What if there was more than one origin of life?

[Frank Robert]

From the article

If where life spawned from is a question that often keeps you up at night, maybe you ought to look in the mirror — right into your own eyes.

How life emerged and evolved is often seen as a road that has gone in one direction for 4 billion years. That might not have actually been what happened. Researchers Chris Kempes and David Krakauer of the Santa Fe Institute believe that life probably originated multiple times, in different ways. It is possible that new features showed up in different life-forms that were unrelated, and neither may have even known the other existed.

When something that evolves features far removed from another organism that takes on similar (often the same) traits, that is the phenomenon of convergent evolution. An ice-age mammal was thought to have been a killer cat until scientists realized it was closer to what are now marsupials, but happened to have evolved huge teeth and claws because of similar survival needs. It lived nowhere near any saber-tooth tigers. This is analogous to how photoreceptors evolved into what are now eyes in so many various species everywhere on Earth.
​

There are three main elements to Kempes and Kraukauer’s theory.

1. It considers all the materials which could have led to or at least been advantageous for a type of life forming. In an opposite turn,
2. it also has to take any restrictions into account, because depending on where you are looking, there are most likely certain organisms that would not survive.
3. The final piece is how particular forms of life end up optimizing processes that eventually give them adaptations that allow them to live everywhere from inhospitable cold to the scorching wasteland surrounding a volcano.
​

It is predictive of life

“We think that our theory will shift the emphasis from searching for particular materials to searching for particular principles of a system,” Kempes and Krakauer say. “It is prospective rather than retrospective, and hence predictive of life.”
.​

 

[Shemjaza]

You'd think if there was more than one kind of live it would eventually become obvious due to life's tendency to expand to fill any area it can fit in.

If you were based on completely different chemical principles and you examined Earth... you'd still recognise all the plants and animals spreading and growing.

I think we'd be the same if we found a silicon based sludge that was absorbing sand and extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere to make more of itself.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

We had a similar thread earlier this week I think in another forum. I stated that even if there is other life elsewhere, it doesn't change what Jesus did for us.

 

[Ligurian]

From the article

If where life spawned from is a question that often keeps you up at night, maybe you ought to look in the mirror — right into your own eyes.

How life emerged and evolved is often seen as a road that has gone in one direction for 4 billion years. That might not have actually been what happened. Researchers Chris Kempes and David Krakauer of the Santa Fe Institute believe that life probably originated multiple times, in different ways. It is possible that new features showed up in different life-forms that were unrelated, and neither may have even known the other existed.

When something that evolves features far removed from another organism that takes on similar (often the same) traits, that is the phenomenon of convergent evolution. An ice-age mammal was thought to have been a killer cat until scientists realized it was closer to what are now marsupials, but happened to have evolved huge teeth and claws because of similar survival needs. It lived nowhere near any saber-tooth tigers. This is analogous to how photoreceptors evolved into what are now eyes in so many various species everywhere on Earth.
​

There are three main elements to Kempes and Kraukauer’s theory.

1. It considers all the materials which could have led to or at least been advantageous for a type of life forming. In an opposite turn,
2. it also has to take any restrictions into account, because depending on where you are looking, there are most likely certain organisms that would not survive.
3. The final piece is how particular forms of life end up optimizing processes that eventually give them adaptations that allow them to live everywhere from inhospitable cold to the scorching wasteland surrounding a volcano.
​

It is predictive of life

“We think that our theory will shift the emphasis from searching for particular materials to searching for particular principles of a system,” Kempes and Krakauer say. “It is prospective rather than retrospective, and hence predictive of life.”
.​

Same thing, only different?

THE DIVERSITY OF ORIGIN
OF THE HUMAN RACES.
[From the Christian Examiner for July, 1850.]

... about which Agassiz needed to add this footnote to page one:

"* The application to me of insulting epithets, like that of "infidel," by
certain divines who have argued the question in opposition to my views,
will neither strengthen their position, nor tarnish my character. — l. a"
The diversity of origin of the human races : (from the Christian examiner for July, 1850) : Agassiz, Louis, 1807-1873

 

[pdudgeon]

You're absolutely right, and the Bible proves it.
There are angels, cherubim, and seriphim in Heaven, and they are all different from human beings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From the article

If where life spawned from is a question that often keeps you up at night, maybe you ought to look in the mirror — right into your own eyes.

