Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

For the atheistic alleged Darwinian natural evolution to have something to work on, there would have to randomly emerge the first organic living cell from the primordial soup of chemicals.

How did it happen ?

It was a dark and stormy night ...

Suddenly, not one, not two, but at least 3 powerful electric bolts of lightening, in rapid succession, hit the same small stinking puddle of the primordial soup in the middle of nowhere, and presto, voilà, the first organic cell started living!

Or something like that.

Anyway, it was one lucky accident. S_h_i_t happens by itself, we all know that by now.

I am not an organic chemist, nor a biologist, but we have Wikipedia to tell us how exactly the first living cell popped out of the primordial soup in the middle of that dark and stormy night, about 4 billion years ago, exactly when all the necessary conditions were ripe and begging the heavens for this lucky strike of the proper number of powerful electric bolts of lightening in the right place at the right time.

The odds against it happening were, as usual, reasonably low. It was just a matter of time.

So, do you have a better story to tell ?

Don't be shy.

One thing is for sure — God did not do it. It simply happened naturally, and science knows best how Nature works, or could possibly work.


So, how did it happen ?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Darwinian Random Creation Myth is dead. Long live INTELLIGENT DESIGN !!!

Post by nada » December 13th, 2009, 3:38 am

Something dawned on me today. I don't watch much TV. Instead .. my mind entertains itself by a low level grappling with life's questions. Whenever I do not need to place my attention on some task I am doing .. my mind automatically goes back to the puzzles of life. I expect many of us here at this forum are like that.

I have always been uneasy with Darwin's theory. Not with the idea of evolution (change to biological systems over time) but with his hinge-pin of evolution being driven by random mutations and survival of the fittest. Such a basic biological drive at the core of our be-ing would produce a society in total and endless (and merciless) competition. This competition would justify many of the social ills that we, by nature, abhor. And nullify many of the moral that we, by nature, think of as heroic.

From a biological standpoint .. I just can not accept on faith that all life on earth arose from matter and chemicals and diversified into the many types of creatures we find. The idea that something happened to a chemical soup - that cause life to emerge - and then evolve through random chance into a breathing, eating, intelligent creature - just seems far to complicated an organism to ever happen. Hiding this impossibility within a time span of billions of years just does not make it more acceptable to me.

And so the thing I did was to take evolution and see its as an adaptation process. It seemed to me reasonable (more reasonable anyway) that a species find itself in an environment in which some biological adaptation would be called for .. and an intelligent search for a good adaptation would happen (the cells and organs would try out potential adaptations in order to fine an adaptation that worked well). And that would be passed on genetically to the next generation and so on down the line.

And so I was willing to accept evolution by means of adaptation to environment.

But today I had a though which stunned me. The though involves what I think some people call 'complexity' and it is coupled with some facts about Darwin and his times .. which I never put together before.

You see .. at the time of Darwin .. spontaneous generation - was assumed and accepted. They did not have powerful microscopes and biology has not yet become a science on its own. Partly for the reason that microscopes were rudimentary and under them .. cells .. appeared mostly as stains that moved. Only with 19th century electron microscopes did we finally see that a cell has a complex structure of internal organs very much like the function of our own organs.

Spontaneous generation - is the 'scientific fact' that if you left food to rot on the table .. little white worms would be generated into life from the rotting mass. If you left water soaking in a pot of simple earth .. fuzzy stuff (mold) would be generated and grow. Of course .... the little white worms were fly larva and the mold grows from tiny bacteria every present in the dirt of the earth.

Darwin also did not know about genes nor DNA. The accepted scientific fact (at the time) was that generational inheritance happened - through the blood. It was by way of being carried in the blood of the parents (in the case of animals and insects etc..) and the fluids of plants .. that inheritance was passed to off-spring.

In Darwin's mind - the initial origin was assumed to have already been answered in spontaneous generation. And the evolution of that simple life was by means of blood (the blood of plants were its fluids). Darwin only needed to determine why evolution takes the direction that it takes and is not simply random in all regards (producing deformed monstrosity after monstrosity).

Simple enough. The answer would either be adaptation or for reasons of best survival. How was what would be passed on .. selected?? Darwin went with the reason of best survival as proved by what random mutations survived and what random mutations did not survive.

There were enough random mutations evident in humans at the time of Darwin (deformed children at birth) and the cause for them was unknown and their variety seems more or less random (Siamese twins / six toes / over sized heads / random organs outside the body / blue birth marks / no arms / etc) because 'genes' and DNA was unknown.

