Great discussion, but it seems like he is missing a rather large and obvious fact in regards to the origin of life on Earth.
https://youtu.be/lhwhao6dCLs
We don't need to find aliens to explain how DNA got here when the most ubiquitous and oldest organisms on the planet are not technically alive, so they could have arrived here frozen in a commet that landed in our ocean, and viruses do contain the blueprints for life, DNA and RNA.

Spermatogensis is an interesting hypothesis. Its easily testable, but requires a large amount of strata sampling. The idea of frozen RNA-evolved and comet delivered pre-life certainly has plausibility.

Also, given that all life is a combination of chemically alterable substrates give the idea of earth-originating life a good deal of empirical heft.

As I see it, if the first circumstance is true then there ought to be a chain of data that leads to a dead end. If life was already combinated when it impacted our geosphere then there ought be no, or very little, pre-life “goo” in the strata.

However, if life arose from chemical non-life in a graded and systemic way then we should find evidence from early RNA strands right through DNA recombinant single-called eukaryotes and into multi-celled prokaryotes in the strata.

As my colleagues and I always poorly and humorously say, “the data are in the strata.”
So far... the life-originated-on-earth camp has more data in the strata.

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spermatogensis is an interesting hypothesis. Its
> easily testable, but requires a large amount of
> strata sampling. The idea of frozen RNA-evolved
> and comet delivered pre-life certainly has
> plausibility.
>
> Also, given that all life is a combination of
> chemically alterable substrates give the idea of
> earth-originating life a good deal of empirical
> heft.
>
> As I see it, if the first circumstance is true
> then there ought to be a chain of data that leads
> to a dead end. If life was already combinated
> when it impacted our geosphere then there ought be
> no, or very little, pre-life “goo” in the
> strata.
>
> However, if life arose from chemical non-life in a
> graded and systemic way then we should find
> evidence from early RNA strands right through DNA
> recombinant single-called eukaryotes and into
> multi-celled prokaryotes in the strata.
>
> As my colleagues and I always poorly and
> humorously say, “the data are in the strata.”
>
> So far... the life-originated-on-earth camp has
> more data in the strata.
Interesting comment. It's right data is in the strata but unfortunately viruses are too tiny to show up in fossils. But we can study their DNA and study how old they are by comparing the DNA of different organisms to determine which ones Carrie immunities two different viruses and we can tell how old they are by tracking down the DNA. I just think it's interesting that gets overlooked in many conversations about how life could have started when we've got examples everywhere inside of us of non-living organisms that contain the blueprint for life.<

I meant PANSPERMIA not Spermatogenesis. How embarrassing...

HH =)

From what I've read viruses make up 10% of our genetic makeup. Or in other words 10% of our genetic makeup came as a result of battling viruses in the past. That and there's 10 times more foreign organisms alien organisms inside of us then there are human cells. Which kind of flips the script about finding aliens when we've got more aliens inside of us than we do human cells question is who's running this show? The other question is how did viruses become molecules and how did molecules become cells?

I’m going to test my blood with a heated wire.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That and there's 10 times
> more foreign organisms alien organisms inside of
> us then there are human cells.

That's based on an estimate from 1972 that probably isn't correct: https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136

> The other
> question is how did viruses become molecules and
> how did molecules become cells?

What on earth...? Viruses are not molecules; viruses are orders of magnitude larger (a molecule like water is several hundred picometers (1x10^-12) across; typical viruses are several hundred nanometers (1x10^-9) in diameter, more than a thousand times larger) and made up of molecules, like everything else.

Anziano Young Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That and there's 10 times
> > more foreign organisms alien organisms inside
> of
> > us then there are human cells.
>
> That's based on an estimate from 1972 that
> probably isn't correct:
> https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-t
> hat-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells
> -1.19136
>
> > The other
> > question is how did viruses become molecules
> and
> > how did molecules become cells?
>
> What on earth...? Viruses are not molecules;
> viruses are orders of magnitude larger (a molecule
> like water is several hundred picometers
> (1x10^-12) across; typical viruses are several
> hundred nanometers (1x10^-9) in diameter, more
> than a thousand times larger) and made up of
> molecules, like everything else.

