Hi guys, my brain has been poking and prodding at a debate that came up lately in class. I will be setting the theory of Creation aside for a minute here. I know there are serveral theories in circulation on how we, and everything else on earth came about. One in particular that struck me was abiogenesis. The idea that life just sprang up from an inorganic ooze through pure luck is just mind boggling to me.

Another theory I remember being debated on was "xenogenesis" (I think that's the technical term, dont recall). It points out that life might have come from an entirely different planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc. The idea behind that theory was that small particles small enough to support and sustain life were cocooned in comets. Traveling years, weeks, decades, or milenia; they crash landed on Earth. By luck would have it, our planet was habitable and life took it's course.

There are several other theories I can recall, but I want to see what thoughts you guys have on this. Because thinking more about it just makes my head hurt

Edit: I think that life through abiogenesis is entirely possible. I just don't see HOW it was possible. This is in effect saying you can turn a chair or table into a fish. From what I understand, the primordial ooze went through some sort of chemical reaction turning inorganic molecules into amino acids. This in turn structured the first lifeforms into single celled organisms through a protein enabled machinery. Besides the quantum mechanic aspects applied to understanding this, I still can't wrap my head around this. What do you guys think?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 20 2010, 7:59 am by RetPallylol.

There hasn't been a topic dedicated solely to this topic, so I'm willing to give a shot. In the rules here: http://www.staredit.net/topic/6552/ there is a rule for starting new topics:


Give something for the topic to start with, this could be a point of view about a specific theory on the origin life, for example. Provide enough material for actual discussion to occur. I'll give you some time before I decide to just delete/lock the topic. You could try taking a look at other topics, and see how they were started.

I do not think exogenesis is very possible because from what I know of astronomy. Space has extreme temperatures and radiation. Cells would be screwed in space.

Yeah I would tend to agree, but I watched this TV show one time that was about the ten toughest animals. The toughest one was this tiny bug thingy called a water bear. This little bug fed on tiny moss, and swam in water. It looked like a little plushy bear. The point is, they said on TV that this thing could survive the vacuum of space. So I don't think it's too far fetched to say that space would always kill everything in it. Just a thought.

It's possible that intelligent extra-terrestrials visited Earth billions of years ago, then left. Some simple organisms were left behind on the surface and then colonized the entire planet. This theory doesn't really have much proof, somewhat similarly to any other theory.

Scientists have done experiments that proves that it was possible for organic molecules to form in primordial conditions. They just aren't exactly sure how those molecules formed into cells.

Yes, my thoughts exactly on abiogenesis. No one KNOWS for sure. For anyone to discover this I could picture the headline to read: "Scientists turn molecules into a cat"

MasterJohnny - Thinking about what Cervantes said about the water bear, I read up more about it. It says it has the ability to repair its own DNA. Wouldn't be enough to survive cosmic radiation? I read somewhere that there is an upcoming experiment by the russians to send this and other hardy organisms to space and mars. If it succeeds, it will prove xenogenesis is entirely possible. Even if it fails, we don't know exactly what life was BILLIONS of years ago. We can't say without question that extra planetary life came to Earth in a different form then evolved to something completely different.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 20 2010, 5:37 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: it's 'no' not 'know'. just doing you a

The problem being that the "life came to Earth from space" "theory" doesn't answer any questions: that life still had to form, which is no easier to explain, only now we're saying that it not only has to form but in a specific way, under mind bogglingly vastly less suitable conditions and then by some mind bogglingly small chance happened to strike one of the planets where it had a chance to develop further.

There are many scenarios that are just 'possible'. That's also why it's mind boggling.

Time for my 4 years in University to shine.

One new theory behind how life began is the RNA world theory.

We all know that DNA is our cells' "blueprint" or "information centre" (u do know that right?) where RNA is transcribed, and then proteins are translated. Finally, proteins are used to control our cells, and to cut a long, LONG story short, allow our cells to survive and reproduce.

