is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 14 Aug 2006 13:01:21
From: RSF Group
Subject: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
stuff turned into life stuff.

as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
of already existing life stuff?

suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
regardless of life already existing?

or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
oxygen done be existing.

Date: 15 Aug 2006 02:51:15
From: Scott Golden
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

RSF Group wrote:

> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>
> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?
>
> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?
>
> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.
>
Some scientists believe that way back when it took a dusting from a
passing comet (comet stuff) to turn all of that unlife stuff into life
stuff. Maybe, if another comet makes a close pass, some more unlife
stuff will turn into life stuff; of course, cosmic equilibrium may
demand that some of the pre-existing life stuff (like human being stuff)
may have to turn back into unlife stuff in order to make way for the new
life stuff.

And, of course, it's been long theorized that a passing comet may have
wiped out the dino-stuff, setting the stage for the rise of human stuff.

Personally, I'm just waiting for my yard to get off it's lazy ass and
start cleaning up the dog crap for me.

Date: 14 Aug 2006 19:24:29
From: moviePig
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Randy Poe wrote:
> RSF Group wrote:
> > i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> > stuff turned into life stuff.
> >
> > as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> > same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> > of already existing life stuff?
>
> I find newly evolved life forms in my refrigerator all the time.

It's cause for concern only when they begin to find you...

--

/---------------------------\

Date: 14 Aug 2006 20:22:01
From: Captain Infinity
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Once Upon A Time RSF Group wrote:

>i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>stuff turned into life stuff.
>
>as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
>same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
>of already existing life stuff?
>
>suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
>regardless of life already existing?
>
>or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
>destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
>of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
>oxygen done be existing.

I fid your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

**
Captain Infinity.

Date: 14 Aug 2006 13:20:33
From:
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1155585681.545431.129070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> aegisigea@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> > stuff turned into life stuff.
> >
> > as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> > same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> > of already existing life stuff?
> >
> > suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> > regardless of life already existing?
> >
> > or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> > destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> > of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> > oxygen done be existing.
>
> It is generally believed that current forms of life would pretty
> quickly eat up any new form before it got a chance to do much evolving.
>
> Also, as you say, oxygenated environments don't seem too promising for
> life to get started. But there are still anaerobic places on Earth.
>
> - Gerry Quinn

There is no non-living stuff. So it is not a problem.
Problem is how to survive among such strange things whom we can not
control today.

Date: 14 Aug 2006 21:15:44
From: Gerry Quinn
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

In article <1155585681.545431.129070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
aegisigea@hotmail.com says...
>
> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>
> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?
>
> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?
>
> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.

It is generally believed that current forms of life would pretty
quickly eat up any new form before it got a chance to do much evolving.

Also, as you say, oxygenated environments don't seem too promising for
life to get started. But there are still anaerobic places on Earth.

- Gerry Quinn

Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:45:41
From: Derek Janssen
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1155585681.545431.129070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> aegisigea@hotmail.com says...
>
>><stuff>

> It is generally believed that current forms of life would pretty
> quickly eat up any new form before it got a chance to do much evolving.

No, no, he didn't say "forms of life"...He said "Stuff"!
Y'know, like there's "good stuff" and "bad stuff"?

You come home, people ask you what happened, you say "...Stuff."
Does that mean that there ISN'T "stuff" inside your house, and you had
to outside to find it? If your house isn't empty, there's "stuff"
there, too, but they know that. What you mean was, there "Stuff that
isn't in this house".
In fact, when you think about it, that's all your house is--A place to
keep your stuff, while you go out and get...MORE stuff!

Derek Janssen (and in football, we play in an "arena"...In baseball, we
play in a "park".)
ejanss@comcast.net

Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:33:46
From: Jim Lanson
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f4aea4f51a9736d98b1ea@news1.eircom.net...
> In article <1155585681.545431.129070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> aegisigea@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>
>> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
>> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
>> of already existing life stuff?
>>
>> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
>> regardless of life already existing?
>>
>> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
>> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
>> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
>> oxygen done be existing.
>
> It is generally believed that current forms of life would pretty
> quickly eat up any new form before it got a chance to do much evolving.
>
> Also, as you say, oxygenated environments don't seem too promising for
> life to get started. But there are still anaerobic places on Earth.
>
Australia is anaerobic for sure.