Sorry I misspoke. I know viruses are made of molecules, not the other way around. But the point remains, we don't know how life came from non-life, but it just seems like viruses are the most likely candidate, given the fact they're not alive, yet they have the blueprint for life inside of them.
It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination to realize that with a couple of billion years, almost anything that can happen, will happen.

koriwhore Wrote:
> > koriwhore Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That and there's 10 times
> > > more foreign organisms alien organisms inside
> > of
> > > us then there are human cells.
> >
> > That's based on an estimate from 1972 that
> > probably isn't correct:
> >
> https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-t
>
> >

"The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1."

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body

Until the NIH changes their facts,
I'll stand by mine.

Well... Here you go, see the link below. You do realize that as science advances, there are articles that are still posted on the internet that haven't been updated with new information. Heaven forbid someone point out that new research has been done to correct past assumptions, or new data come to light to clarify things.

"Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body." ... "Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991899/

ETA: It took me less than a minute one Google to find this. Instead of assuming that people don't know what they're talking about you could confirm and update your information yourself. It doesn't help your argument when you insist on using outdated data.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2018 10:48AM by Finally Free!.

Anziano Young Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That and there's 10 times
> > more foreign organisms alien organisms inside
> of
> > us then there are human cells.
>
> That's based on an estimate from 1972 that
> probably isn't correct:
> https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-t
> hat-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells
> -1.19136
>
They only talked about Bacteria, not viruses.
There are 1.3 Viruses for each human cell and there are 10 times more viruses than there are bacteria.
Therefore, not 10 times the alien organisms in us than human cells, likely 14%.

"this study does not take into account fungi, viruses, and archaea which all make up the human microbiome."

as if they're not alien organisms?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2018 04:07PM by koriwhore.

Between abiogenesis and evolution.

Apparently whomever seeded this video on YouTube doesn't.

Abiogenesis is a theoretical/hypthetical explanation of how life arose in the first place.

Evolution is the theoretical explanation of how more complex forms of life developed from simpler forms.

There's a difference, honest.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Between abiogenesis and evolution.
>
> Apparently whomever seeded this video on YouTube
> doesn't.
>
> Abiogenesis is a theoretical/hypthetical
> explanation of how life arose in the first place.
>
> Evolution is the theoretical explanation of how
> more complex forms of life developed from simpler
> forms.
>
> There's a difference, honest.


Right, but nobody has ever really answered the question, where'd life come from in the first place, if not created by an intelligent creator, aka, god?

Well, wouldn't it be more logical to believe that life came from the DNA and RNA carried by viruses, which are not technically alive, than it is to believe that DNA and RNA just appeared by random chance?

Then the next logical question is, "Where did viruses come from?" Good question.

Maybe they created us to host them.

Maybe there are far more creators on this planet than there are all other species combined.

"Bacteriophages are ubiquitous viruses, found wherever bacteria exist. It is estimated there are more than 10^31 bacteriophages on the planet, more than every other organism on Earth, including bacteria, combined."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2018 02:01AM by koriwhore.

Seriously. Using the terms interchangeably is one of the favorite tactics of both the Creationist and "Intelligent Design" crowds, and authentic science suffers as a result.

I won't play their game, but you're welcome to...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously. Using the terms interchangeably is one
> of the favorite tactics of both the Creationist
> and "Intelligent Design" crowds, and authentic
> science suffers as a result.
>
> I won't play their game, but you're welcome to...


Evolution plays a role in abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

I'm not playing a game, just trying to get to the bottom of where we all came from. I see not reason to not believe that the most likely candidate for life from non-life is the DNA in Viruses, which are not alive, but carry all the information necessary for life to exist.

Sagan said that, "All life on earth is essentially identical."

What about viruses?
Are they identical to the rest of the organisms on Earth?
No. But there are more of them. A lot more.