In thinking on this stuff today .. I thought of the internal organs (organelles) which Darwin and his contemporaries did not know about. There is no one-organ cell (that I know about). Any cell is indeed a small 'animal' and its life depends upon all its organs working together as a system. It must eat, it must eliminate waste, it must sense its environment, it must breath, it has rudimentary sight in order to navigate obsticals when chasing its food, etc. In short - all the systems must be in place and functioning in concert - for the cell to live. And we know that its shell (much like our own skin) is its brain and nerve system - its intelligence.

Remove just a few of my organs (my heart, my lungs) and my system of life can not function as a system. I die. So too it is with a cell.

Modern biology knowing the organs of a cell and how they must function together .. for it to live.

Having that 'complexity' of life in mind .. it now seems impossible for me to accept that life began with one cell and its organs took time (even just years) to evolve into its several vital function. Under the microscope of Darwin's day where the internal organs of a cell did not exist (to our eyes) such a thing seems plausible. But not under the high power of a microscope today.

For the first cell to emerge into life from a primordial soup, it would have to instantly have all organs in place and functioning as a system. It could not evolve into several organs from one rudimentary organ. Spontaneous generation of life at the cell level (accepted as fact by Darwin) just could not have happened.

There is no record of spontaneous generation of life - ever - in history. Not once in all the centuries man has kept records. What was one thought to be spontaneous generation by the ancients - has been proven not to be the case. We now can see what they could not see. We now know what they could not have known.

All life .. is generated by other life which is like it. Either by division (on the cell level) or by egg/nut/seed (still a form of cell division encased support system).

Genes and DNA are a necessity. Plant or animal or insect .. all life generated by means of this architectural template passed from parent to off-spring. Life comes from life and does not come from lifeless matter.

Be it by means of womb and umbilical chord - or by means of the fluids surround the yoke of an egg .. while the organs of a fetus develop to the stage where they can function .. the fetus needs what they will eventual do - supplied to it in another way. In what way was this done for the first cell to emerge from the primordial soup and supply its functions for it before it evolved enough over countless years to do all the functions with evolved organs?

This would seem to point to a conclusion that our search for how the first life came to be .. is barking up the wrong tree. And with the mention of 'tree' .. the idea that this first cell born fully developed from a primordial soup - came to divided into the countless plant, insect, and animal, fish and fowl, bacterial, fungus, and you name it ... which populate our planet .. even further makes no senses under the concept of random mutation and survival of the fittest. Especially under the knowledge we have of the cycles of ecology where all these life form depend upon each other.

So for me .. Darwinian Random Creation Myth is dead. Long live INTELLIGENT DESIGN !!!

This does not in away way mean I now accept a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve and creation of all creatures in seven days by God Yahweh, nor any other creator gods.

It seems to me useless to look back in time to a beginning which we simply can not know - and speculate a theory by which we interpret meaning of the present. Spontaneous generation or seven days .. both seem to me a fantasy.

Aliens, a bolt of lightening in primordial soup, or seven days work of God .. when shall we admit that we humans have our limitations and there are some things which we shall never know for sure to be fact.

However, the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN with all its massive and overwhelming scientific self-evident evidence, is the best scientific explanation available:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2818&p=451372#p451372


Does anyone agree ?

Or, do I remain a lone heretic to both, science and fundamentalist religion?

.


Source : viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3112

[Halc]

Suddenly, not one, not two, but at least 3 powerful electric bolts of lightening, in rapid succession, hit the same small stinking puddle of the primordial soup in the middle of nowhere, and presto, voilà, the first organic cell started living!

Not sure if you care, but the abiogenesis did not ever produce anything as complex as a cell. Even the crude prokaryote cells didn't appear for at least half a billion years. Lightning is always a popular image, probably due to the Frankenstein stories, but is not likely involved.
Bottom line is that nobody knows. A good theory should be testable in the lab, but nobody has created organic life in a lab using plausible natural conditions.

[Sushan]

Understanding the origins of life through the lens of abiogenesis is not just a scientific endeavor but also a profound philosophical journey. The idea that life emerged from non-living matter on the early Earth may seem improbable at first glance, but when we consider the vast timescales and chemical diversity of our planet, it becomes a plausible natural process. The randomness in this context isn't mere chance; rather, it's about the natural variability and potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry. This perspective doesn't undermine the complexity of life but instead celebrates it as a remarkable outcome of these natural processes.

