Comments on: Chemicals That Evolve in the Lab May Simulate Earth’s Earliest Life http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/ 80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day\'s most compelling topics. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:22:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Matt L http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-20910 Matt L Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:07:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-20910 Virtual particles. Please forgive the typos. Virtual particles. Please forgive the typos.

]]> By: Matt L http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-20909 Matt L Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:07:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-20909 Since that last post was getting a little long, I figured I'd put this in another post: Yes, matter and energy do arise ex nihilo, they are called virtal particles, and they have been found experimentally. If you move particles with mass at near the speed of light, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle allows for the possibility that their speed could actually PASS the speed of light. The prediction was that a pair of particle & anti-particle would then be created and subsequently destroy each other, releasing energy. This energy can be measured by the Casimir effect. Since that last post was getting a little long, I figured I’d put this in another post:

Yes, matter and energy do arise ex nihilo, they are called virtal particles, and they have been found experimentally. If you move particles with mass at near the speed of light, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle allows for the possibility that their speed could actually PASS the speed of light. The prediction was that a pair of particle & anti-particle would then be created and subsequently destroy each other, releasing energy. This energy can be measured by the Casimir effect.

]]> By: Matt L http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-20903 Matt L Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:20:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-20903 You know what I don't get? This whole, entire "but how does life arise from chemistry?" argument. It seems that almost everybody is entirely too myopic about the subject. Life doesn't arise from chemistry. Life IS chemistry. There is no concept of "alive" in physics, and chemistry arises from physics. There is no concept of "alive" ANYWHERE until people impose a definition to explain a macroscale perception from a top down view. We define life, essentially, as chemistry of sufficient complexity. Yes, we use more careful terms and are careful to exclude any mention of chemistry anywhere in the formal definition, but so far nobody has found any life that isn't chemically based. A lot of the contention in the memes of the modern world arise from conflicting attempts to explain macroscale phenomena from a top down viewpoint... the Universe doesn't work top down, it works bottom up. Coming from the bottom up view, the idea of "life" is pretty crazy. Complexity arises naturally in this Universe, see the work of Stephen Wolfram for reference. It arises from the very nature of mathematics, with very simple rules. Repeating patterns, terminating patterns, and non-repeating non-terminating seemingly random patterns appear. Given a large enough workspace (and the Universe is obviously sufficiently large... you're here reading this, aren't you?), the complexity ramps up further and further... it's just an application of evolution, the terminating patterns terminate, the rest continue existing and interacting. Eventually, the complexity aggregates enough to be self-sustaining, reproducing, and highly active. "Life." Think about the world on the monocellular level... the actual atoms in a bacterium are constantly in flux, new ones enter, old ones leave, but do they somehow gain or lose some property of being "alive?" No. It is the pattern that matters, the bacterium is alive. Not even the DNA and RNA are alive, according to the definition. Your mom lied to you. You are not special. Oh, and, Tim, I hate you. Go read the definition of the Scientific Method. If you can understand it, you will see how biology (including evolutionary biology, which has many PREDICTIONS which have been TESTED and PROVEN) is in fact a science. I hate people who can't understand the differences between "hypothesis," "Scientific Law," and "Scientific Theory." Which one is the strongest? The Theory. You know what I don’t get? This whole, entire “but how does life arise from chemistry?” argument. It seems that almost everybody is entirely too myopic about the subject. Life doesn’t arise from chemistry. Life IS chemistry. There is no concept of “alive” in physics, and chemistry arises from physics. There is no concept of “alive” ANYWHERE until people impose a definition to explain a macroscale perception from a top down view. We define life, essentially, as chemistry of sufficient complexity. Yes, we use more careful terms and are careful to exclude any mention of chemistry anywhere in the formal definition, but so far nobody has found any life that isn’t chemically based. A lot of the contention in the memes of the modern world arise from conflicting attempts to explain macroscale phenomena from a top down viewpoint… the Universe doesn’t work top down, it works bottom up. Coming from the bottom up view, the idea of “life” is pretty crazy. Complexity arises naturally in this Universe, see the work of Stephen Wolfram for reference. It arises from the very nature of mathematics, with very simple rules. Repeating patterns, terminating patterns, and non-repeating non-terminating seemingly random patterns appear. Given a large enough workspace (and the Universe is obviously sufficiently large… you’re here reading this, aren’t you?), the complexity ramps up further and further… it’s just an application of evolution, the terminating patterns terminate, the rest continue existing and interacting. Eventually, the complexity aggregates enough to be self-sustaining, reproducing, and highly active. “Life.” Think about the world on the monocellular level… the actual atoms in a bacterium are constantly in flux, new ones enter, old ones leave, but do they somehow gain or lose some property of being “alive?” No. It is the pattern that matters, the bacterium is alive. Not even the DNA and RNA are alive, according to the definition.

Your mom lied to you. You are not special.

Oh, and, Tim, I hate you. Go read the definition of the Scientific Method. If you can understand it, you will see how biology (including evolutionary biology, which has many PREDICTIONS which have been TESTED and PROVEN) is in fact a science. I hate people who can’t understand the differences between “hypothesis,” “Scientific Law,” and “Scientific Theory.” Which one is the strongest? The Theory.

]]> By: Mike http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17188 Mike Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:10:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17188 THe scentists included strands of RNA in mix of enzymes. So this proves nothing. THe scentists included strands of RNA in mix of enzymes.

So this proves nothing.