Meaning they have most of the genetic material on Earth and they don't die. For all we know Viruses have been here forever, they could have come from almost anywhere in the universe. And they can go anywhere in the universe if the Earth gets hit with a big enough of an object, it will throw commets and metiorites all over space in every direction and in those commets and metiorites, there can be Viruses, that get transported to another planet that has warm water and that way life can continue forever.
As long as we can figure out how the DNA in a virus can create a cell with a membrane. But that seems like childs play for an organism that can detect an eboli bacteria from all the other billions of bacterial and cells in a human body, attach to it, inject it with RNA, unzip the bacteria's DNA and reprogram it to make 100 exact copies of itself in 2 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz9VGH8dwY
You try doing that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2018 04:17PM by koriwhore.

>>Evolution plays a role in abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

I don't see that claim in the following:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.

Item: "arising" from inorganic or inanimate substances is not evolution; if it's life that's "arising," then the process is abiogenesis.

Item: Abiogenesis has not acquired the "theoretical underpinnings" that evolution has. We know how evolution works; last fall Simon Southerton literally blew my mind with some molecular biology science on how we knew where the mitochondria in a cell came from; they found identical DNA sequences in a bacteria (edited after I fact-checked it with an e-mail; it was a bacterium, not a virus), and obviously some sort of symbiotic "fusion" had taken place. We know that from the "law of large numbers"; there are, for example, 16,569 "nucleotide rungs" on the DNA within a human mitochondrial cell.

We haven't nailed down how abiogenesis occurred, however, despite "Q's taunting of Captain Picard" on Star Trek.

Right now, I'd suggest you do the prudent thing and resign from this chess game. You use the term "DNA" with viruses, and there are huge numbers of viruses that contain only RNA (which they use to make DNA).

https://sciencing.com/virus-dna-4058.html

>>All living things have DNA, but technically speaking, viruses aren't living things because they can't maintain themselves or reproduce on their own. They also aren't technically cells because they don't have organelles -- cellular machinery -- of their own. They don't fit into any of the kingdoms of life -- they aren't plants, animals, fungi, protists, bacteria or archaea -- but there are viruses that infect every one of these. Viruses exist only as infectious agents. They're made up of a nucleic acid -- either DNA or RNA -- surrounded by a protein capsule. They only become active after entering a host cell

Item: Viruses don't have mitochondria, honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2018 02:12PM by SL Cabbie.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, but nobody has ever really answered the
> question, where'd life come from in the first
> place, if not created by an intelligent creator,
> aka, god?

Nobody knows the answer. That's why it's not answered.

And since nobody knows the answer, your "if not by" is not an answer, either -- it's a fallacious attempt to replace the correct, factual "nobody knows" with "we do know, and it was an intelligent creator." Which isn't the case at all. And isn't the default, either.

The simple fact is there's no evidence an "intelligent creator, aka, god" had anything to do with the origin of living things on earth. None, zero, zip, nada.

The simple fact is we don't yet know the origin of living things on earth. There's lots of scientific work going on to try and know, but the problem is a tough one. It all happened a very long time ago, and from what we DO know about biochemistry and the history of life on earth, the earliest living things weren't at all likely to leave any "fossils" for us to find and examine. So we may never know. Or we might be able to piece together an answer supportable by evidence.

In the meantime, the answer is "we don't know." Not "because we don't know, life was created by an intelligent creator/god thing."

> Well, wouldn't it be more logical to believe that
> life came from the DNA and RNA carried by viruses,
> which are not technically alive, than it is to
> believe that DNA and RNA just appeared by random
> chance?

It's never "logical" to believe something without evidence. As to your specific point, first off it's a false dichotomy (those aren't the only two options). And it's just as likely that viruses are *evolved* things, which came from earlier, simpler chemical antecedents of DNA and RNA, as it is that they were the "first" to have those things.

So...no. It's not more "logical" to believe that.

> Then the next logical question is, "Where did
> viruses come from?" Good question.
>
> Maybe they created us to host them.

Maybe rainbow-colored unicorns created us, then flew off on their giant wings to Alpha Centauri.

After all, there's exactly as much evidence for THAT assertion as there is for your "maybe..."

Where we came from DOESN'T MATTER!! IMHO what matters is what have you done today to make your fellow human being's life better?

I think this is the first mental masturbation thread I've read involving sperm.