What are the water-filled membranes made of and how/why did they form?

And when did the galactic winnebago show up and empty the bilge tanks?

Unless there's some evidence of those "empty bags," I would think the video author has it wrong. I would think that the first membranes were byproducts of chemical interactions that eventually coagulated or coalesced into a "bag." After a lot of time, the bags had more little bags...

Perhaps "How life on earth may have begun" would have been better...

We may never know for certain how life on earth began. It happened a long time ago, when the earth was very different from what it is now, and such "soft bodies" left no fossil evidence of themselves -- they just left their descendants, evolved over billions of years.

This (admittedly simplistic) scenario is certainly plausible. And it doesn't require anything special or magical. But it's not the only plausible scenario, and until we can use evidence to show which plausible scenario (if any) was the one that happened, we have to be honest and admit we don't know.

One thing that always bugged me: scenarios like this one should have allowed for life to arise independently hundreds or thousands of times over the earth's history. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. It's possible that there were a lot of slightly different, competing early "life" forms, and one of them simply outcompeted all the others, and that's the one that led to us...but unless that one destroyed (or ate) new ones as they popped up later, I'm not very satisfied with that idea.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that always bugged me: scenarios like
> this one should have allowed for life to arise
> independently hundreds or thousands of times over
> the earth's history. Yet that doesn't seem to be
> the case. It's possible that there were a lot of
> slightly different, competing early "life" forms,
> and one of them simply outcompeted all the others,
> and that's the one that led to us...but unless
> that one destroyed (or ate) new ones as they
> popped up later, I'm not very satisfied with that
> idea.

It could easily have taken millions of attempts to get a single survivor. It's a bit like winning the lottery every week for a million years and then you start winning it twice a week for the next million years, followed by three times a week for the following million, and so on, and so on.

This is why some scientists argue there just isn't enough time in the past to bring us to the reality of life as it is today.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

Unfortunately, that article is pseudo-science, written by young earth creationists. The attempt here (and in all of their articles) is to try to validate "intelligent design" as a scientific principle. It is not. It is religion.

Peer reviewed scientific papers become pseudo science when they gore somebody's ox.

Did you actually read it? They found a way to complete the analysis without once demanding sinners repent.

They point out the deficit that every lottery player learns the hard way. You don't somehow get to keep the winning numbers each week and then just build on this with new winners the following week. Each and every attempt starts from scratch. Every single time you come just one number away from the jackpot, you're reduced to starting from absolute scratch with your next ticket. And should you produce a single winning ticket, it will last you only as long as it can remain alive. Once its gone, you're broke with no gain in prospects.

Most evolutionary models incorporate algorithms that require a goal and specific intelligent guidance to reach the desired outcome proving that evolution developed without any goal or specific intelligent guidance. Meet the new definition of "absolutely random."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 03:10PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Peer reviewed scientific papers become pseudo
> science when they gore somebody's ox.

Since you didn't present any "peer-reviewed scientific papers," we can't judge that.

See, the "scientific journal" that was published in, "BIO-Complexity," wasn't a "scientific journal" at all. It doesn't engage in scientific peer review. It's a fake, set up by the ID crowd, to give a (false) veneer of "scienciness" to their non-scientific attempts to justify their young-earth-creationist beliefs.

Next time, maybe check your sources...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity

Anyway, even if the journal was an actual scientific journal (which it isn't), the paper itself is pure nonsense.

Which is sad. 'Cause it could indeed have taken millions (maybe billions) of "attempts" before one "living" cell successfully replicated itself. That's true. However, there's been more than enough time for millions to billions of trials to have happened millions to billions of times. And no actual scientists argue otherwise.

TMSH:
"Each and every attempt starts from scratch. Every single time you come just one number away from the jackpot, you're reduced to starting from absolute scratch with your next ticket."