Date: 15 Aug 2006 16:40:08
From: Luke Webber
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

Jim Lanson wrote:

> Australia is anaerobic for sure.

Too right mate. Just catch us letting those bloody Aerobs in here!

Luke

Date: 14 Aug 2006 13:13:41
From: Randy Poe
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Date: 15 Aug 2006 23:52:25
From: John H
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1155586421.555307.193880@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> RSF Group wrote:
>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>
>> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
>> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
>> of already existing life stuff?
>
> I find newly evolved life forms in my refrigerator all the time.

Evolved life forms are living stuff that turns into other living stuff.
You've confused astuffogenesis with stuffolution.

john

Date: 17 Aug 2006 10:19:51
From: Henry
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1155586421.555307.193880@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> RSF Group wrote:
>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>
>> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
>> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
>> of already existing life stuff?
>
> I find newly evolved life forms in my refrigerator all the time.

*channelling Lisa Simpson*

But were they Lutherans?

Date: 15 Aug 2006 09:49:26
From: PD
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

RSF Group wrote:
> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>
> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?
>
> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?
>
> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.

Yes, I believe there are likely places where new life is being
generated from nonliving stuff, particularly places where it is not
competing with existing life.

However, keep in mind that our time scale for looking for evidence of
this process is about a hundred years, where the time scale for it
really happening is on the order of a few million years. Unlikely we
will see a significant occurrence unless we are *really* lucky.

PD

Date: 15 Aug 2006 09:19:02
From: norrin
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

RSF Group wrote:
> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>

You be a vitalist. Too bad you not know what that word means.
You be an antidisetablishmentarian, too.

Date: 15 Aug 2006 23:22:40
From: Captain Infinity
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Once Upon A Time norrin wrote:

>
>RSF Group wrote:
>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>
>
>You be a vitalist. Too bad you not know what that word means.
>You be an antidisetablishmentarian, too.

My goodness, that's an awfully big word for a functional illiterate.

**
Captain Infinity

Date: 15 Aug 2006 20:28:38
From: Bill Snyder
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:40 GMT, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@captaininfinity.us > wrote:

>Once Upon A Time norrin wrote:
>
>>
>>RSF Group wrote:
>>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>>
>>
>>You be a vitalist. Too bad you not know what that word means.
>>You be an antidisetablishmentarian, too.
>
>My goodness, that's an awfully big word for a functional illiterate.

What makes you think he's functional?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

Date: 16 Aug 2006 01:47:08
From: Captain Infinity
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Once Upon A Time Bill Snyder wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:40 GMT, Captain Infinity
><Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>
>>Once Upon A Time norrin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>RSF Group wrote:
>>>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>>>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You be a vitalist. Too bad you not know what that word means.
>>>You be an antidisetablishmentarian, too.
>>
>>My goodness, that's an awfully big word for a functional illiterate.
>
>What makes you think he's functional?

He spelled it "too" instead of "to".

**
Captain Infinity

Date: 15 Aug 2006 21:05:48
From: Bill Snyder
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:47:08 GMT, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@captaininfinity.us > wrote:

>Once Upon A Time Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:40 GMT, Captain Infinity
>><Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Once Upon A Time norrin wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>RSF Group wrote:
>>>>> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>>>>> stuff turned into life stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You be a vitalist. Too bad you not know what that word means.
>>>>You be an antidisetablishmentarian, too.
>>>
>>>My goodness, that's an awfully big word for a functional illiterate.
>>
>>What makes you think he's functional?
>
>He spelled it "too" instead of "to".

I meant the OP. Or maybe it should be "Me meant OP. Kill da zeeba!"

