Carbon bonded with other atoms don't by default turn matter into "living matter".

If you forge steel using iron and carbon, that doesn't make steel "alive" or "living matter".

And it is the same for every elements. E.g. pure hydrogen don't mean this element is living matter.

I seriously think you need to go back to high school, and learn basic chemistry, to understand the differences, between elements and molecules/compounds.

It really shouldn't be so hard for to understand what I am saying if you have basic grasp to chemistry and biology, because what I am trying to explain to you is very rudimentary science, something you should have known in high school chemistry and biology.

I am neither a chemist, nor biologist, but I haven't forgotten the basics.

Most of attention after high school was in physics and maths because of my studies in civil engineering, although some chemistry were involved. Examples, my studies include in understanding of properties of building materials (eg steel, concrete, and even woods, etc), and in study of soils and rocks/minerals (geology), because of the types of foundation required in construction. These require some knowledge in chemistry.

I am just bewildered by your lack of education that you would even think that diamonds and graphite are alive.

 

[gnostic]

There needs to be a consistent definition of what it means to be "alive". If he wants to go back to using an "organic compound" definition of "life" then we come full circle back to the questions of abiogenesis, panspermia, creationism, etc, etc. We didn't actually go anywhere or solve anything. What exactly was he trying to show? And how is it relevant to the thread?

Sorry, ponder this, but Rogers was essentially and technically correct when he stated that hydrogen isn't alive.

Hydrogen is only one that atom required other types atoms in molecules or compounds, to make something into living matters.

Liquid hydrogen and hydrogen gas are not "living matters", because hydrogen element is not alive.

Please look up molecules in chemistry and biology.

In biology. You should look up proteins, DNA, amino acid, or chromosomes, and you'll see that they are made of different types of atoms, bonded together as either molecules or compounds. None of them are composed of just on element of only one type of atom.

 

[Ponder This]

I personally think it would benefit human understanding to remove the terms life and consciousness from scientific study and vocabulary altogether

I am just bewildered by your lack of education that you would even think that diamonds and graphite are alive.

Sorry, ponder this, but Rogers was essentially and technically correct when he stated that hydrogen isn't alive.

In biology. You should look up proteins, DNA, amino acid, or chromosomes, and you'll see that they are made of different types of atoms, bonded together as either molecules or compounds. None of them are composed of just on element of only one type of atom.

"Maybe there is no real difference between life and non-life."
"Life does not exist. I arrived at this idea by realizing that what we call life can go through periods of being non-life, a seed, e.g. being dormant for hundreds of years. Life, such as tobacco molds can be produced from non-life. It then appears that the difference is complexity rather than something intrinsic. I do not believe the hydrogen atom is alive." - Alfred Rogers
"So we are all evolved organic computers... that's what I think." - Alfred Rogers

So how does this reflect on the question of the origins of life? Or as Alfred Rogers would say 'life'.

We are just going to ask all the same questions without having gained any insight whatsoever!
Did the organic computers evolve from abiogenesis? Panspermia? Creation? Am I supposed to start applying the theory of Evolution to Hydrogen atoms? Maybe I am!

So I'm saying, "Diamonds are alive". Deal with it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

"Maybe there is no real difference between life and non-life."
"Life does not exist. I arrived at this idea by realizing that what we call life can go through periods of being non-life, a seed, e.g. being dormant for hundreds of years. Life, such as tobacco molds can be produced from non-life. It then appears that the difference is complexity rather than something intrinsic. I do not believe the hydrogen atom is alive." - Alfred Rogers
"So we are all evolved organic computers... that's what I think." - Alfred Rogers

So how does this reflect on the question of the origins of life? Or as Alfred Rogers would say 'life'.

We are just going to ask all the same questions without having gained any insight whatsoever!
Did the organic computers evolve from abiogenesis? Panspermia? Creation? Am I supposed to start applying the theory of Evolution to Hydrogen atoms? Maybe I am!

So I'm saying, "Diamonds are alive". Deal with it.

This a perfect example of why I think the terms "alive" or "living" or "conscious" should be removed from any serious scientific interpretation or study. Any physicist who talks of "quantum consciousness" or any biologist who claims that certain forms of matter are "living" or "alive" while other forms are "non-living" are in my opinion quacks, flat out. I just don't get this way of thinking. It just seems so...19th century. Matter is just that...matter. It doesn't live, it doesn't die. It is highly interactive and it changes form, that is all. We are all composed entirely of it. How did such highly interactive forms of matter ever come to be? Change over long periods of time, given just the right conditions for that most peculiar of all changes to occur.