However, through the discovery of retroviruses, microRNA (miRNA), and siRNA (silent/regulatory RNA), it seems that RNA, which was formally thought as a simple messenger between DNA and proteins, have a much bigger role in biology. The structural properties of RNA is very unstable, allowing itself to be recombined very easily, but will still show homology to similar sequences. Therefore, the theory is that, through pure luck, RNA have been able to recombinate and "reproduce" itself.

While it is hard to imagine a long piece of RNA reproducing itself w/o the help of anything else, it is easy to think of each nucleotide (which are rather simple compounds) by themselves, and by pure luck are homologous to other RNA strands in the inorganic ooze, and therefore join together to create homologous strands, thus creating strands of complimentary RNA, which can then go to create more complimentary strands.

Since RNA is so unstable, it will probably dissociate and reassociate numerous times, and by pure luck, some RNA sequences were "efficient" in "reproducing" itself, causing all the things in life to appear later on..

There are a lot of potholes that I didn't fill in here.. because I don't know this theory very well either...

Personally, the xenogenesis theory stands the most plausible. In the beginning of our solar systems, there would've been satellites flying everywhere, and the early earth could've been anywhere, orbiting around the new born sun maybe thousands of miles from where it is now. Then satellites crash would be able to crash into it since it may not have sustained an adequate atmosphere to stop meteorites. The one problem with this theory is that the early solar system all started from a nebula, or a giant dust cloud that has been created by a supernova. If we assume xenogenesis is correct, then it must mean that before the supernova that created the nebula which will later form our solar system has had life.

The other possibility is that it's a satellite coming from a completely different system, which is highly unlikely, but still marginally possible....

Haha yes of course I know the role and function of DNA and RNA. This debate was triggered during my AP biology class. I just don't understand HOW a mechanism like that would occur in the first place. It is in it's purest form animating something that is completely INanimate. How exactly did it just suddenly and magically develop a transcription system where it reads lines of genetic material and translates them? What would be the motivation for something inanimate to replicate in the first place? What reactions just conveniently placed all these molecules together to perform functions like these? You see, the plot holes are endless if given enough thought in this story. I meant I didn't understand the HOW, as in these points, not in the technical aspects of DNA and RNA.

Well, if you break it down you do not have to think of it as two very objective entities of "INanimate" and "Animate". In AP biology I assume that you know that Eukaryotes are encased in a lipid bi-layer, a naturally occurring molecular formation (thanks to the polarity of the individual molecules) that, for the cell, keeps things out of it (but also keeps things inside of it). Also, not only is the cell encompassed by this useful formation, but also the organelles are as well. One of which I would like to point out is the Mitochondrion. Mitochondria have an interesting fold-in fold-out pattern inside of their capsule by their lipid bi-layer. Many interesting things could be pointed out about the mitochondrion, but what is truly interesting is that they actually have their own DNA. What is more interesting in my opinion, is that the DNA is arranged in circular chromosomes! Circular chromosomes, just like Bacteria. A good theory that I have heard is that each organelle in a cell was once a semi-successful organism on its own. Just as cells colonize in larger systems, prototype cells colonized in micro-systems. The theory goes on to believe that these simple organelles arranged themselves naturally through trial and error. After all, natural selection still applies. Does it not? It starts with any clump of matter that successfully replicated, evolution carries out the rest.

Water -> clumps of shit in the water -> people.

Happy? j/kj/k xD

And what they're saying is that a large tornado just swept through the garbage yard and made a Ferrari.

Retpally, you should really stop using the word 'magic' just because you don't understand certain steps in the process.

And dazed, the only place I hear that tornada+junkyard joke is in church, not in any sort of serious setting. It's a long debunked analogy. Whatever the analogy is trying to make sound impossible, it isn't abiogenesis, because it makes 4 false assumptions:
Source: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html
I lol'd

In response to number 1 in your first set of analogies: "It operates purely according to random chance." I don't see why this isn't true. If it operated according to anything other than random chance, it would have been intelligently planned out, thus defeating the whole purpose of spontaneous generation. Also, their natural selection they are referring to operates purely on probability and chance by definition. The strongest and most able of the organisms are the most likely to survive and pass on their superior traits. The weaker organisms are more likely to die and not pass on their weak traits. Natural selection also only occurs after you have life, you don't have natural selection if there isn't life to begin with; it completely ignores the beginning stages of life's creation.

