Does anyone have a viable model for the origin of life that does not in some way imply intelligent design?

Does anyone have a viable model for the origin of life that does not in some way imply intelligent design?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/
youtube.com/watch?v=oQwNN-0AgWc
space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html
youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I guess that if life can be made from a sequence of random events, then there must be a USB drive with the most sickest CP ever made

If you believe that a USB drive compatible with windows, containing nothing but pure CP on .mp4 is way more improbable than expontaneous life, then you must be a fucking moron

that's a no then I'm guessing

Biology is a lot more flexible and adaptable than a computer.
What you're talking about is something that would have to be absolutely perfect.
No human alive today is absolutely perfect, yet everyone can function fine.
So yes, it is more improbable.

I saw some interesting theories that little micelles could form and trap the building blocks if life, protecting them similar to a cell membrane. Eventually this could lead to a simple RNA based lifeform which would over time evolve. Of course no one can prove any of this.

yes

>intelligent design
>makes things that go extinct

our planet was seeded billions of years ago by god like archaic machines, we are simply an advanced technology - the creation of a self replicating nano-machine

The "primordial soup" necessary to even contain little micelles and the building blocks of life would tend to break them down, not to support their combination.

says who faggot

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either way

Says ur mom, fuckboi

youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8
watch this

No.

Source: aliens

says me, got no proof for you at all

Read GEB, faggot.

oh also Francis Crick the guy who found it, "Addresses the ultimate scientific question of the nature of life, using the hypothetical scenario that life originated on earth when a rocket carrying primitive spores was sent to earth by a higher civilization" you really think he thought it was (((hypothetical))), he was old and dying and wanted to tell what he really thought under the guise of being (((hypothetical)))

>7:02

the "right circumstances" mentioned in this video have only ever been observed in a laboratory setting, if at all. there is no evidence that they have ever naturally occurred in the earth's history

>Does anyone have a viable model for the origin of life that does not in some way imply intelligent design?

The universe contains all things. All the infinite combinations exist simultaneously.

Well clearly they must have if we're all here.

Lab setting are just replications of natural settings. Like placing minerals, gases, and water in a heated container. Settings like that can be found all over earth. There's nothing unnatural about it.

lol nice fucking circular logic boyo

God, if you're out there - what have I done to deserve this pestilence of fruit flies that you have set upon my home?

All evidence clearly points to it springing from the back of a giant turtle. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously prejudice against the true people. Filthy white man and his fire water and his Jesus.

also the only time that the chemical reproduction outlined in the video has been reproduced in a laboratory setting was in an artificial environment that resembled earth's atmosphere in no way?????

What's circular about it? Here's a natural setting. In it you can find gas, water, minerals, and heat.

If we make the same thing in a lab what's unnatural about that? It's just replicating a setting you can find in nature.

This is God. Throw away your old produce you fucking slob.

The real question is, does it really matter?

I'm a biologists and I've studied evolution and genetics quite a bit. It is possible for RNA to form spontaneously (though this is debatable) but it still doesn't answer the question why it has the ability to replicate itself. I see no way around the fact that someone or something has designed the laws of nature in a way that gives the seemingly ordinary molecules the ability to come together in just the right way to produce life.
Even for me the "coincidence" explanation seems somewhat silly

God created life. Deal woth it fedoracucks

Genesis 1
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It has been established by experimental testing, like everything else in science.

Scientists at UCLA blew up a garbage dump, and the parts came down and formed a working jet.

The necessary implication of this life arose from the "explosion" of the Big Bang.

This is precisely the opposite of the truth

That's so retarded that I can only assume you're a product of the American public education system.

The 'primordial soup' existed for hundreds of millions , if not 1 billion years

That is a long long time

All these 'tornado creating a piano' analogies, and their derivatives, never point out the time scale.

yeah, but the setting in your image doesn't make for the spontaneous generation of self-replicating matter

No, which is why I'm no longer an atheist.

