The emergence of life: could it be different?

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

12 Nov 2009, 6:50 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Most scientists today accept evolutionary theory as the correct view of how life emerged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Then biological evolution, most of the time they aren't looked at together.

I think from context, it is clear that I am talking about speciation, and particular life-forms.


But surely for how life forms could alternatively develop it is important to know what they are developing from?

Maybe I was confused as to where you were going, I thought you were criticizing my OP.


Nah, just going a further step back because I wanted to talk about viruses and how they don't have a metabolism... And maybe they share the same waaaay back common ancestor as us but went on a radically different path. But I don't think I could really talk about them if it was just evolution because that starts at a point that I think cuts out viruses and I just wanted to expand the thread to include non-life that is similar to life... but not life lol.

I like to go off on tangents.



ChrisHitchens
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 53

17 Nov 2009, 1:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Most scientists today accept evolutionary theory as the correct view of how life emerged.


WRONG! That science is called Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory only explains how life changes.


_________________
The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unforgiving, unjust control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirst ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, meglomaniacal,


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

17 Nov 2009, 5:24 pm

ChrisHitchens wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Most scientists today accept evolutionary theory as the correct view of how life emerged.


WRONG! That science is called Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory only explains how life changes.


I know. You aren't the first person to address this, and you could read the thread given that it is only 2 pages long so far.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Most scientists today accept evolutionary theory as the correct view of how life emerged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Then biological evolution, most of the time they aren't looked at together.

I think from context, it is clear that I am talking about speciation, and particular life-forms.


You might say that you've caught me in an error, but I know the difference, it is just not the most relevant issue to my question. Because of that, I am not going to spend a lot of time checking for technical correctness and typing out "abiogenesis AND evolution" given that I am merely expressing the idea that I am not talking about Intelligent Design or Scientific Creationism, but rather a modern secular scientific framework.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

18 Nov 2009, 3:26 pm

Wham bang topic

And suddenly....the universe was, and life evolved. That was the end of spontaneity.

Or was it? Genes and proteins can change very suddenly, as in mutations. There was an interesting aside in this thread to the FOXP2 gene, which has been implicated in the genetic events leading to language development ( Not a Chimp,Taylor, 2009). The whole second chapter deals with language and communication.

But big brains are expensive to run, as Taylor gets into farther along in Not a Chimp . There must have been an advantage to them getting bigger. And big brains require more glucose. Somewhere else in the universe for intelligence to have become more complex there must be a diet that can support this, and the means to ensure it is available. If it was different at all, we might not even recognize it as such.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,827

19 Nov 2009, 11:20 am

Given several mass extinctions over the last billion+ years, yes, it's quite possible. There was a 'pre-Cambrian' explosion of life forms (I think that's the right period), but most were wiped out.
The dinosaurs were wiped out in turn. But for an asteroid here and there, any other intelligent life-form could have developed.

I hold that intelligence is a successful response to evolution in the absence of being perfectly adapted to the envionment; humans and the descendant primates evolved in an environment that was changing from one form to another (woodlands to savanna), and led to us. Given the multitude of worlds, conditions, etc., intelligence would take an adaptive form, adapting to the environment rather than being changed by it.

Actually, silicon-based lifeforms could evolve as well.


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...