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

Date: 15 Aug 2006 08:37:33
From: Andy Resnick
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

RSF Group wrote:

> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>
> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?
>
> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?
>
> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.

Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
force'.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Date: 15 Aug 2006 15:54:48
From: Matthias Warkus
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Am Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:37:33 -0400 schrieb Andy Resnick:
> Freidrich Wohler

ITYM Friedrich W�hler.

mawa

Date: 16 Aug 2006 08:34:25
From: Andy Resnick
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

Matthias Warkus wrote:

> Am Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:37:33 -0400 schrieb Andy Resnick:
>
>>Freidrich Wohler
>
>
> ITYM Friedrich W�hler.
>
> mawa
Yeah, absolutely. I don't know how to do the umlaut thing on my keyboard.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:48:06
From: Odysseus
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

In article <ebv3g9$plh$2@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu >,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu > wrote:

> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> > Am Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:37:33 -0400 schrieb Andy Resnick:
> >
> >>Freidrich Wohler
> >
> >
> > ITYM Friedrich W�hler.
> >
> > mawa
> Yeah, absolutely. I don't know how to do the umlaut thing on my keyboard.

In that case, you could write "Woehler", as was the convention when
using a typewriter without diacritical marks.

--
Odysseus

Date: 14 Aug 2006 23:05:37
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Scott Golden wrote:
> RSF Group wrote:
> > as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> > same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> > of already existing life stuff?

> > or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> > destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> > of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> > oxygen done be existing.
> And, of course, it's been long theorized that a passing comet may have
> wiped out the dino-stuff, setting the stage for the rise of human stuff.
>
> Personally, I'm just waiting for my yard to get off it's lazy ass and
> start cleaning up the dog crap for me.

"Stuff & Nonsense"

.......the best they have been able to reproduce is a few amino acids
and peptides, as far as re-creating the Great Life Stuff
Experiment...so the true answer to the question is that we don't have a
clue what it would take to re-make life stuff, nor do we even know what
unlife-stuff was used to en-lifen stuff, though there have been many
theories about cosmic dust (which is another word for unlife-stuff)
etc. The absence of oxygen is postulated, because it was necessary to
make the amino acids from scratch (scratch = unlife stuff), however
that is as far as it goes. The same experiment was the origin of the
theory that a great influx of sudden, high intensity electromagnetic
radiation was also necessary for the en-lifening process.

The only theory that covers the issue of newly-stuffed life surviving
in the presence of old-stuff life, is that of natural selection and
random mutation (theory of evolution) but that theory only applies to
highly organized stuff....stuff which is no longer just basic
life-stuff ....but highly advanced stuff which can mutate its DNA into
forms which provide a competitive advantage over other forms (forms =
highly advanced life stuff (HALS)).

The question about new life stuff competing with old life stuff can
only be answered when one can reasonably postulate how many other forms
or types of HALS could possibly come into existence (and by that I mean
life that is propagated by some OTHER form of coding rather that DNA,
since the chance of DNA being created all over again in the same format
is virtually negligible). Then it would remain to establish:

1] Does the new stuff need to compete with the old stuff for the same
resources? (perhaps not if it were silicon-based rather than
carbon-based)?

2] Does the new stuff have any chemical incompatibilites that would be
toxic to the old stuff, or, more likely, vice versa?

3] How long would it be before the old stuff figured out what the new
stuff really was and utilized it as a fossil fuel before it could even
get off the ground (stuff)?

Date: 14 Aug 2006 23:04:02
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Date: 15 Aug 2006 19:53:12
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Andy Resnick wrote:

> Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
> precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
> is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
> force'.
>

The ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic precursors
is not the definition of creating life. Creation of life is the
currently unexplained process of organizing and arranging organic
molecules into a self-sustaining, replicating, growing organism which
can transmit characteristics to future generations predictably. It
most certainly requires something which has still not been identifed or
qualified or isolated which, for lack of a better word, you choose to
call life force. I prefer to call it, more accurately, the ability to
resist entropy and the natural chaotic tendency to fall apart, or
decompose. The ability to synthesize urea has no bearing on that
process, as neither does the synthesis of peptides and amino acids.