That's not how that works. There's no such thing as true randomness. Even with a computer if you were to generate a completely random number you simply couldn't. You can only go so far because you're limited by the laws of physics and your finite lifespan. Keep in mind that a random number could be a 1 or it could go all the way up into what we would be forced to consider infinity. This is why we take extremely large numbers like 10000^10000 and write them like I just did because it simplifies things to what a human can understand. If you really dig into advanced scientific and mathematical concepts you realize how stupid and small you are. At a certain point you realize that the entire universe can be represented using math and that there's no such thing as permanence but at the same time there's no such thing as nothingness. There's always something.

no it's still a mystery how some molecules started to replicate and why. it is the central question of biology. the question is consuming me.
why is life? what motivates genes to survive?
as I see us living beings now is:
I am a vesel for my cells who are basically hiveminding my body and mind. the mind though is an illusion created by individualistic cells. they are even sacrificing themselves (apoptosis) in order to keep my body alive, so I can reproduce. my sole purpose for existence is passing on my genes for an unkown reason. I think life is one big joke that we are unable to understand.
but being an autist that I am, I am fapping to pr0ns on /gif/and stay in my room all day long, so jokes on them I guess.

there is no evidence of any primordial soup having ever existed

So which is it? The primordial soup theory is false because it isn't plausible or because, while it is plausible , there is insufficient evidence it existed?

How the fuck did a tiny-ass spider figure out how to make this shit?

You asked for a viable model, the model is viable and matches observations. We can see a way for self replicating molecules to form and start the process of evolution.

Nothing is generated, molecules already there bind together in an arrangement that can arrange other molecules the same way with variations. The self replicating part is not that improbable, crystals do it. The difference is these arrangements allowed for mistakes in the copying causing variations. The most successful variant at copying got copied the most causing a pressure to refine information storage resulting in a primitive form of RNA.

fucking awesome

it happened at random

They're taking the Money-spiders to Isengard!

how does a dog lick its nuts?

AI algorithm

I don't know man. Those Amazon spiders are different.

You're looking for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis goes like this:

>"soup" of organic compounds stirred up by heating and cooling, and lots of electric shock
>famous GCAT chemicals in DNA (or perhaps analogues) and deoxyribose float around
>in the soup, chemical reactions bond chains of these nucleotides
>a special kind of chain reaction occurs, where a symmetrical chain forms and is stable
Might look like
AGCTCGA
>each nucleobase attracts it's counterpart as it floats through soup
>starts to form a double chain
A-T
G-C
C-G
T
C
G-C
A-T
>as soon as the chain is complete, the stability of the molecule is compromised and the chain splits down the middle, forming the original chain, and a mirror copy
A T
G C
C G
T A
C G
G C
A T
>the original and the mirror copy goes and does the same thing again, with the original making more mirrors and the mirror making more originals
So now we have chain copies of organic molecules self-reproducing, and competing for limited resources. As errors accumulate, we get larger and larger chains and chains that end up having chemical functions. From here, I have no idea how they would acquire a shell of fatty lipids, but that's my hypothesis for the very beginning of life.

With its tongue

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

>RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically
>RNA is inherently unstable
>Catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only
>The catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited
>Proteins first
>RNA replicase origin of the ribosome

Top tier post.
I truly believe that the meaning of life is hidden in our genes. If we were able to figure out what drives a strand of DNA to reproduce and compete with others, we would know our purpose.
But alas, we are just temporary vehicles for our genes before we pass them on.

It always weirded me out that bugs have brains, I always tend to think of them as little robots. Fish too, fleshy robots following base programming,

Scientists theorize that life began as chemical reactions feeding one another until they formed what we consider a living creature, but it really doesn't imply intelligent design as much as it suggests that given unlimited time in an infinite universe every possible outcome that can exist is inevitable.

What was that line, The universe existing as is is the only reason we're here to observe it

"life" is a meme, matter and energy make up every physical thing in the universe, and the only thing that separates the matter and energy of a "living thing" and the matter and energy of a "non living thing" is sentience/consciousness. we are technically capable of creating machines that are both conscious and capable of reproduction. a robo waifu with an artificial womb would be as "alive" as we are, even if its matter was completely synthetic.

ugh but what is your life tho

What the hell is this?

terrible

youtube.com/watch?v=oQwNN-0AgWc

The Deep Hot Biosphere
Read it.

