"How Did Life Begin on Earth?" --A New Theory Embraces the Cosmic through Geological, Chemical, an

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thank you for the thread and the time Grim. So many details of great importance.

reply to post by randyvs


No problem Randy I am glad you enjoyed it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Interesting, but more of the same theory just different specifics,

Chatterjee said. However, he suggested an experiment to recreate the ancient prebiotic world and support or refute his theory. “If future experiments with membrane-bound RNA viruses and prions result in the creation of a synthetic protocell, it may reflect the plausible pathways for the emergence of life on early Earth,”

Now if this happens that's a little different, but there always seems to be WAAAYYYYYY more theories than actual supportive reproducible experiments. I wont hold my breath.

Intelligence/consciousness is a fundamental property of timespace. Dark energy is the imprint of that intelligence on timespace . Possibly bleed over manifestation of a higher dimensional life.

Pi is the "gap" where this manifestation occurs, the" angle" consciousness/intelligence intersects our timespace culminating in the manifestation of life.

Or something like that



All i know id if life is so simple then why is it so hard to make?

When did the earth begin to be peopled?

"In the beginning all was chaos; the elements were mixed up in a state of confusion. Gradually those elements settled into their proper places, and then appeared the orders of living beings appropriate to the successive states of the globe."

Whence came the living beings that appeared upon the earth?

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, awaiting the favorable moment for their development. The organic principles came together on the cessation of the force which held them asunder, and those principles formed the germs of all the living beings that have peopled the earth. Those germs remained latent and inert, like the chrysalis and the seed of plants, until the arrival of the proper moment for the vivification of each species. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."

Where were the organic elements before the formation of the earth?

"They existed, so to say in the fluidic state, in space, in the midst of the spirits, or in other planets, awaiting the creation of the earth in order to begin a new existence on a new globe."

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to produce crystals of regular forms that are invariable for each species, as soon as those molecules find themselves in the conditions necessary to their combination. The slightest disturbance of those conditions suffices to prevent the union of the material elements, or, at least, to prevent the regular arrangement of the latter which constitutes the crystal.

Why should not the same action take place among the organic elements? we preserve for years the seeds of plants and of animals, which are only vivified at a certain temperature and under certain conditions: grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after the lapse of centuries. There is, then, in seeds a latent principle of vitality, which only awaits the concourse of favorable circumstances to develop itself.

May not that which takes place under our eyes every day have also taken place at the origin of the globe? Does this view of the formation of living beings brought forth out of chaos by the action of the forces of nature itself detract in any way from the glory of God? So far from doing this, the view of creation thus presented to us is more consonant than any other with our sense of the vastness of His power exerting its sway over all the worlds of infinity through the action of universal laws.

This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements, but nature has mysteries which it is as yet impossible for us to explain. -Allan Kardec

pyramid head
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Interesting, but more of the same theory just different specifics,

Chatterjee said. However, he suggested an experiment to recreate the ancient prebiotic world and support or refute his theory. “If future experiments with membrane-bound RNA viruses and prions result in the creation of a synthetic protocell, it may reflect the plausible pathways for the emergence of life on early Earth,”

Now if this happens that's a little different, but there always seems to be WAAAYYYYYY more theories than actual supportive reproducible experiments. I wont hold my breath.

You don't need a large number of chemicals to model cell-division. You can do it using "reaction-diffusion equations". One of the simplest is the Gray-Scott system:



Imagine that there is some kind of sponge or semi-solid block of gel that can hold two chemical liquids (they could be dyes or ink). These two liquids have an effect on each other. Traditionally they are called chemical U and chemical V . Chemical U activates the growth of chemical V (perhaps the construction of a coral wall), but chemical V also slowly decays away (perhaps acidic sea-water dissolves the wall). Eventually the two balance out and you get all sorts of shapes similar to coral reefs.

groups.csail.mit.edu...

This video is appropriate for this thread - is shows the very basic chemistry likely involved in abiogenesis, including the [cell like] division of fatty lipids. If you're impatient, the science starts at about the 3 minute mark.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Is there any science on this? When did we start heeding hearsay and speculation as scientific facts? Seriously, ATS? You can do better than that.

Is there any evidence that the necessary ingredients can survive in space? That they can survive the extremely hot entry on Earth`s atmosphere, as well as the collision, without being vaporized?

He says "Some catalysts, such as simple proteins, were necessary for primitive RNA to replicate and metabolize." Which ones? Where`s the chemistry showing that RNA will replicate and metabolize under the presence of the right catalysts and where is the evidence that such catalysts could form expontaneously? Even if they came from space in meteors, they still had to form expontaneously somewhere.

People hear "this fatty membrane could have encapsulated simple RNA and proteins together like a soap bubble. The RNA and protein molecules begin interacting and communicating" and forget that chemical reactions require energy and building materials. People forget that cell membranes have what we call "permeability" that allows the necessary materials to get inside of the cell in order for it to generate both energy for the process and the product of the process itself (another cell), as well as filtering out materials that would otherwise undermine or even prevent the process.

"Eventually, RNA gave away to DNA" but how exactly? Where`s the chemistry showing it to be even possible to happen under the best possible circunstances?

We start quoting this as science and what`s next? Are we gonna start quoting Dan Brown as history?

reply to post by Leahn

Is there any evidence that the necessary ingredients can survive in space? That they can survive the extremely hot entry on Earth`s atmosphere, as well as the collision, without being vaporized?

Yes there is if you do a search on meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites you will see the research has been done.

You could have also typed in fatty lipid and meteor and found this out.

His hypothesis is based off of other research. The video above your post is also very informative.

Grimpachi
reply to post by Leahn

 

Yes there is if you do a search on meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites you will see the research has been done.

You could have also typed in fatty lipid and meteor and found this out.

His hypothesis is based off of other research. The video above your post is also very informative.

Research done. Quite ellucidating by ellucidating nothing. Research on such meteors led to research on PAH World Hypothesis, which is said to be currently untested.

So, you're partially right. I accept that there is evidence that organic compounds exist in space and that they survive atmospheric entry and collision. There is no evidence that such compounds could be the necessary ingredients to spark life on Earth.

reply to post by Leahn


Well I think this is one of the best explanations we have so far on how life came about on earth the article does say he would like to test this.

It's a theory and a good one. The day man proves such a theory there will be a huge reorganization of belle if systems here on earth. It will be a sight to behold.

Leahn
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

"Eventually, RNA gave away to DNA" but how exactly? Where`s the chemistry showing it to be even possible to happen under the best possible circunstances?

ABSOLUTELY!

Everything that has been mouthed by all those scientists is just pure conjecture - basically their best fairytales; nothing they can apply the scientific method to, nor support with any evidence.

Everything all boils down to the fact that no matter what anyone says, no-one anywhere can show, prove or demonstrate how DNA actually came into existence. Take a look on youtube at some of the many, extremely good, science vids about what DNA is and how it replicates itself. The trouble is that the machines that make DNA are made by DNA themselves - chicken and egg scenario. RNA is not DNA and no-one can show, prove nor demonstrate RNA somehow transforming into DNA.

The best theories for how DNA came to Earth is as 'panspermia' i.e. it came here from space on comets/meteors; or otherwise life in more advanced form was created on Earth by aliens.