And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.

S.F.K.

MD, FAAP
(B.Sc. Biochem McMaster)

Date: 16 Aug 2006 08:36:43
From: Andy Resnick
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

tension_on_the_wire wrote:

<snip >
>
> And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
> above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
> reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.

We are all the product of reproduction. Carried out in, by and large,
many varied experimental conditions. :)

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Date: 15 Aug 2006 11:11:55
From:
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

RSF Group wrote:
> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.

Google up on Abiogenesis

> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?

See AbioGenesis

But in particular, there is a whole shade of grey in between living
forms and inert matter. Viruses are only 'alive' when inside living
cells, otherwise these things do not posess several of the requirements
of being 'alive'. Prions are even less alive, but still have the
capacity to reproduce when inside living cells.

> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?

Yes, and then it gets immediately eaten by already existing life forms.

> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.

The oxygen question is interesting. The life we know of evolved during
a time when oxygen was essentially absent, and early living things
produced all of the oxygen we utilize today. New kinds of life evolving
in an oxygen rich environment would be different as oxygen is
detrimental to life before it gets to the point where cellular walls
protect the emergent proto-life form. But difficult doe not absolutely
prevent emergence.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 16 Aug 2006 09:17:33
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Andy Resnick wrote:

> We are all the product of reproduction. Carried out in, by and large,
> many varied experimental conditions. :)
>

Well, I stand corrected (standing corrected could probably be
considered one of those experimental conditions too, with a little
imagination). ;P

But I would suggest to you that the only way of producing life that has
been observed on this planet so far IS by perpetuating already existing
life.....that isn't quite the same thing as creating it from scratch,
though is it? So far, it hasn't been done without the presence of
living cells, regardless of their (hapless) haploid condition.

The ultimate challenge is to produce, via molecular precursors (organic
or otherwise), an organism that contains DNA, or maybe even just RNA if
it turns out to be easier though I doubt it, which can then be invested
with this ability to resist entropy, and to carry on with the processes
that we normally qualify as being the properties of life...reproduction
in all its varieties being one of them.

For the record, I don't think viruses or prions would necessarily be
the easiest or even possible candidates for such an experiment, anyway,
since it has always been postulated that the first form of viable life
to appear on earth was the double-stranded DNA-containing single celled
organism....but ultimately I think it is evident by now that there are
many processes involved (over and above the creating of organic
molecules) prior to that cell stage which are not even guessed at yet
(pertaining to arrangement and organization of a phospholipid bilayer,
and the creation of DNA) and that we have a long way to go before even
getting close to this particular Holy Grail. (The Big Bang Theory of
Biology?....pun intended!) ;P

SFK

Date: 17 Aug 2006 10:54:58
From: Gerry Quinn
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

In article <1155745053.379087.212300@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
tension_at_home@yahoo.com says...

> For the record, I don't think viruses or prions would necessarily be
> the easiest or even possible candidates for such an experiment, anyway,
> since it has always been postulated that the first form of viable life
> to appear on earth was the double-stranded DNA-containing single celled
> organism....

Actually there have been a lot of different postulates in this regard.

It's possible that someone defined 'life' as starting here. Certainly
there are theories about self-reproducing systems that don;t involve
DNA.

- Gerry Quinn

Date: 17 Aug 2006 04:23:39
From: Harold Mada
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

The best description of SAA ever made.

RSF Group wrote:

> i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
> stuff turned into life stuff.
>
> as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
> same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
> of already existing life stuff?
>
> suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
> regardless of life already existing?
>
> or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
> destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
> of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
> oxygen done be existing.