I forget what they are called but they are tiny proteins that carry molecules around a cell on protein fibre "rails". They are essentially parts of a fancy conveyor belt

PhD holding biochem fag here. Google RNA world hypothesis. Basically it goes like this:

>RNA has been shown to be able to be produced in primordial Earth conditions
>Amino acids can also be created in primordial Earth conditions
>RNA can polymerize in these same conditions
>RNA can act as both an enzyme catalyzing reactions and can encode information
>RNA can polymerize more RNA
>The Ribosome is what polymerizes protein from amino acids and it is almost 100% RNA
>RNA is what brings individual amino acids to the Ribosome
>So in summary to make Protein you need RNA, RNA, and Amino acids + RNA
>DNA is just RNA missing a OH group, OH is a hydroxl group and the D stands for dehydroxy

It's more complex than that obviously. But do you really expect the creation of life to be explained in a single chan post?

Well, not molecules per se but certain structures like vesicles and such

The current model for abiogenesis works well enough, user.

Any event with a finite probability is guaranteed to occur at least once over a sufficiently long enough period of time; regardless of the probability that self-replicating molecules spontaneously form, an entire planet of primordial molecular soups going at it for millions and billions is probably gonna have it happen at least once or twice.

At that point, it's just a matter of evolution and natural selection.

>>Amino acids can also be created in primordial Earth conditions
You don't even need to wait for them to be created here, apparently
space.com/10498-life-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite.html

...

>How the fuck did a tiny-ass spider figure out how to make this shit?
It didn't; its species was genetically encoded to do so over the course of millions of years.
If baby deer know how to walk mere hours after being born, then a spider can know how to build a simple structure.

What exactly do you mean by viable model? If you mean verified and functional theory, so far I don't think one exists quite yet. There's a lot of well informed supposition, a couple probable hypotheses, but since it's so far very difficult to exactly replicate the conditions under which primordial life is believed to have begun (and it may have taken a period of time we simply can't build into experiments without altering the environment) it may never be possible to verify any of the current hypotheses. Sorry OP, it's just not an easy question to answer.
Kinesin motor protein, uses up ATP chemical energy to drag payloads of material from one part of the cell to another. The ATP binds to one "foot", giving it energy, the energy causes one "foot" to flip over the other and then bind to the microtubule, the process then repeats for the other "foot".

Pretty sure your picture is correct. The part you're forgetting is the billion or so years the transition to cellular life takes. You're implying it happens overnight which is ludicrous.

Intelligent design or the complexity of combinations millions of accumulative simply designs have no relative difference.

Our existence is the result of a mass of energy adhering to the laws of nature. It really doesn't matter if the laws were written or wrote themselves. What does matter is that the rules are constant and provide answers as our understanding of them develop.
They are responsible for our creation and are our "creator" by default.
The real question isn't if or how we were created but why. Whether intelligent design, or unintelligent design, that question remains unanswered.

>prebiotically
Depends on your definition, in the model I described arrangements of molecules start the process of evolution so can be called life. The original RNA clearly evolved, it didn't just assemble, I agree with that.
>unstable
There has to be a source of energy for any system to run, the pre-RNA arrangements must have been even more unstable but in a competitive, high energy environment those who fall apart get used up by another chain right away.

The early chains eventually evolved into some primitive form of RNA but modern RNA always exists within cells and has evolved to suit that role, it's not the same thing just a clue to the origins.

This is also a good answer; any sufficiently competent creator shouldn't even need to "start life off"; if they're that powerful, then the initial universal constants they set should give rise to what they want.

Your brain is too small to consider a cosmic timescale

nothing is random.

AT ALL

Everything has been found to have a pattern
Frequency of repetition of that implementation is the only thing that differs at that level.
Then even Frequency can be predicted to happen more than once.
After that.

Even predicted within a certain time frame.
Because time is a frame.


You are already dead.


Embrace the out matrix in knowing that you are inside of a matrix and that the only way to traverse this one matrix is to stand on the 2nd terrace of it.

how does the foot know where to step?

the RNA world hypothesis has already been discounted by many leading academics on the subjects on the grounds that it presupposes the presence of certain components of the RNA replication process which cannot logically precede the existence of RNA itself

my dick

It doesn't know anything, it's a protein my dude.