Gee, you'd think they might have considered that millions to billions of such "lottery events" could be going on simultaneously, all over the planet. Oops. Oh well, since they're not actual scientists, I wouldn't expect them to be either thorough or honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 04:17PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Since you didn't present any "peer-reviewed
> scientific papers," we can't judge that.
>
> See, the "scientific journal" that was published
> in, "BIO-Complexity," wasn't a "scientific
> journal" at all. It doesn't engage in scientific
> peer review. It's a fake, set up by the ID crowd,
> to give a (false) veneer of "scienciness" to their
> non-scientific attempts to justify their
> young-earth-creationist beliefs.
>
> Next time, maybe check your sources...
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity

I take it "peer reviewed" means different things to different people. Here I thought it was a journal with an editorial board that reviews submissions prior to publication. Now you've told me that unless a journal meets your requirements, it cannot call itself peer reviewed despite the fact that it publishes articles that are reviewed by peers. You're a confusing person. Sort of your own personal, "No True Scotsman" fallacy, eh?

They have an editorial board of about 30 members from an international community of academics. So please commence with your response, "Okay, it's peer reviewed, but those editors are all a bunch of discredited ID hacks." Here's the list so you can start:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam


>
> Anyway, even if the journal was an actual
> scientific journal (which it isn't), the paper
> itself is pure nonsense.

Care to offer any specific critiques, or should we just accept your testimony that the paper submitted is not faith-promoting in your world?


>
> Which is sad. 'Cause it could indeed have taken
> millions (maybe billions) of "attempts" before one
> "living" cell successfully replicated itself.
> That's true. However, there's been more than
> enough time for millions to billions of trials to
> have happened millions to billions of times. And
> no actual scientists argue otherwise.

To be fair, those are my words, not a quote from the article. I don't claim to an actual scientist. Nor do I play one on TV.

>
> TMSH:
> "Each and every attempt starts from scratch. Every
> single time you come just one number away from the
> jackpot, you're reduced to starting from absolute
> scratch with your next ticket."
>
> Gee, you'd think they might have considered that
> millions to billions of such "lottery events"
> could be going on simultaneously, all over the
> planet. Oops. Oh well, since they're not actual
> scientists, I wouldn't expect them to be either
> thorough or honest.

I take it you didn't actually read the article. Feels just like old times to blast something you've never actually read, doesn't it?

You know, there is a fascinating area of study here that you could engage in an intelligent manner if you actually took the time to read the paper before declaring it a bunch of bunk. One thing the paper makes clear, is that the work they examine by Wilf and Ewens has some amazing assumptions that would make even the sincerest faith healer blush.

Why not deal with this as a curious person instead of as an ideologue? Science has shown that unless a number of factors fall into place exactly correctly, there really is not enough time for us to get from the moment of life's emergence to where we are today. It's a real topic that merits real discussion.

No amount of clever snark can offer a cogent answer to the problem of time in evolutionary mutation.

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I take it "peer reviewed" means different things
> to different people. Here I thought it was a
> journal with an editorial board that reviews
> submissions prior to publication.

That's what you get for thinking instead of checking.
No, peer review means one thing: scientists with expertise in relevant fields review submissions looking for errors, lapses in the scientific method, unsupportable claims/data, and other flaws. That is *not* what this journal does.

Here, since you don't appear to have done your own research:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/follow-the-mone.html


> Now you've told
> me that unless a journal meets your requirements,
> it cannot call itself peer reviewed despite the
> fact that it publishes articles that are reviewed
> by peers.

I said no such thing. I gave you the definition of peer review, and it's not what this journal does. And when the "peers" aren't scientists, but are people who belong to the Discovery Institute, it's not scientific peer review.

Here is their own stated "peer-review" process:

"Manuscripts submitted as Research Articles, Critical Reviews, or Critical Focus papers that fall within the stated scope and adhere to the journal's standards of originality, clarity, format, and tone are assigned to a member of the Editorial Board for peer review. Two or more reviewers will be consulted for each reviewed manuscript. Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers, though the Editor may elect to use other reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to comment in fair terms on the work's limitations, but also on whether they think the expert community would benefit from considering both the merits and the limitations. Taking into consideration the manuscript and the reviewers' comments, the Editor will use this criterion of benefit to decide whether to take the manuscript forward.

At that point manuscripts may be either rejected, accepted 'as is', or accepted contingent upon corrections or improvements that, in the opinion of the Editor, substantially enhance the work. Authors will in all cases receive anonymous reviewer comments."

