I never said that the video conclusively answered the ultimate question about the beginning of life.
Indeed, I have always said that no-one knows, as yet, how life began.
I did say that it provided a perfectly acceptable and logical explanation ~ which, I think, it does and it is based on chemistry.

This is not a 'scientific theory', but the word “hypothesis” probably describes it well enough.

I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be one, but I find the subject fascinating and I have watched a number of documentaries, presented by knowledgeable and intelligent experts, which have shown that life can thrive in the most unwelcoming of situations, so I don't think that it is possible to say that life could not have formed, or existed, in this or that situation.

Clearly, life can exist in the most extreme and harsh environments.

Clearly, also, we are here, now, and life has been on earth for thousands and thousands of years.

How did it begin ~ and where?
I don't know ~ nobody does ~ but it is likely to be connected either to magic or to science. I wonder which it was. Hhmmm...

I think it's important to realize that if something happens "only once in 25 billion years" that does not mean it happens at the end of those 25 billion years. It could just as probably happen on the first day.

With all the planets in the universe, there are undoubtedly many other planets that took the 25 billion years to reach that point. With ours, it happened to be earlier, which is why we're here at this stage of progress to discuss it.

Our world population is 6.8 billion. Even if a genetic disease was exceedingly rare and only would hit a person one out of 7 billion times a year, we could still have a case every year, and some years we could have multiple. And in some years we could have two cases in January. Statistics are like that.

A woman won the NY Lottery twice. The odds of doing that are:

1 in 3,669,120,000,000

Thanks for that Lisa. Just goes to show that anything can happen.

Whether by mysterious divine force, or random events.

Mine is not to reason why, mine is to have another sticky bun.

There's a fun quote by Douglas Adams on the nature of improbability. “Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

Love Douglas Adams.

(Re-quoting) "It could just as probably happen on the first day"...or not at all...ever...if one maintains the only possible source of Ool is "Randomness" on into the indefinite future.

That it has "happened" will be quickly argued by most contributors to this thread. "Case Closed" for "Randomness"!

But should it be?

Each must make that choice according to their own beliefs...but to arbitrarily dismiss "ID" would then remove not only consideration of Creationist's arguments before all the dust has settled arising from debates within the scientific community regarding life's origins but also the more radical hypothesis such as "Directed Panspermia" by some in the scientific community (which amusingly enough represent a form of "ID" themselves).

Hello Lisa Shea...and thank you for the comments.


The search continues for confirmation that life exists elsewhere in the cosmos. There have been (not so long ago) very high level symposiums wherein consideration that the development of "life" has progressed along other than what is represented on Earth. The meetings were entitled "Weird Life" I believe.


Understandably...the presumption of most contributing to threads such as this one. Yet there is still the matter of resolving "theory" into "fact" regarding that issue.

As an aside, it seems a little ironic to me that the process of giving Panspermia more and more attention as frustration builds regarding the lack of progress of creating actual "life" in the laboratory is nudging Ool "off shore" so to speak into "space" where it becomes more difficult to meet one of the standards of the scientific community to achieve "proof", namely, for "testable hypothesis" to be tested to move "hypothesis" to the next stage..."theory".

That...plus..."out there" where Panspermia is being looked to finally solve the mystery of Ool is where Creationists also encounter the same problem now to face the scientific community...namely...the lack of being able to respond to criticisms regarding a "testable hypothesis" with the "lab" being removed to the unfathomable reaches of "space"


An envious accomplishment I'm sure we will all agree.

One thing however. The example is that of a "closed" scenario (in a sense) because it has a finite (not theoretical) number of outcome possibilities plus or minus allowance for margin-of-error notation.

By way of comparison...consider "flipping" a two-sided coin. The "potential" outcomes are limited. The same can be said when throwing a (fair) six-sided die...but the possible outcomes are obviously not as constrained (probability-wise) as they necessarily are with the two-sided coin.

The "Probability" or "Statistical" outcomes that are possible are are limited by the "conditions" of the "environment" imposed by the available "materials" (the two-sided coin fewer possible outcomes than the six sided die).

So if the number of state residents available to play the state lottery and the number of numbers on the ballot are known...the "randomness" a casual player depends upon when placing their "bet" does not provide the same "odds" as are made available to the one who is able to bring "Determinism" to bear on the outcome.

As a "case-in-point", consider the story of "The Luckiest Woman In The World" who won multiple millions by winning four lotteries!