Gonna squish the next Mantis I see.

The concept of biotic life took 500 million years of the Earth being a thing to even be around, and then for over three billion years the grander leaps of evolutionary pressure by natural selection didn't hit critical mass as to set off the reaction for higher lifeforms.

Do you understand how long 500 million years is? This is a frame of time where species, plants, animals, insects, none of that was on land yet to now. The amphibians, the hundreds of millions of years of Dinosaurs, the mammals rise and then us humans, all fit in the same time frame of the violent frothy unstable Earth setting up planetary conditions for the cocktail of labratory conditions to crunch the averages and make biotic life. Then that life took another SIX TIMES that amount of time to become the most basic complex organisms. That is probability that has a world where anything could happen, and a creator in the image of creatures that wouldn't exist for another 4 billion years going WOLOLOLO is cosmically stubborn at the place in the universe.

Intelligent Design is possible, but the grand extrapolations of Gods as literal creators, and not allegories and customs for our morality and myth is going full retard.

The thetans did I knew it

youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4

Proteins bind each other based on electrostatic, ionic, van der waals, and hyrophobic interations. Basically they fit together like puzzle pieces. The "foot" has a complementary shape, electrostatic surface, and has hydrophobic spots in the right areas to be complementary to the surface of the microtubule. They interlock at the molecular level.

Part of my PhD work was modeling protein interactions and doing protein design.

All these God of the gaps retards clutching at an ever decreasing number of straws to back up their ancient sand nigger world view.

>I can't do it in a lab therefore it could not possibly have happenned anywhere across this vast planet within a timescale that is literally incomprehensible to our chimp like brains

That virus that looks like a dildo on legs when examined?

It's on "rails" and it's function is to step forward. Pretty hard to mess that up. It's just a part of a machine

chemical evolution is still chemical, no? what makes a physical reaction magically not inert

>the other common property to all life, besides that of having a genetic code, is that energy is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes

where do we get from that process of physical (or chemical) evolution to the pasta above

Dildos are giant viruses woow

They are pretty much little robots, their brains aren't complex enough to do much thinking outside of whatever instincts are already coded into them. Ants are a great example of this in that the entire hive functions as a single dispersed chemical computer and using a relatively simple set of signals can preform large quantities of complex processes without any of the individual "circuits" ever doing more than reacting to stimulus.
Don't do that nigger, Mantids are AESTHETIC.

No human technological creation remotely rivals in complexity the most basic of self-replicating organisms. Call me up when you figure out how to make one of those m80.

No. It does energy, though

The better question is if life evolved on Earth, and that it started geologicly (timescale) immediately after Earth became temperate, does that mean that pretty much all planets evolve life as soon as temperate conditions exist?

Which is to say every planet that has (prelife) Earthlike conditions should develop life and develop it quickly.

So cosmic seeding of planets is possible. As is the fact that it is a very likely chain of chemical reactions given a planet with starting conditions and a billion years to get it right. You only have to invent life once, and it multiplies itelf.

oddly specific.

...

>Burger education

that's pretty cool. do these proteins ever "fail"? like putting their foot wrong so that it cannot bind?

Yes. Use a cartoon.

No it isnt. Theoretically inbreeding is only 'bad' because of genetic mutations and imperfections; but if you had two perfectly pure and non-mutated humans, they could inbreed effectively forever (assuming no mutations come into being after-the-fact)

Bacteriophage. Those are pretty cool. Like little drilling platforms (which is what they are essentially)

It doesn't? It is full of living organisms that live on the edge of dead zones.

Your mom contracting super AIDS

this exactly this. if you think otherwise you cannot into encoding

Not as such, faulty function in proteins like this would if I'm not mistaken be due to a folding error (when the protein is taking shape it doesn't fold up properly) which just results in it not working at all. I'd default to whatever says though, since while I'm shooting for a similar field, I'm not anywhere near a PHD.

The fuzzy area between programming and thinking is weird though, like you said ants are pretty clearly just little robots and I think fish are too, but how's that grade up the food chain? Asking rhetorically since I don't know that there are definite answers.