How life emerged and evolved is often seen as a road that has gone in one direction for 4 billion years. That might not have actually been what happened. Researchers Chris Kempes and David Krakauer of the Santa Fe Institute believe that life probably originated multiple times, in different ways. It is possible that new features showed up in different life-forms that were unrelated, and neither may have even known the other existed.

When something that evolves features far removed from another organism that takes on similar (often the same) traits, that is the phenomenon of convergent evolution. An ice-age mammal was thought to have been a killer cat until scientists realized it was closer to what are now marsupials, but happened to have evolved huge teeth and claws because of similar survival needs. It lived nowhere near any saber-tooth tigers. This is analogous to how photoreceptors evolved into what are now eyes in so many various species everywhere on Earth.
​

There are three main elements to Kempes and Kraukauer’s theory.

1. It considers all the materials which could have led to or at least been advantageous for a type of life forming. In an opposite turn,
2. it also has to take any restrictions into account, because depending on where you are looking, there are most likely certain organisms that would not survive.
3. The final piece is how particular forms of life end up optimizing processes that eventually give them adaptations that allow them to live everywhere from inhospitable cold to the scorching wasteland surrounding a volcano.
​

It is predictive of life

“We think that our theory will shift the emphasis from searching for particular materials to searching for particular principles of a system,” Kempes and Krakauer say. “It is prospective rather than retrospective, and hence predictive of life.”
.​

It's quite possible that there is - or was - more than one origin of life. It's not a novel idea and has been considered in-depth with regard to life on Earth and elsewhere in the universe. But as far as we can tell, only life from one origin has survived on Earth. We can't say whether life has emerged elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's quite possible that there is - or was - more than one origin of life. It's not a novel idea and has been considered in-depth with regard to life on Earth and elsewhere in the universe. But as far as we can tell, only life from one origin has survived on Earth. We can't say whether life has emerged elsewhere in the universe.

Right, we can trace back to the LUCA but only theorize about what came before.

 

[SelfSim]

This model presents a more generalised way of looking into our meaning of the concept of 'life'.

It suggests that Earth's instance of life may be the result of Earth's 'rather unique history of life' and that life elsewhere may well not look anything like our version, (at least in terms of diagnosing its presence).

This raises the rather interesting question of what exactly do we look for when investigating life elsewhere and is there any point in looking for our own version on Mars, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, Venus, etc?

Also, the term: 'life' gets thrown around with gay abandon all the time on this particular forum as though its just kind of mutually understood what it means .. but this understanding is often a very much anthropocentric perspective, where humankind is seen as separate from nature and superior to it and other entities, (animals, plants, minerals, etc), are viewed as merely resources for humans to use (mainly by Creationists, I think).
Even the more regular scientific meaning is still very Earth-life centric, which still skews various streams of investigative research into the topic (such as the search for life elsewhere).

 

[Astrid]

From the article

If where life spawned from is a question that often keeps you up at night, maybe you ought to look in the mirror — right into your own eyes.

How life emerged and evolved is often seen as a road that has gone in one direction for 4 billion years. That might not have actually been what happened. Researchers Chris Kempes and David Krakauer of the Santa Fe Institute believe that life probably originated multiple times, in different ways. It is possible that new features showed up in different life-forms that were unrelated, and neither may have even known the other existed.

When something that evolves features far removed from another organism that takes on similar (often the same) traits, that is the phenomenon of convergent evolution. An ice-age mammal was thought to have been a killer cat until scientists realized it was closer to what are now marsupials, but happened to have evolved huge teeth and claws because of similar survival needs. It lived nowhere near any saber-tooth tigers. This is analogous to how photoreceptors evolved into what are now eyes in so many various species everywhere on Earth.
​

There are three main elements to Kempes and Kraukauer’s theory.