]]> By: Tim B. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17175 Tim B. Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:38:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17175 This is laughable. First they did not start with a purely chemical substance, they started with a purely biological substance RNA. I believe in evolution, Macro and Micro, but I do not believe in the spontaneous generation of life. I have two problems with spontaneous generation: First that chemical suddenly came to life and secondly these chemicals were somehow able to house that life and reproduce. If chemicals can suddenly come to life then lets reproduce it in the lab. All the elements that have ever existed are still around today, so why can't we do it. I think that if it happened in the beginning that it would have had to happened over and over and over, millions of times probably, before it ever survived. And if it happened that many times then it can not that difficult to reproduce. As far as needing some primordial soup are some extremely high pressure, what would be in this soup that we don't have on the periodic table and I don't really think that extremely high pressure is the best place to cultivate life? I guess the thing that I am really stuck on though is the second part where a chemical that has never been alive could house life. Maybe someone can explain to me why this is not impossible. And as a side not to call evolutionary biology or even regular biology science is ridiculous, at the best biology is pseudo science. There are three pure sciences: Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics. Anything else is just pretending. This is laughable. First they did not start with a purely chemical substance, they started with a purely biological substance RNA. I believe in evolution, Macro and Micro, but I do not believe in the spontaneous generation of life. I have two problems with spontaneous generation:

First that chemical suddenly came to life and secondly these chemicals were somehow able to house that life and reproduce.

If chemicals can suddenly come to life then lets reproduce it in the lab. All the elements that have ever existed are still around today, so why can’t we do it. I think that if it happened in the beginning that it would have had to happened over and over and over, millions of times probably, before it ever survived. And if it happened that many times then it can not that difficult to reproduce. As far as needing some primordial soup are some extremely high pressure, what would be in this soup that we don’t have on the periodic table and I don’t really think that extremely high pressure is the best place to cultivate life?

I guess the thing that I am really stuck on though is the second part where a chemical that has never been alive could house life. Maybe someone can explain to me why this is not impossible.

And as a side not to call evolutionary biology or even regular biology science is ridiculous, at the best biology is pseudo science. There are three pure sciences: Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics.
Anything else is just pretending.

]]> By: Adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17152 Adam Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17152 God is described as creating all of us - not just one man - direct from the dust in the Bible. Yet we all know we came from our mother's womb. Perhaps expecting divine special effects in the Creation of Life is missing how God really does things in the world all around us, all the time. Job's friend called the clouds a mystery beyond human understanding, but we know how clouds form these days, but then perhaps we're missing the point of what 'God' really means. God is described as creating all of us – not just one man – direct from the dust in the Bible. Yet we all know we came from our mother’s womb. Perhaps expecting divine special effects in the Creation of Life is missing how God really does things in the world all around us, all the time. Job’s friend called the clouds a mystery beyond human understanding, but we know how clouds form these days, but then perhaps we’re missing the point of what ‘God’ really means.

]]> By: catherine T http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17135 catherine T Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:20:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17135 why cant they leave everything alone and find new things? why cant they leave everything alone and find new things?

]]> By: chris http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17134 chris Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:19:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17134 There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely. There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely.

]]> By: Chandler brown http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17132 Chandler brown Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:18:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17132 There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely.cosmological question, and if you’re asking me to explain the Big Bang, I’m afraid I have nothing for you; creating the universe remains science’s greatest mystery. Of course, a lack of evidence should not be construed as evidence of a Creator. Lightening and comets used to be mysteries, too, but we’ve found logical explanations for those. However, if you want a cogent explanation of how to get from the Big Bang to organic chemistry, I might recommend Atom, by Laurence Krauss (http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Single-Oxygen-Journey-Earth/dp/0316183091). There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely.cosmological question, and if you’re asking me to explain the Big Bang, I’m afraid I have nothing for you; creating the universe remains science’s greatest mystery. Of course, a lack of evidence should not be construed as evidence of a Creator. Lightening and comets used to be mysteries, too, but we’ve found logical explanations for those.

However, if you want a cogent explanation of how to get from the Big Bang to organic chemistry, I might recommend Atom, by Laurence Krauss (http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Single-Oxygen-Journey-Earth/dp/0316183091).

]]> By: Chandler brown http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17130 Chandler brown Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:17:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17130 dude travis could care less if he copyed you so dont feel flattered dude travis could care less if he copyed you so dont feel flattered

]]> By: travis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17128 travis Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:15:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17128 i just did it cause my teacher told us to write stuff so i copied yours cause it looked smart i just did it cause my teacher told us to write stuff
so i copied yours cause it looked smart

]]> By: Damian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17125 Damian Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17125 Travis, I am going to presume your imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Travis, I am going to presume your imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

]]> By: Amber D http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17118 Amber D Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:07:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17118 i'm confused..but it sounds to me like it's impossible to determine Earth's earliest life. i’m confused..but it sounds to me like it’s impossible to determine Earth’s earliest life.

]]> By: Travis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17117 Travis Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:06:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17117 There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely. There will always be blind spots in human understanding; it’s your prerogative to attribute those blind spots to an intelligent designer, but that is not a very useful technique for explaining or understanding them. If these scientists have indeed explained how a purely chemical system can develop biological behaviors according to physical laws, that is a useful and enlightening development, surely.

]]> By: seth w http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/comment-page-1/#comment-17109 seth w Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:04:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/chemicals-that-evolve-and-replicate-in-the-lab-may-simulate-earths-earliest-life/#comment-17109 yea right yea right

]]>