Oh dear. You seem to bring about a confusion of everything which is said. I reply to something in context, then you reply to it from a completely different angle... For instance you said:
Nucleic acids alone would not bring forth any formation of life on its own...even a more simple life form as we know it. IF the life form was different we would then need to ask how this life form would be sooo different from every other life form on the planet. Every life form on this planet is cellular. Every life form. It seems to me at least, that for an ancestral life form to be something that has no connection with the complexity of the single cell, would be unlikely. You would also have to get around the problem of the proteins being necessary as well.
in response to what I said:
Aegist said:
Why not? I mean, sure, the chances of a human chromosome forming spontaneously is next to impossible, but we're not talking about direct formation of a specific chemical, but the proposed formation of a class of chemical. Nucleic Acids for instance.
which was clearly in response to:
Oncedeceived said:
Compounds do form given the correct conditions to do so. Simple compounds do form, but the complex molecules needed for life are not so simple and do not spontaneously form.
Please PLEASE respond in context, or else establish why you are taking my comments out of context.
Your first comment agreed that molecules formed, but that complex ones (such as those found in living organisms (ie: DNA, Proteins lipids) can't form. I counter-claimed that point by asserting that concatomers can form and make the complex molecules found in life (such as DNA), to which you reply that DNA won't make life.
THAT is where you jumped topic. this point was NEVER about LIFE, it was about the formation of complex chemicals. You either agree that complex molecules can form spontaneously or you don't. You can't refute my point about complex molecule formation on the basis that it isn't life. I never said it was life!
If we are going to discuss something, I am going to need you to try harder to respond to the line of conversation that is occuring, without jumping topics and points. Else this is not a conversation.
It is no red herring. Unless you can show that there is a simplier molecule that can be a pre-cursor to life then it is just a just-so story without any evidence to back it up.
This is partly a consequence of your confusion above. It WAS a red herring until you made it be about spontaneous formation of 'THE LIFE COMPLEX MOLECULE', which it never was.
And like it or not, we are discussing something here which hasn't been proven yet. To consistently revert to "Until you prove it, you are just making it up" is pointless. If you want to take that stance, then lets stop talking now. You know as well as I do that we don't have THE answer for this, it is all speculation, but it is speculation which has been guided by science, investigation, experience with modern life and understanding of chemistry.
For instance:
Aegist said:
Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
is indeed evidence of a simple molecule which can self replicate...a pre-cursor of life perhaps? Almost certainly not THE pre-cursor of OUR LIFE, but perhaps A precuror to A life? If we can do it in the lab, then there is a good chance that such a thing can happen in a billion years somewhere in the globe.
Once again, not proof of anything, but its all about exploration of the problem, evidence, statistics, and discovering what is and isn't possible.
At the moment there is very little direct laboratoy evidence of life forming from non-life, but it is common concensus that life did still form that way, simply because there is no other alternative which is nearly as parsimonious as that hypothesis.
You can not jump to the cell for the mechanisms since you are claiming that this mechanism is before the cell originated.
This explanation is certainly a mechanism but it is a mechanism of an already formed cell. You have not given rise to the cell in your theory. You must show mechanisms in a non-living molecule.
And here again we have the same jumping of topics confusion that I showed you above.
I described life as nothing more than non-life which acts with sophistication. That is what I defined life as (in this particular line of conversation), and you asked exactly what that meant, how does non-life interact with sophiostication, and I gave you a list: regularity, feedback, control etc, to which you asked for an example, so I gave you an example. Of course my example came from a living organism, because that is what we were talking about!!!! That is what the entire point was! Life, LIVING STUFF, is nothing but non-living stuff interacting with a higher degree of sophistication. These feedback mechanisms etc are ONLY (nothing else) non-living chemical interactions. Every life function going on inside you and every other life form can be described in non-living chemical detail, and every part of it can likely be recreated outside of living cells.
So anyway, I did not claim that this mechanism was before the cell originated, but the chemistry behind these control mechanisms certainly was. And most importantly, all of the mechanisms in a living call can be done outside of the living cell (take PCR for example). So my point remains.
Oh but they are, and you are trying to divert origins from the outcome. Regardless of what life form first arose, there is no evidence of it. Constructing possibilties without evidence does not provide valid information. For any early life form it must be shown (be in evidence) that life as we know it could arise. It is relevant, in fact, necessary to the cellular constructs that are present in all life forms on earth.
But no they aren't. That is like arguing that skin has always been around because animals can't live without it, therefore any precursor to humans MUST account for skin. It must either have skin or it must have a precursor skin. Yet cleary it just isn't true because thanks to
evolution, things have changed far more than we could imagine by ourselves. FAR more. And as of the origin of life, life started evolving. Everything could have changed. Everything. Who knows if the origin of life wasn't like Richard Dawkins postulated in the Blind Watchmaker: a sort of clay duplication of crystal structures...and then these clay structures actually bonded to molecules and made a performed as a sort of template to catalyse the creation of completely different chemical molecules?
Just because DNA replicates itself exactly doesn't mean life ALWAYS was DNA replicating itself. Clearly we can see that DNA can produce proteins, and only recently have we started seeing Prions emerge. What if in the next hundred years DNA mutated and started creating a protein which made a SUPER PRION. And this prion replicated itself with such fervor and such wonton destruction that is actually took over ALL organic molecules on earth? We would find ourselves with a planet under the cover of a Protein based genetic system with evolving organisms competing for replication rights.
DNA can lead to Protein replication. Maybe clay can lead to some molecular replication which can lead to DNA replication. And maybe none of those require lipid bilayers for it to happen! The current makup of "Cellular Life"
is not important, because we are looking at a past which has evolved drastically from the origin.
My contention is that life is cellular. Many things can be said of life but this one thing is the common ground of all living things.
Viruses. Non-cellular, replicating
This to me seems like a cop out. You can't show any evidence for your hypothesis, so your theory is not sound in scientific terms.
Life is a definition. You show me an undisputable way of defining life, and then I will agree that we need a 'scientific hypothesis' to prove it exists.
The fact is Life is a human definition, and that has nothing to do with 'hypothesis'..it has to do with choice.
Not at all. I have no problem with scientists nor science. The scientists are under the requirment of their philosopy. Regardless, the scientists that believe life started from non-life are still unable to show that. Their theory so far is not in evidence.
There were many things we haven't been able to show...LOL. God of the Gaps gets smaller every day
I'm sorry, what? I don't know what you mean.
Then lets leave this alone then.