2. "It as an example of a single-step, rather than cumulative, selection." Well, this is because all the cells we have ever seen or imagined (that function properly) are irreducibly complex. This means that it cannot survive without any of the currently existing parts. In order for something to be considered "alive", it would need to be incredibly complex. Even if the steps to achieving life are slow and separated into different processes, the chances of such only worsen due to time, plus you also need to multiply the chances of each individual process upon each other, resulting in a similar probability as a single spontaneous cumulation. If a process happens all at one point by random chance, there is a certain probably of that process happening successfully. If you split the process into subgroups of different ones, each individual process will have a greater probability of success, but once you multiply each of those probabilities upon each other, the resulting product is equal to the probability of a single process -unless you take into consideration time.

Here is a short example: If you tear pieces of paper and drop them on the floor, the chances of them accurately resembling a fish are very low. However, if you drop these pieces from a greater height (adding more time), the chances of them accurately resembling a fish diminish even further. You expect people to believe that a process of many years is more likely to occur, rather than a single process? Time only lets in more chaos, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, unless there is intelligent intervention.

3. "It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product." This is actually correct. Although, the inclusion of vast amounts of time only worsens the probability of life evolving to modern day, from a period with no life. Although the #3 statement is true, the tornado analogy is only being lenient in it's comparison, and the actual chances of all the life we have today evolving from non-life is much worse than the tornado analogy. I mean, if the tornadoes whip through different junkyards over a period of millions of years, the chances of something resembling modern technology are worse off then a single tornado in a single junkyard. As I said before, this is because of the second law of thermo-dynamics. Applying raw energy to something is almost always destructive and entropic, unless intelligence intervenes.

4. "It has a target specified ahead of time." Yeah, it does. Here is another quote from the article: "To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery." Okay sure, change the analogy to "any functional piece of machinery" and the chances don't really get relevantly better in any meaningful way.

Sure the tornado is an example of order arising spontaneously, although, I think life in its simplest forms are far more complex than a single tornado. Tornadoes occur all the time, they are frequent. Life arising from non-life is a bit more rare than a tornado.

Time does increase probability. You could consider time as an infinite series of Chances, in fact, you should. In statistics we learn that rolling a die multiple times does not increase the probability of any specific side, however, it does increase the likelihood for a single side to occur. In this way, we are more likely to find a bio genesis given more time.

Also, Life isn't clearly defined. Where is the dividing line? Viruses are a good example of semi-lifeless things. They are incredibly simple, almost Mechanic. This is how life began. Simple and mechanical.

Natural selection works ALWAYS. its not restricted to life. It is a universal concept, and a driving force. Politics, free market, writing, our thoughts, almost every aspect of existence can be seen to apply to natural selection. In this way, self replicating systems that worked the best get to start. Natural selection then chooses the next best thing and promotes it. As these things become more complex through simple molecular processes their Whole becomes more complex, which is the illusion. Life is a combination of many many micro systems that all have a task of solving a problem. Natural selection finds the best of these and embeds them.


You again used a final result as an example, where the paper is trying to become something. What is the probability of a group of molecules getting together, and making an intricate formation that would be symmetrical and mathematically complex to represent? It is actually very high. They do this all the time. Hisnowflake . Also see: Salts. Matter seems to find order on its own.

If you rolled a die for thousands of years, the force of the dice being rolled is destructive enough to destroy the dice themselves over time. Applied raw energy is usually destructive, and I honestly don't think life being constructed out of molecules over millions of years is more likely than an instantaneous one due to the fact that cells are irreducibly complex; why would a set of molecules combining together and separating for millions of years be more likely to generate life? That just leaves a bunch of time for the process to be interrupted. However, you are right in that it increases the chances of life generating in a single fell swoop, rather than a slow spontaneous process of generation.

I'm going to have to simply disagree on this; viruses aren't at all simple, and wouldn't "survive" without their even more complex hosts.