Notice: "...adhere to the journal's standards of originality, clarity, format, and tone..."
Not a single mention of adherence to the scientific method, they're just checked to see if they conform to the journal's "format and tone." They only give it to "two or more" reviewers, all of whom are in their "group." And one huge red flag: one of the paper's authors (Robert Marks) is the editor in chief of the journal. In the scientific world, it's a HUGE conflict of interest, to have an editor publish in his own journal -- it's not done to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

Seriously, stop pretending that this is science. You damn well know it's not. Having a few of your friends that you work with check your paper for "format and tone" isn't peer review.


> You're a confusing person. Sort of your
> own personal, "No True Scotsman" fallacy, eh?

Just honest and factual.

> They have an editorial board of about 30 members
> from an international community of academics.

I looked at their list.
And yes, it is "a bunch of discredited ID hacks."
And here's the fun part: if they weren't, then they'd be the worst "peer review" group ever, since the papers they've "peer reviewed" contain numerous fallacies, flat-out incorrect facts, failures to use the scientific method, and many more flaws. So you can pretend they're doing "peer review" all you want, but if you read the papers, you'll have to conclude that either they aren't doing actual peer review, or they really, really suck at it.


> Care to offer any specific critiques, or should we
> just accept your testimony that the paper
> submitted is not faith-promoting in your world?

I don't give a shit about 'faith-promoting,' that's your thing (and the Discovery/ICR folks). I gave one specific critique. However, you don't seem to understand that with scientific papers, the burden is on the author(s) to show evidence for their claims. Which they failed to do, and which the "peer" group ignored as a major flaw in the paper.

> I take it you didn't actually read the article.
> Feels just like old times to blast something
> you've never actually read, doesn't it?

I did read the article; and while your "summary" wasn't thorough or even accurate, it did get across the "gist" of one of the paper's claims. And guess what -- they *didn't* consider millions to billions of simultaneous "trials" all running at once.

> You know, there is a fascinating area of study
> here that you could engage in an intelligent
> manner if you actually took the time to read the
> paper before declaring it a bunch of bunk. One
> thing the paper makes clear, is that the work they
> examine by Wilf and Ewens has some amazing
> assumptions that would make even the sincerest
> faith healer blush.

I did read the paper, and screw you for your continued insults.


> Why not deal with this as a curious person instead
> of as an ideologue?

Why not deal honestly with the bullshit in the paper, and the journal that publishes it? Ah, yes, that would challenge your irrational "faith." Never mind.


> Science has shown that unless
> a number of factors fall into place exactly
> correctly, there really is not enough time for us
> to get from the moment of life's emergence to
> where we are today. It's a real topic that merits
> real discussion.

See, that's what I mean about your dishonesty. "Science" has shown no such thing. The "real topic" is "how did life on our planet come to be?" Not, "dishonest creationists make the unsupportable and fallacious claim that there isn't enough time, so let's waste time and energy on that nonsense instead of doing actual science."

> No amount of clever snark can offer a cogent
> answer to the problem of time in evolutionary
> mutation.

That article doesn't support any of your claims, or the claims in the worthless paper. Since I assume you read the science article, I have to wonder if you understood it...?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 09:19PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
> That's what you get for thinking instead of
> checking.
> No, peer review means one thing: scientists with
> expertise in relevant fields review submissions
> looking for errors, lapses in the scientific
> method, unsupportable claims/data, and other
> flaws. That is *not* what this journal does.
>

Thanks for confirming your "No True Scotsman" fallacy.


> They only give it to "two or more" reviewers, all
> of whom are in their "group." And one huge red
> flag: one of the paper's authors (Robert Marks)
> is the editor in chief of the journal. In the
> scientific world, it's a HUGE conflict of
> interest, to have an editor publish in his own
> journal -- it's not done to avoid even the
> appearance of a conflict.

Three replies to this:

1. The paper was authored in 2012. Marks assumed the editor’s position at the journal in 2015.
2. If it’s a HUGE conflict of interest for a Journal editor to publish in his own journal (which didn’t happen here.) why does the Council of Science Editors list specific criteria for a journal editor to publish in his own journal? Is it possible you’re just making stuff up again? http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-1-editor-roles-and-responsibilities/
3. Please take a moment to tell me again how I’m dishonest and don’t research stuff.

>
> I looked at their list.
> And yes, it is "a bunch of discredited ID hacks."