Date: 17 Aug 2006 21:20:05
From: RSF Group
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Date: 18 Aug 2006 12:29:00
From: Ben Newsam
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

On 17 Aug 2006 21:20:05 -0700, "RSF Group" <aegisigea@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
>begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
>threatens life that already exists.

It's been done. Remember in South Park, there's Mr Hanky the Christmas
Poo?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 19 Aug 2006 23:10:08
From: Luke Webber
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

Ben Newsam wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 21:20:05 -0700, "RSF Group" <aegisigea@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
>> begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
>> threatens life that already exists.
>
> It's been done. Remember in South Park, there's Mr Hanky the Christmas
> Poo?

Doesn't qualify. There's lots of living "stuff" in poo.

Luke

Date: 18 Aug 2006 09:15:43
From: Scott Golden
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

RSF Group wrote:

> RSF Group wrote:
>
>>i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
>>stuff turned into life stuff.
>>
>>as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
>>same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
>>of already existing life stuff?
>>
>>suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
>>regardless of life already existing?
>>
>>or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
>>destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
>>of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
>>oxygen done be existing.
>
>
>
> actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
> begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
> threatens life that already exists.
>
"Attack of the Sand People"
"Days of Asphalt"
"Revenge of the Lava" (Oh, wait. There was that Tommy Lee Jones film)
"Formica--The Beginning"
"The Fugitive Empire State Building"
"The Porcelain Strikes Back"
"Fiberglass From Hell"
"Shredder!!!"
"Smog--The Motion Picture" ("Godzilla VS. The Smog Monster" remake)
"Stephen King's 'S**t'" (and a sequal: "Meteor S**t", Creepshow fans)
"Carpet VS. Tile"
"Bad Photographs"
"Mouse Pads Attack!"
"Plastic Pain"
"War of the Waffle Irons"
"Ice Cube Trays Age"
"Field of Screams"
"Mount Everest Mounts Kilimanjaro" (XXX)
"Killer Kiln"
"Killer Kite"
"Stapler of Death"
"Cans"
"Glue Takes Charge"
"Tom Cruise Grows A Personality" (more fantasy than SF)

Date: 19 Aug 2006 23:01:27
From: Luke Webber
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

RSF Group wrote:

> actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
> begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
> threatens life that already exists.

Could somebody please cancel this post before Michael Crichton gets wind
of it?

This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your time.

Luke

Date: 18 Aug 2006 00:44:25
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

RSF Group wrote:
> actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
> begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
> threatens life that already exists.

Except I can bet it would probably run alot like "The Andromeda
Strain". Just no space capsule bringing the offending agent in.

Also, it's worth pointing out that most hypotheses about the creation
of life involve large, cataclysmic events due to large amounts of
electromagnetic or radioactive energy input. These events, it is
usually understood, are not really compatible with any pre-existing
life and so the process itself would likely wipe us all out, if it ever
DID happen again, whatever it was. Big Bang, indeed.

Douglas Adams has used that idea twice, once as script editor for Dr.
Who in the Jagaroth Episode with Duggan, and also in his book, I don't
remember which one, either "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", or "Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". The latter, I think.

SFK

Date: 19 Aug 2006 19:31:55
From: dm
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

tension_on_the_wire wrote:
> Andy Resnick wrote:
>
> > Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
> > precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
> > is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
> > force'.
> >
>
>
> The ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic precursors
> is not the definition of creating life. Creation of life is the
> currently unexplained process of organizing and arranging organic
> molecules into a self-sustaining, replicating, growing organism which
> can transmit characteristics to future generations predictably. It
> most certainly requires something which has still not been identifed or
> qualified or isolated which, for lack of a better word, you choose to
> call life force. I prefer to call it, more accurately, the ability to
> resist entropy and the natural chaotic tendency to fall apart, or
> decompose. The ability to synthesize urea has no bearing on that
> process, as neither does the synthesis of peptides and amino acids.
>
> And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
> above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
> reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.
>
>
> S.F.K.
>
> MD, FAAP
> (B.Sc. Biochem McMaster)

I heard the comment that if lightning can create amino acid. There
is a whole world of difference to a living cell just like a scrap of
iron
to a space shuttle. So amino acid being synthesized by nature
doesn't say a thing about the creation of life or what is life.