Wrong, natural selection cannot choose, natural selection is just a law of probability. I've already explained this; those with the best traits fit to surviving the present circumstances are those that are most likely to pass on their traits to others. That's all natural selection is. So I guess before life existed, natural selection would just be the most stable molecules surviving the longest, although this doesn't have much to do with molecules passing on this trait to others.

Like I said, cells, the most basic units of life, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory ) are irreducibly complex. So you cannot call something alive, without having all of the necessary pieces. If you separate the construction of all the separate necessary pieces, the probability of getting all of them together is the same as if you were to start with the entire cell itself, if you ignore the inclusion of time. About the definition of life itself, you can decide for yourself if pulling a semantics card is going to be worth it. For now, I'll just assume we all know what constitutes life in a basic sense ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology ).

The thing is, I wasn't talking about snowflakes, I was talking about life. Life is a final result, and the process from inanimate material to animate material has a definite end product: life. Again, my analogy is only lenient on the probabilities, as the probability of life spontaneously generating is much less than the paper resembling something.

Summary: Natural selection cannot choose as it is just a definition of probability. Time, due to the second law of thermodynamics, just worsens chances for spontaneous generation to occur resulting in something alive since cells are irreducibly complex; energy applied without intelligent intervention is almost always destructive, not constructive. Crystallization is usually a result of a loss of energy, to where atoms//molecules lie into a relaxed state. Applying energy to water doesn't seem to create anything orderly, however, when enough kinetic energy is lost in the water molecules they fall into locked patterns due to their polarity.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 23 2010, 12:24 am by Cervantes.

I will agree with you on some things. I think it is ridiculous for anyone to assume that life occurs spontaneously. That doesn't make any sense. Especially considering life in the sense that you describe it. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a simple self replicating system, colonizing with other simple self replicating systems, encased by a naturally occurring lipid bi-layer, can progressively become more complex until it fulfills your standards for life.

Laws of thermodynamics whaa? The second law of thermodynamics is about Entropy. You burn a tree down, the tree is spent, you can't put it back together. The end. It doesn't say anything about the creation of that tree. You could turn it on its head and say, "The smoke and ash will never make a tree on their own" - of course they wont! thats moving backwards, and no one is arguing that. AND if they are, then they need to reevaluate their logic.

And also - I hate myself for proposing something like this - What are the other (logical please) options?

Considering natural laws, there really isn't any other natural explanation for the origins of life.

Okay well, that's your opinion and I can understand why you would think so. I have no qualms with this; seems like a sound choice.

Oh, I was referring to that because a system that isn't in equilibrium will tend towards chaos (entropy). There are quite a few versions of the second law, but my point was that without intelligent intervention, any raw energy applied over matter results in a destructive outcome (usually), and that applying energy over a vast amount of time only allows for more resulting chaos, especially if raw energy is applied to something orderly. I can only see adding in vast amounts of time allowing for new inputs of energy (events like rain, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, lighting) being a destructive force that would interrupt whatever complex combination of molecules that was occurring. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I was just trying to show you why I thought so.

Yeah I'm really not sure. I've never found any sort of spontaneous generation idea or theory to be convincing, and I don't like most of the religions out there. I'm just posting in here to get people to think about their own views critically

Cervantes, you are just a young Socrates aren't you?

And that you did, by the way. I hadn't really thought about much of Abiogenesis until today. Well, I take that back. I looked into it, watched a seminar from Richard Dawkins, then accepted it. Today I actually read some articles and dusted off my molecular biology textbook. I uhh, thanks for that i guess.

Cecil, do you get most of your information from answersingenesis.com? I've got the strong feeling you do considering all this talk you're trying to give us on the myth of irreducible complexity. I found it very misleading for you to say cells are irreducibly complex with a wiki link to cell theory, pretty much insinuating that was a tenet of cell theory, which it is not. Do a find on "irreducib*" and you wont find any mention of it. I would think a SD moderator would conduct themselves better than this.

No more working on the assumption that cells are irreducibly complex by definition. Please prove this point. After some research I hope find that it is actually only a case of Irreproducible Irreducibility. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html You'll see that talkorigins has paid special attention to this creationist argument and gives tons of evidence and reasoning to refute it.