From a scientific standpoint, the intricacies of even the simplest life forms hint at a gradual evolution from simpler precursors. The RNA world hypothesis, for instance, offers a compelling narrative about how RNA molecules could have been the stepping stones to more complex, DNA-based life forms. This complexity, emerging from simpler building blocks, is a testament to the natural world's ability to generate intricate systems.

Philosophically, considering life as a product of natural processes allows us to appreciate the elegance and wonder of the universe. It doesn't require us to invoke supernatural explanations but rather invites us to explore our place in the natural world. The scientific theories of evolution, supported by a wealth of evidence from various fields, provide a coherent and testable framework for understanding the diversity of life. At the same time, they offer a philosophical perspective that emphasizes our connection to the universe and the natural processes that govern it.

In essence, supporting naturalistic theories of evolution and abiogenesis isn't just about accepting scientific explanations; it's about recognizing the beauty and complexity of life as an integral part of the natural order of the universe. It's a view that respects the power of nature to create and diversify life, underscoring our ongoing quest to understand the origins and evolution of life in our vast and wondrous universe.

[Halc]

There is also no consensus that life originated here on Earth. It may well have formed elsewhere, some place that got smacked by a big enough collision to spread life-bearing bits all over the place, some finding their way to places like early Earth. There are certainly bits of Earth that have found their way naturally to each of the other planets.
Point is, Earth conditions need not necessarily be simulated when attempting abiogenesis in the lab.

A good many of the steps (RNA synthesis say) have been reproduced in the lab, but never a complete chain. There's always a gap that they don't know how got crossed.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Not sure if you care, but the abiogenesis did not ever produce anything as complex as a cell. Even the crude prokaryote cells didn't appear for at least half a billion years. Lightning is always a popular image, probably due to the Frankenstein stories, but is not likely involved.

Bottom line is that nobody knows.

A good theory should be testable in the lab, but nobody has created organic life in a lab using plausible natural conditions.

Yes, I do care, and I do thank you for kindly informing me
about the above mentioned scientific facts, Halc.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Understanding the origins of life through the lens of abiogenesis is not just a scientific endeavor but also a profound philosophical journey. The idea that life emerged from non-living matter on the early Earth may seem improbable at first glance, but when we consider the vast timescales and chemical diversity of our planet, it becomes a plausible natural process. The randomness in this context isn't mere chance; rather, it's about the natural variability and potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry. This perspective doesn't undermine the complexity of life but instead celebrates it as a remarkable outcome of these natural processes.

From a scientific standpoint, the intricacies of even the simplest life forms hint at a gradual evolution from simpler precursors. The RNA world hypothesis, for instance, offers a compelling narrative about how RNA molecules could have been the stepping stones to more complex, DNA-based life forms. This complexity, emerging from simpler building blocks, is a testament to the natural world's ability to generate intricate systems.

Philosophically, considering life as a product of natural processes allows us to appreciate the elegance and wonder of the universe. It doesn't require us to invoke supernatural explanations but rather invites us to explore our place in the natural world. The scientific theories of evolution, supported by a wealth of evidence from various fields, provide a coherent and testable framework for understanding the diversity of life. At the same time, they offer a philosophical perspective that emphasizes our connection to the universe and the natural processes that govern it.

In essence, supporting naturalistic theories of evolution and abiogenesis isn't just about accepting scientific explanations; it's about recognizing the beauty and complexity of life as an integral part of the natural order of the universe. It's a view that respects the power of nature to create and diversify life, underscoring our ongoing quest to understand the origins and evolution of life in our vast and wondrous universe.

My dear friend Sushan,

Hi,

Thank you so very much for sharing your philosophical and scientific insights with the rest of us.
Much appreciated!

I am always delighted by your unique and beautiful style of writing!

If I may ask, have you written any books yet ?


You wrote above :

" From a scientific standpoint, the intricacies of even the simplest life forms hint at a gradual evolution from simpler precursors."

Yes, a gradual evolution from simpler precursors is much more realistic than an instantaneous emergence of the first living cell from the primordial soup of organic chemicals during one very dark and stormy night, when nobody was looking.

However, without going into full and complete details, it has already been recognized by expert scientists that this hypothesis has its serious problems, mainly due to the necessary long chain of complex chemical reactions over an indeterminate amount of time and under unpredictable natural conditions (natural variability) during such long gradual process, if you know what I mean? It would have to happen in a manner akin to a factory assembly line, to put it very simplistically, of course. Otherwise, all the necessary intermediate component parts would be bobbing around among all other useless chemical junk that must have been in there accidentally, too. I hope you can imagine a realistic scenario like that?