I like your Big Bang of Biology comment. What's the latest about
this search for the origin of life and especially how complexities
are built from simple amino acids and chemicals. Any algorithm
that can do it or comptuer simulations?

dm

Date: 22 Aug 2006 01:42:46
From: JXStern
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

On 14 Aug 2006 13:01:21 -0700, "RSF Group" <aegisigea@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
>destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
>of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
>oxygen done be existing.

I believe the villagers come with torches and pitchforks.

viz: The New Prometheus, and "Puttin' on the Ritz"

Date: 23 Aug 2006 00:24:39
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

dm wrote:
> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
> > Andy Resnick wrote:
> >
> > > Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
> > > precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
> > > is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
> > > force'.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic precursors
> > is not the definition of creating life. Creation of life is the
> > currently unexplained process of organizing and arranging organic
> > molecules into a self-sustaining, replicating, growing organism which
> > can transmit characteristics to future generations predictably. It
> > most certainly requires something which has still not been identifed or
> > qualified or isolated which, for lack of a better word, you choose to
> > call life force. I prefer to call it, more accurately, the ability to
> > resist entropy and the natural chaotic tendency to fall apart, or
> > decompose. The ability to synthesize urea has no bearing on that
> > process, as neither does the synthesis of peptides and amino acids.
> >
> > And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
> > above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
> > reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.

> >
> I like your Big Bang of Biology comment. What's the latest about
> this search for the origin of life and especially how complexities
> are built from simple amino acids and chemicals. Any algorithm
> that can do it or comptuer simulations?
>
> dm

The simple answer to your question is....no. What research is done in
this area is considered a bit esoteric and with not great hopes of
yield, at the moment, however there are some areas that have parallel
significance that are being researched vigorously such as the
principles of cell senescence (meaning the signals whereby a cell can
tell itself that it is old and time to die, via a somewhat mysterious
process of collapse and cessation of function, also known as
apoptosis). There are some hopes that if we can understand just
exactly what the process of "natural death" entails, we might somehow
provide, via "reverse engineering" in a manner of speaking, a new
starting point from which to look at the investiture of "life force".
The limitation on this is, of course, that we are dealing with The
Cell, already a supremely complex level of organization in itself, and
perhaps quite far away from whatever the first molecule might have been
that could be defined as living. That would be another Holy Grail/Big
Bang moment right there...the missing link...the first true living
organism. We don't really know what form it took, nor how it could get
to the cell stage through generations of reproduction if there were no
cells to divide and reproduce (or contain the first prions or
virus-type DNA's, etc). In other words, we are still whistling in the
dark. :-o

Not to change the topic completely, but this is why Darwin's Theory of
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the search for the origins
of life. Many people, mostly those who haven't actually read his
work, mistakenly believe that Darwin explained how life originated on
earth. Darwin only explained how species could perpetuate and change
into other species, but he did not try to explain how living things
came into existence in the first place, as he admitted directly. Since
his whole theory cannot even come into play until there is functioning,
duplicating, and dividing DNA in the first place, again it comes down
to the first ever cell to come into existence, and how it got there.
Here. Whatever. ;-P

---tension

Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:01:36
From: J Moreno
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Many people, mostly those who haven't actually read his work, mistakenly
> believe that Darwin explained how life originated on earth. Darwin only
> explained how species could perpetuate and change into other species, but
> he did not try to explain how living things came into existence in the
> first place, as he admitted directly. Since his whole theory cannot even
> come into play until there is functioning, duplicating, and dividing DNA
> in the first place, again it comes down to the first ever cell to come
> into existence, and how it got there.

At least in theory, evolution doesn't require DNA -- simply some way of
passing along characteristics that are reproductively helpful/harmful.
What that characteristic is or how it's passed along, isn't really
important to the basic theory.

