Abiogenesis: Life before evolution

reply to post by DangerDeath


Sentience would be a result of evolution... and not Abiogenesis in itself...

It would be massively beneficial to the species to evolve consciousness...

reply to post by nj2day


They are using their Minds in doing this. Don't they?
In nature, as has been stated in one of the previous posts, it would take too long.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by nj2day


So, there is no mind before life.
Life and mind come into being together.
Life evolves (also) using its mind. To evolve mind, perhaps?

reply to post by DangerDeath


There is no mind yet. none... there's not even a Nucleus to a cell... we're talking Protocells...

I think you're talking philosophy when abiogenesis is a science.


Edit to add: To be a protocell, the only requirements are a cell wall, and reproduction. nothing else... This could simply be basic RNA inside a lipid ring...

There's even theories that the cell wall is actually formed from the byproducts of the RNA combining with amino acids to replicate...




[edit on 17-12-2008 by nj2day]

I stand by this.

Scientists in their experiment add their own mind to make it work.
In nature, as is claimed, there is no mind at work in creation of life.

In life there is perception (consciousness) and something needs to bring order to it, to sort out what is what, the Measure as Niels Bohr says.

If mind is not indigenous to life, where does it fit?

Originally posted by DangerDeath

If mind is not indigenous to life, where does it fit?

This would be a product of evolution... Abiogenesis is chemical reactions... There is no more consciousness behind a protocell than there is behind vinegar and baking soda reacting when mixed... its the nature of the chemicals, not a conscious decision on their part or any sort of instinctual reflex...

At this stage in our abiogenesis discussion, the protocell is very similar to crystals... crystals make copies of themselves (replicate) because it is the nature of the molecules involved. This is also why crystals could be a new form of life, undergoing abiogenesis right in front of us...

This is why Abiogenesis is mostly discussed in the realm of biochemistry and organic chemistry... and not so often in biology.

Another term popular in the field of abiogenesis is "Chemical Evolution".

Biology covers the evolution of life, and thus, the "mind" as you are describing.

All right, I understand this.

I would only like to know the difference between life and this random and/or schematic occurrences.
That is, from the scientific point of view.

reply to post by DangerDeath


according to science, there really is no differentiation...

everything about all life on earth, without exception, can be reduced to the chemical level... even if we do not fully understand these reactions, they can be observed.

Any more "meaning" than that is the realm of philosophy...

Originally posted by nj2day
I would like to see other people's favorite theories on this topic, and perhaps discuss evidence for and against each theory/hypothesis that's out there...

As this is a thread on abiogenesis, the idea that a "magic man done it" won't fly... thoughts anyone?

Again, my favorite theory isn't listed, maybe because I thought of it myself. I've never heard it anywhere else.

The theory is that random fluctuations in spacetime allow for the creation of "subspace" or virtual bubbles that sometimes get big enough to carry and spread objects, including living organisms, throughout the universe in all places and times. The result is that life exists in a constantly refreshing time loop. Most of the time these tiny (or maybe not so tiny) living things end up literally in the middle of nowhere in dead space. Once in a while, they settle on a planet that allows life to live and grow and evolve.

Simply put, life has always existed, and will always exist. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any universe for it to exist in. So there was no "genesis" to speak of, because linear time is an illusion and an inaccurate concept. Real spacetime doesn't always need for there to be a cause before there's an effect.

The universe can't exist without something living observing it. So I suspect the universe continues to expand both forward and backward in time and space as spacetime fluctuations continue.

I don't know whether or not there is an intelligence or intelligences that direct all this spacetime zero point virtual/real fluctuation stuff. There might be, if micro-psychokinesis has any validity. It might be that every time any living thing dreams or has a thought energy/mass is projected backwards and forwards in time and space, ultimately leading to the creation of the universe through quantum wave function collapse. I don't think it's needed, but I don't see where it can be discounted, either.

It doesn't require a "god," per se. Just something that can purposely manipulate quantum fluctuations. And that pretty much includes every living thing.

reply to post by Nohup


hrm, nice theory. Its gonna take me some time to digest all of that...

but a quick question regarding the universe not existing unless something is there to observe...

What of the subatomic particles that exist, until we observe? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading something that there are some particles on the quantum level that exist entirely, until we look at them... then they cease to be...