You're coming across a bit like a Mormon 2.0

I researched some of the peer reviewers. Can you help me spot the blind and ignorant among these?

Is it Ann Gauger who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard working in cloning? Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Or should we dismiss Judith Fehrer, Head of DNA laboratory, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic?

Maybe Sigfried Scherer? He's the Chair for Microbial Ecology at Technische Universität München, Germany

Perhaps it's David Keller. His Postdoctoral Fellowship in Chemistry out of Stanford University is pure fluff, right?

Or is there another factor at work here? Have you received a testimony that these academics are false and we are to avoid any contact with them because they "lie in wait to deceive?"


> And here's the fun part: if they weren't, then
> they'd be the worst "peer review" group ever,
> since the papers they've "peer reviewed" contain
> numerous fallacies, flat-out incorrect facts,
> failures to use the scientific method, and many
> more flaws.

I can't tell you how many times my Mormon family told me the same things about works by the Tanners, Richard Van Wagoner, Todd Compton, and others. Just like you, they could devote volumes to decrying the errors, biases, and mistakes of “anti Mormon” materials. And just like you, they could not offer any detailed, substantive response to those same materials.

Put up or shut up. List the specific academic weaknesses of the peer group. Try to avoid your personal version of McCarthyism in the process: “Are you now or have you ever been an academic who engages ID in a thoughtful and not dismissive manner?”

> > Care to offer any specific critiques, or should
> we
> > just accept your testimony that the paper
> > submitted is not faith-promoting in your world?
>
>
> I don't give a shit about 'faith-promoting,'
> that's your thing (and the Discovery/ICR folks).
> I gave one specific critique. However, you don't
> seem to understand that with scientific papers,
> the burden is on the author(s) to show evidence
> for their claims. Which they failed to do, and
> which the "peer" group ignored as a major flaw in
> the paper.

Just to be clear, you did not offer a critique of specific content from the article. You critiqued a description I made that is not actually a verbatim element of the article. I’ll offer you the opportunity again. Since you’re convinced it’s riddled with errors, it should be an easy task to pull out 3 or 4 of them. Please list several of them for us. And try avoid that old Mormon habit of yours, “I’m not going to waste my time on such a piece of garbage.”

Put up or shut up. List several specific deficiencies of their piece. If you fail to do so, you’ll show yourself little more than a shrieking (former) Mormon who handles conflicts in your worldview in the way you’re most familiar.

>
> I did read the article; and while your "summary"
> wasn't thorough or even accurate, it did get
> across the "gist" of one of the paper's claims.
> And guess what -- they *didn't* consider millions
> to billions of simultaneous "trials" all running
> at once.
>

Maybe you read the wrong article? You don’t seem to be familiar with the one I cited. If you had, you’d have realized it’s a critique of an earlier paper written by Wilf and Ewens. You may wish to address this criticism to Wilf and Ewens; it’s irrelevant to this one. If you read it, that will probably become quickly clear.

>
> I did read the paper, and screw you for your
> continued insults.
>

Honestly, if you want to get upset about shoddy science, why don’t you take on the original paper by Wilf and Ewens? If they are an example of the best and brightest sent to combat the evils of ID, your side is in deep doo-doo. They pen an entire article meant to address a single ID claim about time required for beneficial mutations to take hold, and they fail to nail down the specific timing involved in generational turnover. If generational turnover is conceded as an unknown, it’s a bit like saying, “I’ll be there at exactly whenever.”

>
> Why not deal honestly with the bullshit in the
> paper, and the journal that publishes it? Ah,
> yes, that would challenge your irrational "faith."
> Never mind.
>

Blah blah blah. Okay, you’ve born your testimony again and shown you choose ideology over serious engagement. Thanks. Once again, put up or shut up. Give some specific deficiencies from the article. Or just give us your testimony again about how you refuse to sully yourself with such swill. We’ll understand.

>The "real
> topic" is "how did life on our planet come to be?"

This is a topic about which you have nothing to offer. Your only entry into this category is to scream “It can’t have happened THAT way!” You have no idea how it happened, yet feel perfectly comfortable rudely and completely dismissing evidence presented that is contrary to your personal bias. You have nothing to offer this discussion.