 

[gnostic]

This a perfect example of why I think the terms "alive" or "living" or "conscious" should be removed from any serious scientific interpretation or study. Any physicist who talks of "quantum consciousness" or any biologist who claims that certain forms of matter are "living" or "alive" while other forms are "non-living" are in my opinion quacks, flat out. I just don't get this way of thinking. It just seems so...19th century.

It does sound 19th century, the Romantic movement, which was idealistic, but also unrealistic...

...or it sounds New Age-ish...and they are just as unrealistic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This a perfect example of why I think the terms "alive" or "living" or "conscious" should be removed from any serious scientific interpretation or study. Any physicist who talks of "quantum consciousness" or any biologist who claims that certain forms of matter are "living" or "alive" while other forms are "non-living" are in my opinion quacks, flat out. I just don't get this way of thinking. It just seems so...19th century. Matter is just that...matter. It doesn't live, it doesn't die. It is highly interactive and it changes form, that is all. We are all composed entirely of it. How did such highly interactive forms of matter ever come to be? Change over long periods of time, given just the right conditions for that most peculiar of all changes to occur.

This idea is simply not helpful. I asked you earlier, "What utility do you see in claiming that the process that we call life shouldn't have a name? In what way does this idea forward understanding?" and you declined to answer, which I took as tacit agreement that you couldn't find any utility in that idea either.

You're going to have a tough time selling the idea that the concept of life is a meaningless one if no reason to do so is apparent or offered.

Also, claiming that an organism isn't alive because none of its atoms are alive is the reductionist fallacy, or fallacy of scale. There are phenomena that only emerge at greater scales, which was also explained to you and just ignored. I used the examples of wetness emerging from collections of water molecules, none of which alone is wet. I also used the examples of a piano and a screwdriver, which have a subatomic level of existence, but there is no difference between a piano and a screwdriver at that scale.

Life and living are useful concepts to describe a set of processes that emerge when sufficient complexity and a particular type of organization of matter leads to phenomena like growth, development, repair, active movement, feeding, healing and repair, reproduction, waste elimination, and metabolism come together.

You offer no reason to jettison these ideas or to consider life only at the smallest scale.

Understanding life requires a holistic approach, meaning considering it at all scales. Yes we are atoms like electrolytes. Too much potassium in the blood and you die. Yes, we are macromolecules like DNA and proteins. If you lack the lactase enzyme, you are intolerant of dairy products. Some issues are understood at the cellular level, like fertilization, some at the tissue level (connective tissue diseases and tumors), some at the organ level (heart failure), some at the organism level (death), and some at the population level (evolution, epidemics).

Reducing all of that to the concept that atoms are not alive that therefore the concept of life is meaningless is no more helpful an idea than claiming that there really are no works of Shakespeare, just letters, spacing, and punctuation. A sonnet is understood not at that level, but at the level of sentences arranged in a characteristic way.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This idea is simply not helpful. I asked you earlier, "What utility do you see in claiming that the process that we call life shouldn't have a name? In what way does this idea forward understanding?" and you declined to answer, which I took as tacit agreement that you couldn't find any utility in that idea either.

You're going to have a tough time selling the idea that the concept of life is a meaningless one if no reason to do so is apparent or offered.

Also, claiming that an organism isn't alive because none of its atoms are alive is the reductionist fallacy, or fallacy of scale. There are phenomena that only emerge at greater scales, which was also explained to you and just ignored. I used the examples of wetness emerging from collections of water molecules, none of which alone is wet. I also used the examples of a piano and a screwdriver, which have a subatomic level of existence, but there is no difference between a piano and a screwdriver at that scale.

Life and living are useful concepts to describe a set of processes that emerge when sufficient complexity and a particular type of organization of matter leads to phenomena like growth, development, repair, active movement, feeding, healing and repair, reproduction, waste elimination, and metabolism come together.

You offer no reason to jettison these ideas or to consider life only at the smallest scale.

Understanding life requires a holistic approach, meaning considering it at all scales. Yes we are atoms like electrolytes. Too much potassium in the blood and you die. Yes, we are macromolecules like DNA and proteins. If you lack the lactase enzyme, you are intolerant of dairy products. Some issues are understood at the cellular level, like fertilization, some at the tissue level (connective tissue diseases and tumors), some at the organ level (heart failure), some at the organism level (death), and some at the population level (evolution, epidemics).

Reducing all of that to the concept that atoms are not alive that therefore the concept of life is meaningless is no more helpful an idea than claiming that there really are no works of Shakespeare, just letters, spacing, and punctuation. A sonnet is understood not at that level, but at the level of sentences arranged in a characteristic way.