I'm not trying to refute your ideas... just trying to get all the factors in my head before I start the "digestive process" of understanding the ramifications of your theory.

The existing you are talking about is "historical" existing.
They don't have history, that's why they don't exist. Single particles which don't interact.
But, things that "exist" as having history, are changing along the way, their very "existence" is a process (like a living being for instance).

Again, you need a measure to determine what is what. What a "thing" is. You need a unit of time to measure a sequence. etc...

reply to post by DangerDeath


We're not here trying to nail down a theory of everything...

instead, using the framework we have as a point of view, we must research according to the scientific method...

I'm still not convinced the universe is as "complicated" as theoretical physics suggests... I think each theory has merit, but ultimately, simplicity will be the key... It may be that the way we define our universal constants will change... but overall, there's a favorite saying of mine when thinking of scientific hypotheses: "Keep it simple, stupid". (Occam's Razor)

However, we're treading into the realm of philosophy and theoretical physics... and sticking with the slogan "keep it simple, stupid", we should be talking about abiogenesis... (Nohup's post has a place here, as he feels from what I gather, that the science of abiogenesis is derived from man's inability to understand the infinite... and that life has always been... and always will be... (with a slight hint of panspermia)

There's too much philosophy going on at the moment... we shouldn't have to define consciousness, and "thing", (or "is" hehe). Instead, we should be discussing abiogenesis, or alternative theories on how life was "seeded" on earth...

Regardless of what definitions we use, we know life exists. Lets discuss sound theories on how life began (or didn't in Nohup's case). As Abiogenesis is a scientific field, philosophical and religious ideas aren't compatible.

Lets stick to science.




[edit on 17-12-2008 by nj2day]

But once you understand everything
Everything is so simple.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

OK, I'll shut up now.

reply to post by nj2day


"Lets stick to science."

Judging from the amount of replies since this last directive, there doesn't seem to be much faith that Science will answer this ultimate question.

reply to post by dually202


Abiogenesis is a difficult subject. I didn't imagine there would be a huge response to this thread... Instead, I created it because evolution detractors always bring it up.

perhaps its more of a sign that when forced to stick to the argument at hand, the religious have no arguments.

Those who are using religious "arguments" are stuck to quoting what others said. They are not creative and therefore cannot neither ask nor answer questions.

Look, we all know evolution or something very close to it is absolutely true. So what is the point of this thread if not to educate the ignorant?

Something doesn't have to be sentient to be "living". Of course, semantically, the word "living" has been contorted to have a totally different meaning... Sentience is definitely a quality that has helped us survive, other we wouldn't have it. Life is just a very complex accident.

Evolution and religion are entirely compatible from a pragmatic point of view. Unfortunately, it is those that believe their entire religious foundations are destroyed upon accepting evolution as reality that are totally deluded. Religion is great. It serves a function of pacifying a rather violent species, humans, if you ask me. It promotes self reflection, humility, all those things that make a great scientist, in fact. But believing religion is some ultimate truth is just so wrong. It goes against everything that is "being human."

I wonder if it is possible for non organic beings to develop sentience. That would really cool.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by cognoscente]

We were discussing consciousness/perception as indigenous to all life. I claim that for consciousness to exist you need a mind to organize it, or else it will be totally dysfunctional.

Sentience would be the ultimate goal of consciousness evolution.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Are you saying that consciousness cannot physically exist if it does not have a mind to organize it? Your next sentence says that it would be dysfunctional. Why is an unorganized consciousness not capable of existing? Is this a merely a psychological issue, which you are attempting to reconcile? It seems to me we would rather believe consciousness could only exist in the form we are most familiar with, because it fits nicely with our personal world views. It would be quite scary if every molecule we come in contact with were to have some form of consciousness. I don't really see the merit of discussing consciousness, if consciousness is simply a definition for the cognitive ability of an individual from the species, homo sapiens.

reply to post by DangerDeath


You can define religious arguments however you want... I never said anything about religious arguments and quotes... Instead, I mentioned when forced to stay on the argument at hand.... you got nothin'.

I.E. you haven't managed to stay on topic with the OP, which is a discussion about the scientific field of abiogenesis... not concsiousness, not evolution, none of the above...

I intended this thread for people to discuss their perspective on the different theories involved with abiogenesis, and perhaps discuss the evidence for/against these different theories...

Philosophical discussion about consciousness and sentience are not abiogenesis.