What I find interesting and important--and a challenge for materialist science--is that notwithstanding our knowledge of biochemistry; and advancing knowledge and use of genetic engineering, science has still not been able to replicate abiogenesis. Cellular biologists know in exquisite detail the functioning of a living cell, including the chemical components and processes involved. Yet they have not been able to discover the process of chemical interactions that produce from scratch a living system.

It is not just a problem of evolutionary time, which is often relied upon as a scapegoat for our ignorance as to the origin of life. Time might explain why the probabilities associated with the chemical interactions resulting in life might have taken billions of years. But once the chemical components are known, arguably it should not take biochemists this long to put them in the appropriate relationship such that cellular generation, metabolism, and reproduction, occurs creating a biologically "living" organism. Even assuming a series of improbable chemical interactions are required over time, the molecular structures generated by such interactions, and their functional effects as related to the generation of life, arguably should be understood by now, if not duplicated.

All this suggests that perhaps there is something about life that lies beyond the complex molecular systems we know them to be. This has led many biologists to fall back on complexity theory, and the associated, and rather vague, principle of "emergence," which I take to be a placeholder for "and then something magical happened."

Note that this is the same, or similar, problem associated with the rise of consciousness. When science understands the underlying physical mechanisms, whether biochemistry or neurology, but still cannot replicate the phenomenon in question, then scientific humility is appropriate. As Richard Feynman said, "What I cannot make I do not understand." And, I would add that when the underlying mechanisms are known, but it is only the emergent property that remains an enigma, something much deeper than our current scientific knowledge is suggested.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is not just a problem of evolutionary time,
> which is often relied upon as a scapegoat for our
> ignorance as to the origin of life. Time might
> explain why the probabilities associated with the
> chemical interactions resulting in life might have
> taken billions of years.

It didn't take billions of years.
We know the earth is very close to 4.5 billion years old.
There's ample evidence of life by 3.8 billion years ago.
That's 700 million years.
Not billions.


> All this suggests that perhaps there is something
> about life that lies beyond the complex molecular
> systems we know them to be.

No, actually, it doesn't. All it suggests is that we don't yet understand what processes did or may have occurred.
Your version is an argument from incredulity. :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> One thing that always bugged me: scenarios like
> this one should have allowed for life to arise
> independently hundreds or thousands of times over
> the earth's history. Yet that doesn't seem to be
> the case. It's possible that there were a lot of
> slightly different, competing early "life" forms,
> and one of them simply outcompeted all the others,
> and that's the one that led to us...but unless
> that one destroyed (or ate) new ones as they
> popped up later, I'm not very satisfied with that
> idea.

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first
production of a living organism are now present, which could
ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could
conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia &
phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a
protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still
more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be
instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the
case before living creatures were formed."

-- Charles Darwin, letter to Joseph D. Hooker, 1 Feb. 1871

Thanks for that, baura. I've read it before.
It's cute.
But the question I mentioned above persists. :)

Eukaryotic cells might just be an example of some early life eating other early life -- or of a parasite that became a symbiote. Wouldn't that be funny if it turns out to be the case...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 05:31PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I'm thinking this is Dave's entry into the argument, "why some atheist beliefs should be viewed as a religion."

Claiming "a living cell is basically just a bag filled with water and a few more complex molecules" is about as accurate as saying "a Rolls Royce is basically just a metal box filled with more metal and other materials."

Care to explain the origin of the complex molecules, the water, and the membrane that composes the bag? And care to consider the odds of them assembling just so without it immediately perishing?

Maybe if we could just start with how the membrane wall assembled in a manner strangely conducive to life? Remember, this specific feature needed to be in place and fully functional before it was required to serve as an integral element to a living cell. And we must keep in mind it developed in an absolutely random fashion with no goal in mind whatsoever.

"The cell membrane is selectively permeable to ions and organic molecules and controls the movement of substances in and out of cells. The basic function of the cell membrane is to protect the cell from its surroundings. It consists of the phospholipid bilayer with embedded proteins."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 03:45PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm thinking this is Dave's entry into the
> argument, "why some atheist beliefs should be
> viewed as a religion."

Everything is a religion to you, isn't it?
That's just sad.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Everything is a religion to you, isn't it?
> That's just sad.