But of course you're right -- evolution doesn't say how life began, and
it's *impossible* for it to explain how life began, since life is it's
topic.

--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg

Date: 23 Aug 2006 23:02:24
From: Barath
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

Well, I think I am living and the food I eat is not. The food turns
into me. So I would say yes, non-living stuff does turn into living
stuff. And living stuff also turns into non-living stuff.

Regs
Barath

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:49:36
From: Scott Golden
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even

Barath wrote:

> Well, I think I am living and the food I eat is not. The food turns
> into me. So I would say yes, non-living stuff does turn into living
> stuff. And living stuff also turns into non-living stuff.
>
> Regs
> Barath
>
Wow! What food do you eat that did not originate in a living plant or
animal? Hey, wait . . . are you talking about that new 'water & sand' diet?

Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:19:53
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

J Moreno wrote:
> tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Many people, mostly those who haven't actually read his work, mistakenly
> > believe that Darwin explained how life originated on earth. Darwin only
> > explained how species could perpetuate and change into other species, but
> > he did not try to explain how living things came into existence in the
> > first place, as he admitted directly. Since his whole theory cannot even
> > come into play until there is functioning, duplicating, and dividing DNA
> > in the first place, again it comes down to the first ever cell to come
> > into existence, and how it got there.
>
> At least in theory, evolution doesn't require DNA -- simply some way of
> passing along characteristics that are reproductively helpful/harmful.
> What that characteristic is or how it's passed along, isn't really
> important to the basic theory.

That "some way of passing along characteristics" *is* DNA in life on
this earth, so that, perforce, is the method we are constrained to
explain. We cannot propose that there was once some *other* way at the
beginning of life, and then we switched horses in the middle of the
stream and went with DNA.

Of course, it is theoretically possible to imagine some other way, but
not at a practical level. No one has ever come close to proposing some
unique other way of passing on characteristics, so in sense, we are
dealing with a set of one.

> JM
> "Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg

OT .......Marvin of Borg!! Poor Borg!! The collective would surely
instantly commit suicide, as did the great big ship of the Galactic
Police that came to arrest Zaphod et al, if I am not mistaken, when
Marvin plugged himself into it! Marvin would have been a great weapon
on S.T. come to think of it. He could make a Vulcan cash in his chips!
Imagine what he would have done to the Klingons.......Only humans,
with their perpetual level of chronic depression, would have the
resilience to withstand the Marvin Effect, I think, heheh.

------ >tension

Date: 24 Aug 2006 07:30:34
From: J Moreno
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@yahoo.com > wrote:

> J Moreno wrote:
-snip-
> > At least in theory, evolution doesn't require DNA -- simply some way of
> > passing along characteristics that are reproductively helpful/harmful.
> > What that characteristic is or how it's passed along, isn't really
> > important to the basic theory.
>
> That "some way of passing along characteristics" *is* DNA in life on
> this earth, so that, perforce, is the method we are constrained to
> explain. We cannot propose that there was once some *other* way at the
> beginning of life, and then we switched horses in the middle of the
> stream and went with DNA.

Well, not at the beginning of life, but we can find other methods of
passing on behavior now -- learned behavior.

As for proposing another method at the beginning of life -- sure we can.
It might be hard to verify, but proposing it is easy...

> Of course, it is theoretically possible to imagine some other way, but
> not at a practical level. No one has ever come close to proposing some
> unique other way of passing on characteristics, so in sense, we are
> dealing with a set of one.

I'm reading this in rasfw (where are you reading it?), I don't like to
limit such comments to just the existing set if the principal is valid
to a larger set.

(There was someone here some time ago that was complaining that we were
applying evolutionary logic to a situation and saying that just because
that type of thing applies on earth is no reason for it to apply on
other worlds).