" The randomness in this context isn't mere chance; rather, it's about the natural variability and potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry."

Well, there would be a great deal of pure unconditional naturally chaotic randomness and mere chance involved in such a natural gradual evolution from simpler precursors in an open and unpredictable (natural variability) local and global environment also, no doubt about that.

As to the potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry, we should consider the following:

No conceivable abiogenesis has ever produced anything as complex as a crude prokaryote cell. A good theory should be testable in the lab, but nobody has ever been successful in creating organic life in a lab using plausible natural conditions.

Dear Sushan, if Nature were able to blindly and randomly produce Life due to the potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry, then now, top physicists and top organic chemists should, in principle, be able to fairly easily re-create this process under fully controlled lab conditions, since they already know in detail what a simple living cell is made of.

Since Life had been able to emerge from some random puddle in the middle of nowhere in the dark of the night without a clear prior blueprint of the final result due to the natural potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry, then what exactly is it that stops academic science from creating Life in a lab now, when we know everything that is needed to be known to accomplish it?

All such hypotheses are easier said than done, I am afraid.

What do you say to that, my dear friend Sushan ??



Anybody, please? Any idea?

[Sy Borg]

There is also no consensus that life originated here on Earth. It may well have formed elsewhere, some place that got smacked by a big enough collision to spread life-bearing bits all over the place, some finding their way to places like early Earth. There are certainly bits of Earth that have found their way naturally to each of the other planets.
Point is, Earth conditions need not necessarily be simulated when attempting abiogenesis in the lab.

A good many of the steps (RNA synthesis say) have been reproduced in the lab, but never a complete chain. There's always a gap that they don't know how got crossed.

I think of the knowledge gap being related to our inability to replicate the effects of deep time, a problem somewhat analogous to the power limitations of the LHC. If we could build a hadron collider the size of the solar system, we might be able to investigate Planck scale dynamics. If scientists cold run experiments for millions of years, they could investigate evolution practically rather than by forensic analyses of debris.

It also might help to clarify by considering evolution of large organic molecules - clearly extreme molecular complexity is needed for replication. Simple molecules are not flexible enough. Yet, complexity in itself isn't enough.

As for RNA, scientists have found all the nucleobases needed for RNA on asteroids, but not actual RNA.

When you think about it, what was the first life, LUCA? Basically a bit of RNA attached to a simple metabolism bounded by a lipid, like a complicated oil drop. There might have been a gazillion of those proto-organisms, forming and breaking up, before the entity we call LUCA emerged.

LUCA was almost certainly not the first life form, as such, in much the same way as London is not the first settlement on the land it occupies. If you trace back, it soon becomes apparent how the old structures are essentially wiped out by the new.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

There is also no consensus that life originated here on Earth.

Point is, Earth conditions need not necessarily be simulated
when attempting abiogenesis in the lab.

True. Good point, Halc.

" The hypothesis called “panspermia” proposes an interplanetary transfer of life. Experiments have exposed extremophilic organisms to outer space to test microbe survivability and the panspermia hypothesis. Microbes inside shielding material with sufficient thickness to protect them from UV-irradiation can survive in space. This process has been called “lithopanspermia,” meaning rocky panspermia. We previously proposed sub-millimeter cell pellets (aggregates) could survive in the harsh space environment based on an on-ground laboratory experiment. To test our hypothesis, we placed dried cell pellets of the radioresistant bacteria Deinococcus spp. in aluminum plate wells in exposure panels attached to the outside of the International Space Station (ISS). We exposed microbial cell pellets with different thickness to space environments. The results indicated the importance of the aggregated form of cells for surviving in harsh space environment. We also analyzed the samples exposed to space from 1 to 3 years. The experimental design enabled us to get and extrapolate the survival time course to predict the survival time of Deinococcus radiodurans. Dried deinococcal cell pellets of 500 μm thickness were alive after 3 years of space exposure and repaired DNA damage at cultivation. Thus, cell pellets 1 mm in diameter have sufficient protection from UV and are estimated to endure the space environment for 2–8 years, extrapolating the survival curve and considering the illumination efficiency of the space experiment. Comparison of the survival of different DNA repair-deficient mutants suggested that cell aggregates exposed in space for 3 years suffered DNA damage, which is most efficiently repaired by the uvrA gene and uvdE gene products, which are responsible for nucleotide excision repair and UV-damage excision repair. Collectively, these results support the possibility of microbial cell aggregates (pellets) as an ark for interplanetary transfer of microbes within several years." — www. frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050/full

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

When you think about it, what was the first life, LUCA? Basically a bit of RNA attached to a simple metabolism bounded by a lipid, like a complicated oil drop. There might have been a gazillion of those proto-organisms, forming and breaking up, before the entity we call LUCA emerged.