Not everything. But there's nothing in my life that requires the level of blind faith promoted by Dave's little video.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not everything. But there's nothing in my life
> that requires the level of blind faith promoted by
> Dave's little video.

I guess you didn't notice that I was critical of the video, not putting any "faith" into it (blind or otherwise)...?
Typical.

I saw that. I'm very proud of you. Baby steps.

How life began simply doesn't matter at all. Whether by an atheistic God or by some magician, or a cosmic fart...it just doesn't matter.

What does matter is how we use our own toolkit and lifespan.

Why that matters, I'm still searching. But so far, it seems to me that we are happy only to the degree that we enable others to attain their own potential.

I lived a life of acute selfishness and failed to be content. Then I tried the opposite. I gave my all to a woman I love, and she started having babies, and they caused my to forget all about my own petty wants, and today, it appears that I just might end up a success. This freaks me out, more than it does my family and friends.

To focus on anything but how to equip and encourage little ones is a waste of human life. Again, I don't know why this is so, but it certainly is. Wife, kids, laughter and growth.

Now that's what I call good philosophizing!

Here is an excellent book on the topic: The Vital Question. It was one of five books recommended by Bill Gates this year and really digs into the original bacteria etc and represents some of the latest thinking on how the evolution train got started...

The Apr 6 podcast episode of (NPR) Radio Lab (at radiolab.org) has an excellent and very understandable episode on the topic called "cellmates"

I like the way you think, and I think your perspective is very wise.

If I may play 'devils advocate' though, devoting oneself to the people they love (spouse, children)... is it really an act of 'selflessness'? Or, have you merely expanded on your definition of "self"?

Your children bring you joy... because they're YOURS... they are an extension of you...

It's easy to give our lives for the people we truly, deeply love... Of course, when that love fades (i.e. a broken marriage), then the perception of "self" shrinks to exclude that person... and then it become much more difficult to be "selfless"...

I received a recent revelation from the Oily Spirit:

Life on Earth arose one fine April morning when the Goddess was dancing naked (not sure--think it was to Daft Punk) and, after vigorously shaking Her booty, a Sacred Dingleberry worked loose from her nether hairs and shot out into space, soon landing on Earth, and from which life immediately began to issue forth and forthwith.

This is why I now teach my grandkids that wiping their butts is akin to genocide, and just as evil. And then I tell them that that's all I'll tell them for free, but if they give me 10% of their allowances I might consent to share additional wisdom with them.

gbl, that sounds suspiciously like some of the Japanese creation/god myths. For example:

"During Kagustuchi's birth, Izanami's genitals were burned and she was mortally wounded. In her agony, from her vomit, urine and feces more gods were born."

There's not much original when it comes to making stuff up...:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamiumi

Yikes! Maybe I need to pay more attention to which deity the Oily Spirit is talking about!

I thought that story sounded familiar.....

Life is what happens with the laws of the universe are OUT OF BALANCE.

It's a fluke. An error. A flaw. A mistake. The error is likely to be corrected in the not-to-distant cosmological future.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2016 05:21PM by fatheredbyparents.

fatheredbyparents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Life is what happens with the laws of the universe
> are OUT OF BALANCE.
>
> It's a fluke. An error. A flaw. A mistake. The
> error is likely to be corrected in the
> not-to-distant cosmological future.


Interesting theme~~ Yeah, I can see where sentient beings could be like gophers in a well-tended, and beloved, garden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

It's entirely possible that life didn't start on Earth, that it is widespread in the universe. It's just that, we're not widespread so we have not found it elsewhere yet.

Virus are not a life form, but they do contain the blueprint for life. Since they're not alive, they don't need water or air to live. As a result, they can be frozen inside a comet or asteroid for long periods of time and travel across millions of miles. If they land on a planet that has water, the meteorite can thaw out and the RNA inside the virus can find a way to bind with other virus's DNA to form a primitive life form that can support virus replication.
It might be that we have it all backwards.
We're just here to host the viruses.
They're the ones calling the shots.
Who lives and who dies.

The problem with panspermia is it just changes the location of the question without actually addressing it.

How did life arise if not first here on Earth?

I think it should be easy enough to prove that intelligent life has never existed in the universe. If we could do that, then a lot of our problems could be resolved.