> > JM
> > "Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
>
> OT .......Marvin of Borg!! Poor Borg!! The collective would surely
> instantly commit suicide, as did the great big ship of the Galactic
> Police that came to arrest Zaphod et al, if I am not mistaken, when
> Marvin plugged himself into it! Marvin would have been a great weapon
> on S.T. come to think of it. He could make a Vulcan cash in his chips!
> Imagine what he would have done to the Klingons.......Only humans,
> with their perpetual level of chronic depression, would have the
> resilience to withstand the Marvin Effect, I think, heheh.

Glad you like it.

--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg

Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:31:42
From: tension_on_the_wire
Subject: Re: is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

J Moreno wrote:
> tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > J Moreno wrote:
> -snip-
> > > At least in theory, evolution doesn't require DNA -- simply some way of
> > > passing along characteristics that are reproductively helpful/harmful.
> > >What that characteristic is or how it's passed along, isn't really
> > > important to the basic theory.
> >
> tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_home@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That "some way of passing along characteristics" *is* DNA in life on
> > this earth, so that, perforce, is the method we are constrained to
> > explain. We cannot propose that there was once some *other* way at the
> > beginning of life, and then we switched horses in the middle of the
> > stream and went with DNA.

J Moreno wrote: >
> Well, not at the beginning of life, but we can find other methods of
> passing on behavior now -- learned behavior.
>
> As for proposing another method at the beginning of life -- sure we can.
> It might be hard to verify, but proposing it is easy...

**************
I am in sci.astro, though I read both. But for the record, I have no
objection to the application of the hypothetical, including for the use
of imaginitive speculation, either for research *or* for fiction. My
only thing is that if it is for science *fiction*, and not science
fantasy, then there needs to be a solid basis in science, therefore,
here is what I meant in the above:

If we are talking about a "possible" or hypothetical means to transmit
characteristics down generations, we must produce a proposed mechanism.
So far to date, none has been proposed that fits all requirements.
Learned behaviour is not something that is transmitted down the
generations, it is taught (an extremely high-functioning process that
requires many millions of generations of genetics before such a
information-processing system can be developed, requiring evolution and
DNA both) and then it is learned (an even more high-functioning process
that requires.....etc). So in a way, what I am saying is that an
alternative or parallel mechanism to DNA is not only hard to verify,
but damn near impossible to propose unless you are willing to have it
sound like Star Trek technobabble. Good science fiction is based on
good science. Now maybe I am wrong, and you are aware of some
mechanism that was proposed? Don't read that as sarcasm, I mean it as
a serious question. I'll even accept a science fiction novel's
hypothesis, if you can find one that actually makes sense.

J Moreno wrote: >
> (There was someone here some time ago that was complaining that we were
> applying evolutionary logic to a situation and saying that just because
> that type of thing applies on earth is no reason for it to apply on
> other worlds).
>

Well, I guess you can see my take on this....if you want science on
earth to not apply to some other world, there has to be a good
scientific reason why not. Whatever alternative you want to propose
for other worlds is fine as long as it makes sense. I have no problem
applying a new or non-existent idea to other worlds, as long as it fits
a reasonable proposal for the physics and chemistry of that fictional
world. Silicon-based chemistry, versus carbon-based, for example, is
quite a reasonable hypothesis. They would still need to make something
just like DNA using silicon-based sugars, though. There still isn't a
good science fictional alternative for that.

Another good idea came from HG Wells in War of the Worlds when he had
an alien species come down and get wiped out by earth-born viruses
(implicitly assuming, however, that the virus had compatible DNA with
the DNA of the Martians, otherwise how could the virus have induced
replication within the Martian cells?)

I don't say that there absolutely is no other way, I would not be so
presumptuous. But, so far, I don't think anyone has ever really
convincingly imagined any other way. The requirements are so precise,
for genetic variability, and equivalent distribution to daughter cells,
and random mutation to provide a substrate for natural selection and
evolution of characteristics that I guess what I'm proposing is that
DNA is kind of like a "Planck's Constant" of Biology, in a way. 8-P
---tension