Looked at with no other qualifying information than that...her "success" would be considered as just incredibly "lucky" (plus maybe drawing the attention of gaming officials?)

One report of her success noted: "The odds of this has been calculated at one in eighteen septillion and luck like this could only come once every quadrillion years." (MailOnline, Jan 29 2012).

Before everyone starts exchanging "high-fives" that it proves the point made in your first paragraph that "Randomness" was responsible for her wins...it turns out winning four times was less "luck" ("Randomness") and more "ID" ("Intelligent Design" - "Determinism") than was at first thought.

Come to find out, she was a Ph.D. in Statistics from Stanford University ("Forbes", "ForbesWoman", 7/21/2011).

This "Luckiest Woman Alive" was able to lessen "chance" as her gambling partner and instead moved the projected outcome from "blind chance" win or lose (Randomness) to "win" (with fewer losses) by employing the equivalent of "Determinism" afforded by using her "mind", her "Intelligent Design" capabilities reflecting her academic accomplishments.

So...a "mind" ("ID" - Intelligent Design)...was involved in setting up the conditions for her success.

It follows, that when I view, experience, and participate in your wonderful (and admirable) site...I "sense" (know) a "mind" is behind it all...that it didn't just fall into organizational-place, by "chance", all by itself, as random codes and sequences, letters, and such passed by.


So the result of this site which we all enjoy was the result not of "Randomness" but "Determinism".

[*] "Randomness", as in the case of developing this site...does not write "Code"

[*] "Randomness", again as in the case of developing this site...does not construct "Sequences"

Neither are the complex codes and sequences found in the replication of living organisms the result of "Randomness" regardless of what time-span is invoked by those who hold an opposing view.

Wish more time was available...but alas...not to be especially since I would like to respond to PDM and others.

Maybe by tomorrow...

Respectfully submitted,


Giornale

Just to finish up on this and add one other thing to previous response elements:


My comment was based upon consideration of findings such as this one:

Also...I chose Prokaryotes for the example involving UV damage in the earlier response to you because Prokaryotes existed long before Eukaryotes and thereby (to me) represented a better "test" of evaluating the damage UV would cause to them in seawater as we discussed.

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstanding.

Respectfully submitted,

Giornale

Hello PDM.

Thank you for the responses.


To which you responded:


No...look deeper into the context.

What is being asked...is that if life developed over millions of years, always an upward and difficult struggle, always striving to be "better"...then why did that "developing cell" or organism decide at some point in its evolutionary development to encode its own suicide into all of its future replications thus nullifying all those millions of years trying to perfect itself and dooming every generation thereafter to dying before the job was completed?

Simply stated...why self-program "death" by an entity into its genetic code and sequencing that was by all accounts from the "scientific community" fighting to ascend up the ladder to ever higher life forms? Death is not ascent (unless of course you believe in "The Rapture").

Hope that clarifies the question. I am interested in seeing what you believe is the answer Theory of Evolution can provide to address cellular-suicide in relation to the principle of "Randomness" in an evolutionary context.

Trying to balance the desire to be timely in responding with many other responsibilities including "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" seems more and more a sisyphean endeavor.

Respectfully submitted,


Giornale

more half grasp.

there is no direct evidence of photosynthesis in prokaryotes. photosynthesis requires chloroplasts, without which photsynthetic pigments have nowhere to hang out. i think you are misunderstanding the process here - mesosomes are part of a suggested mechanism for the introduction and incorporation of foreign bodies to organelles. a mesosome is not capable of generating and containing chlorophyll.

furthermore is is not clearly known what the timelines are for pro- and eukaryotes. bacteria do not fossilize well.

and yes, death most certainly is ascent in terms of genetics, because without death and subsequent generations the genetic code cannot be tweaked as it clearly has been throughout evolution.

i'm running out of enthusiasm for this - its a little tiresome when somebody is so insistent on their expertise when they clearly only half know what they are talking about. i encountered enough people like this during my years in science, so when people get on this trip with no scientific background the results are ridiculous.

bored now...

douglas adams on the other hand was one of the true genii of the 20th century. the hitchhikers guide is one of the finest books ever written, and its logic though ludicrous at first is very hard to push over - his take on probability and averages states that the universe is lifeless as a finite number of inhabited worlds divided by an infinite number of uninhabited ones is zero. i also like the way marvin ends up four times as old as the universe and becomes god by proxy. gotta love that guy. brain the size of a planet and they ask me to open doors. marvin also has one of my all time favourite lines:

"it gives me a headache just thinking down to your level."