1. It considers all the materials which could have led to or at least been advantageous for a type of life forming. In an opposite turn,
2. it also has to take any restrictions into account, because depending on where you are looking, there are most likely certain organisms that would not survive.
3. The final piece is how particular forms of life end up optimizing processes that eventually give them adaptations that allow them to live everywhere from inhospitable cold to the scorching wasteland surrounding a volcano.
​

It is predictive of life

“We think that our theory will shift the emphasis from searching for particular materials to searching for particular principles of a system,” Kempes and Krakauer say. “It is prospective rather than retrospective, and hence predictive of life.”
.​

There were marsupial sabretooths in South America and Oz.
Anyone who saw the skull would immediately know they
were marsupials.

 

[Astrid]

You're absolutely right, and the Bible proves it.
There are angels, cherubim, and seriphim in Heaven, and they are all different from human beings.

Does the Bible that Pi= 3.00?

 

[Strathos]

Does the Bible that Pi= 3.00?

No it doesn't. That was an approximation of a specific constructed artifact. (Besides, is it so hard to imagine that a metal basin constructed by a bronze age civilization might not have been a perfect circle?)

 

[Astrid]

No it doesn't. That was an approximation of a specific constructed artifact. (Besides, is it so hard to imagine that a metal basin constructed by a bronze age civilization might not have been a perfect circle?)

Of course, if the thing ever existed at all. But lo and many a
person will go to the most extraordinary lengths to avoid
admitting that anything in there is only pproximately true.

 

[Strathos]

Of course, if the thing ever existed at all. But lo and many a
person will go to the most extraordinary lengths to avoid
admitting that anything in there is only pproximately true.

I've seen arbitrary skepticism of the Bible before, but this is the first time I've seen someone deny that the ancient Israelis could make something out of brass...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Same thing, only different?

Not very similar.

THE DIVERSITY OF ORIGIN
OF THE HUMAN RACES.

Agassiz was one of the last biologists of any note to be opposed to evolution in favor of some form of biblical creationism. Sadly, this polygenic idea of his was probably partly motivated by his revulsion at the idea that white people and black people are related through a common ancestor (as evolution would obviously imply).

 

[Astrid]

I've seen arbitrary skepticism of the Bible before, but this is the first time I've seen someone deny that the ancient Israelis could make something out of brass...

Nope, you did not see that this time either..
OTOH-
I've seen people try anything hoping to win a point,
and I've seen confusion.
You confuse doubt with denial, bronze with brass.
You confused an aside with the main topic.

A bronze casting five meters across was imo
probably beyond the capability of those people.

But the actual point of what I said was that people
too dedicated to what they fancy as biblical inerrancy
cannot even accept that "30 cubits" is not a precise
measurement. For lo, that means that some part of
the Bible is only approximately correct.

Then the floodgates are open!

 

[Strathos]

Nope, you did not see that this time either..
OTOH-
I've seen people try anything hoping to win a point,
and I've seen confusion.
You confuse doubt with denial, bronze with brass.
You confused an aside with the main topic.

A bronze casting five meters across was imo
probably beyond the capability of those people.

But the actual point of what I said was that people
too dedicated to what they fancy as biblical inerrancy
cannot even accept that "30 cubits" is not a precise
measurement. For lo, that means that some part of
the Bible is only approximately correct.

Then the floodgates are open!

Didn't I say that it wasn't meant to be a precise measurement in the first place?

 

[Astrid]

Didn't I say that it wasn't meant to be a precise measurement in the first place?

Doubt / denial, brass / bronze now this.
I wasn't even talking about you.

 

[Ligurian]

Agassiz was one of the last biologists of any note to be opposed to evolution in favor of some form of biblical creationism. Sadly, this polygenic idea of his was probably partly motivated by his revulsion at the idea that white people and black people are related through a common ancestor (as evolution would obviously imply).

About which he would've probably replied something like...

"The application to me of insulting epithets, like that of "infidel," by
certain divines who have argued the question in opposition to my views,
will neither strengthen their position, nor tarnish my character. — l. a"

Having actually read Agassiz... I never came to the conclusion you did.
Perspective is a funny thing. People see what they expect to see, in most cases.

 

[essentialsaltes]

About which he would've probably replied something like...

Seems unlikely since I didn't apply an insulting epithet, I am not a divine, and I actually am an infidel. Apart from that, you're spot on.

 

[Ligurian]

Seems unlikely since I didn't apply an insulting epithet, I am not a divine, and I actually am an infidel. Apart from that, you're spot on.

whew... that's a relief, isn't it?