NASA — Water Bears in Space :

" If you’re not familiar with water bears, or tardigrades, they are super-tiny animals that are best known for their ability to survive in some of the harshest conditions: extreme heat, extreme cold, bottom of the ocean, near volcanoes, highly radioactive environments, and even the vacuum of outer space. Exactly how they survive in these conditions is something that Dr. Thomas Boothby has been studying for years. Thomas is an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming Department of Molecular Biology, and he’s taking his research to the International Space Station as the principal investigator for Cell Science-04, which is, you guessed it, sending water bears to space to study how they adapt to microgravity." — www. nasa. gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/water-bears-in-space/


Water bears on the Moon?
Tiny creatures may be living on the lunar surface :
www. france24. com/en/video/20190808-water-bears-moon-tiny-creatures-may-be-living-lunar-surface

[Sy Borg]

I suspect most people know about tardigrades and I would have chased up more material about them than would the average (water) bear :)

These are highly complex animals in a genetic line that is estimated to be 600 million years old. They are about as distant from the first life form as we are.

While tardigrades can survive in space and some other extremely hostile environments for a while, it's only while in a tun state - basically they become a hard, dessicated ball of tardigrade. At this point, the organism is almost entirely inactive, certainly not capable of moving, eating, excreting or reproducing. Add a drop of water and the ball swells and unravels to reveal an active tardigrade.

It's very unlikely that anything could survive the dryness and radiation of the lunar surface. Still, finding life on the Moon, maybe deep in a crater or lava tube - would be ironic and amusing after sending signals to other star systems and sending probes billions of kms out into void.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

It's very unlikely that anything could survive the dryness and radiation on the lunar surface. Still, finding life on the Moon, maybe deep in a crater or lava tube - would be ironic and amusing after sending signals to other star systems and sending probes billions of kms out into void.

Sy Borg, do you think that primitive life on Mars could still thrive
in some nooks and crannies, or at its two polar ice caps ?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

There is also no consensus that life originated here on Earth. It may well have formed elsewhere, some place that got smacked by a big enough collision to spread life-bearing bits all over the place, some finding their way to places like early Earth.

Halc, do you think that planet Venus could harbour some kind of extremophile bacteria, perhaps?

" A recent sampling of microbes collected from the seafloor near Catalina Island, off the coast of Southern California, uncovered a surprising variety of microbes that consume and shed electrons by eating or breathing minerals or metals. Scientific research suggests that some metal eaters transport electrons directly across their membranes — a feat once thought impossible." —
www. quantamagazine. org/electron-eating-microbes-found-in-odd-places-20160621/

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

" Abiogenesis, as the mystery event is called, seems to have occurred not long after Earth accumulated liquid water, leading some to speculate that life might start up readily, even inevitably, under favourable conditions. But if so, then shouldn’t abiogenesis have happened multiple times in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, spawning several biochemically distinct lineages rather than a monoculture of DNA-based life? John Baross, a microbiologist at the University of Washington who studies the origins of life, explained that abiogenesis might well have happened repeatedly, creating a menagerie of genetic codes, structures and metabolisms on early Earth. But gene-swapping and Darwinian selection would have merged these different upstarts into a single lineage, which has since colonized virtually every environment on Earth, preventing new upstarts from gaining ground. In short, it’s virtually impossible to tell whether abiogenesis was a fluke event, or a common occurrence — here, or elsewhere in our Universe."
www. quantamagazine. org/scientists-debate-signatures-of-alien-life-20160202/


How Did Life Begin on Earth? Dr. David Kaplan explores the leading theories for the origin of life on our planet:
www. quantamagazine. org/videos/how-did-life-begin-on-earth/

[Halc]

Halc, do you think that planet Venus could harbour some kind of extremophile bacteria, perhaps?

All Earth life, even in the most extreme environments, are water based. Venus is not too kind to anything that needs water.
No, I don't think anything that qualifies as bacteria would last even a second, at least on the surface.
Things are kinder in the upper atmosphere. Maybe the conditions up there would support something.