You provide the reason why right here. People are all too emotionally attached to the romantic and mysterious concept of life (and consciousness) that it skews logic and reason. It provides an open door for religious and pseudoscientific nonsense. That may be fine for philosophy and religion, but science should stay away from such ideas. We may as well be stuck with the old 'elan vitale' idea because for all intents and purposes, it seems like people still think there is some mysterious "force" or special kind of energy that separates so-called "living" from "dead" matter. I don't think so. There is a certain amount of undeniable beauty and wonder in all the change and complexity in the universe, but we shouldn't let our emotional attachment to the romantic concept of life and death cloud our scientific understanding that that's all it is...change and complexity.

 

[columbus]

Life and living are useful concepts to describe a set of processes that emerge when sufficient complexity and a particular type of organization of matter leads to phenomena like growth, development, repair, active movement, feeding, healing and repair, reproduction, waste elimination, and metabolism come together.

This is the point.
Is a hydrogen atom in the water in my brain alive the way I am? No.
Are there properties of such atoms beyond our current understanding? I'm sure that there are.
But confusing those properties with what we mean by the word life doesn't improve our understanding of reality. Quite the contrary, it eliminates the meaning from a useful word . That retards progress.
Tom

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is the point.
Is a hydrogen atom in the water in my brain alive the way I am? No.
Are there properties of such atoms beyond our current understanding? I'm sure that there are.
But confusing those properties with what we mean by the word life doesn't improve our understanding of reality. Quite the contrary, it eliminates the meaning from a useful word . That retards progress.
Tom

You mean that beaking things down into their fundamental constituents elliminates that special romantic feeling you get from using the word "life"? It's kinda like when you take a beautiful large stone and you break it down into it's various elements. You don't want to know what those elements are, you don't want to further our scientific understanding of that stone, you just want your rock back.

 

[columbus]

You mean that beaking things down into their fundamental constituents elliminates that special romantic feeling you get from using the word "life"?

No.
I mean that there is a difference between my Dad and his corpse.
Your meaning for life doesn't account for that.
Tom

 

[columbus]

It's kinda like when you take a beautiful large stone and you break it down into it's various elements. You don't want to know what those elements are, you don't want to further our scientific understanding of that stone, you just want your rock back.

No.
I'm looking at the rock in different ways, at different times for different reasons. Confusing those different ways of looking at the rock doesn't improve our understanding of the rock.
Tom

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You provide the reason why right here. People are all too emotionally attached to the romantic and mysterious concept of life (and consciousness) that it skews logic and reason. It provides an open door for religious and pseudoscientific nonsense. That may be fine for philosophy and religion, but science should stay away from such ideas. We may as well be stuck with the old 'elan vitale' idea because for all intents and purposes, it seems like people still think there is some mysterious "force" or special kind of energy that separates so-called "living" from "dead" matter. I don't think so. There is a certain amount of undeniable beauty and wonder in all the change and complexity in the universe, but we shouldn't let our emotional attachment to the romantic concept of life and death cloud our scientific understanding that that's all it is...change and complexity.

Your argument seems to be that we can't have such a concept without it derailing our ability to think dispassionately about the phenomenon called life.

Frankly, I don't really know what emotional response you are talking about. You and I seem to be discussing the concept without romanticizing it or being emotional.

Sorry, but I still don't see a reason to abandon the concept of life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is the point.
Is a hydrogen atom in the water in my brain alive the way I am? No.
Are there properties of such atoms beyond our current understanding? I'm sure that there are.
But confusing those properties with what we mean by the word life doesn't improve our understanding of reality. Quite the contrary, it eliminates the meaning from a useful word . That retards progress.
Tom

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? You seem to be agreeing, but you began with, "This is the point."

 

[Runewolf1973]

No.
I mean that there is a difference between my Dad and his corpse.
Your meaning for life doesn't account for that.
Tom

Well yah, since your dad obviously would have interacted in a much more complex manner than his corpse. So yes, there is a difference and my interpretation it does account for that.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No.
I'm looking at the rock in different ways, at different times for different reasons. Confusing those different ways of looking at the rock doesn't improve our understanding of the rock.
Tom

That is great that we have so many different ways of looking at things, but if we want a truly scientific understanding of something there is only one way we should look at it...piece by piece.

I'm not saying we should elliminate the word life altogether, but it should be used within certain contexts. For example we have the word music, but from a purely scientific understanding it is actually a collection of various vibrational frequencies. We have the word stone, but from a scientific understanding it's actually a collection of various elements. Both terms stone and music have their uses, but from a purely scientific standpoint they don't tell us much about what actually constitutes such things.