Jump to content
Science Forums

The Theory Of Life?


sigurdV

Recommended Posts

What is there besides Darwinism...or Modern Synthesis as it sometimes is called?

 

So with the aim of checking what territory must be researched in order to understand the complications

in achieving a...eh...complete understanding of whats involved I suggest we almost hazardly start from somewhere:

 

Are the following statements Scientific facts?

1 it took approximately 100000 years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first single cell appeared.

2 it took two billion years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first complex cell appeared.

 

Perhaps Im somewhat over cautious but I think one should be prepared for trouble ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scientific 'fact' is a 'confirmed observation', by definition. So, 60 some years ago it was thought that humans have 22 chromosome pairs based on the best cell staining techniques at the time...so that was a 'fact' back then. But, further research showed that humans have 23 chromosome pairs, which is the modern day fact on the topic. Facts can change over time, and in the end a pure observation does not go very far to telling anything about function, in this case what are the 23 chromosome pairs used for.

 

OK, let's take a look at your two statements, 1 and 2. Is either a scientific fact ? If they are not facts, what would a scientist call them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scientific 'fact' is a 'confirmed observation', by definition. So, 60 some years ago it was thought that humans have 22 chromosome pairs based on the best cell staining techniques at the time...so that was a 'fact' back then. But, further research showed that humans have 23 chromosome pairs, which is the modern day fact on the topic. Facts can change over time, and in the end a pure observation does not go very far to telling anything about function, in this case what are the 23 chromosome pairs used for.

 

OK, let's take a look at your two statements, 1 and 2. Is either a scientific fact ? If they are not facts, what would a scientist call them ?

Unverified information?

Hey IM the one asking!

I would like to go on,adding statements, but unless the premisses in an argument is not accepted,

(at least tentatively) forming any conclusions is redundant.

 

Its nice of you to start your thinking apparatus though...

Will you eventually show its result? Ill give you a clue: Isnt there something anomalous in the "facts"?

 

Why is it "easier" (Takes practically no time at all: 100000 million years.)for evolution to create a cell from scratch, then to prevent two cells from totally separating from each other?( Takes two BILLION years.)It deserves an explanation dont you think?

Suppose we both believe there will be a complete theory of life eventually, then Im interested in comparing to check if the "white spots" in our maps are the same.

Edited by sigurdV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there besides Darwinism...or Modern Synthesis as it sometimes

Nothing of any value. Nothing that does such a first rate job of providing a wel validated integrated explanation for observations in so many related fields.

 

 

Are the following statements Scientific facts?

1 it took approximately 100000 years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first single cell appeared.

2 it took two billion years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first complex

I no of no claim by any scientist that life appeared in only 100,000 years. Evidence for the earliest life is disputed, but it is not unreasonable to suggest 3.5 gya. When might things have been quiescent enough to allow life to form? We can give it between 100 and 500 million years or more.

 

The life forms extant prior to the first eukaryotes were complex. Unless you are using a novel sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing of any value. Nothing that does such a first rate job of providing a wel validated integrated explanation for observations in so many related fields.

Did you see this definition before? : Life is a thermodynamical dissipative system far from equilibrium. BTW Do you think I want to exchange Darwinism for something else? NOPE! Im just saying there may be more to the theory of life than darwinism! Do you have a problem with ADDING Theory TO Darwinism?

 

 

 

 

I no of no claim by any scientist that life appeared in only 100,000 years. Evidence for the earliest life is disputed, but it is not unreasonable to suggest 3.5 gya. When might things have been quiescent enough to allow life to form? We can give it between 100 and 500 million years or more.

Ok so far then we have an acceptable estimation on how long it took to construct a cell...Next: Did it take two billion years to form complex cells...When this is settled we can compare the durations of the two time intervals to see if there is something that needs to be explained there. Thats the point of my questions about early life.Somebody, dunno who, said there is a problem there and I wanna see if it IS there.Ok? AND: Supposing there IS a problem...what then is the EXPLANATION?

 

 

The life forms extant prior to the first eukaryotes were complex. Unless you are using a novel sense of the word.

It seems you are not aware of a problem I once read about in some forgotten book...I can only express it in a simple form: It seems to have taken evolution longer time to modify the first cell to complex forms than to create the first cell from scratch. I only vaguely remember the times involved.Id like to have this substantiated somehow...I dont want to spread myths!

 

An idea ive heard is that all it takes to create a complex cell is for celldivision not to work properly (as a cause of mutation)so the cells stay attached together... Its strange (isnt it?) if such a mutation takes two billion years of "waiting" to occure IF it only take 500000 million years to make a cell. Again I dont know if the problem really exists yet!

 

PS Is it only that it is xmas? Things seem a bit slow?

Edited by sigurdV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the time that elapsed between the formation of the three domains of life and the formation of complex life had to do with the conditions of the early earth. Waves of very very hot punctuated by periods of extreme cold and various environmental disasters such as the nickle crisis, the iron crisis the oxygen crisis all contributed to the slow evolution of life. Life not only survived each crisis but each crisis was an opportunity for some life forms to flourish. The oxygen crisis eliminated a great many organisms but opened the gate for complex life as we know it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Moontanman! (and Hypography)

Please tell me more ;) Hopefully its clear to the reader that Im not at the moment introducing any explanation for anything?

I first want to make sure there IS something in need of explanation!

 

Period 1: From the moment when Earth had conditions suitable for life. Up to the first cell. (500 million Years?)

Period 2: From the first cell to the first multicellular cell. (1500000 million Years?)

 

Im prone to typing errors: please correct any mistakes done!

 

I would like to know what factor to multiply the duration of the first period to get the duration of the second.

Also would I like to know what the theory PREDICTS that factor approximately to be.

In order to check the results for consistency...

 

Is my question very hard to treat Scientifically?

 

Meanwhile I appreciate any contributions illuminating the situation from any interesting perspective:

Where, how and why arose the first exemplars of the two types I ,perhaps unsuccessfully, tried to define.

Edited by sigurdV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Moontanman! (and Hypography)

Please tell me more ;) Hopefully its clear to the reader that Im not at the moment introducing any explanation for anything?

I first want to make sure there IS something in need of explanation!

 

Period 1: From the moment when Earth had conditions suitable for life. Up to the first cell. (500 million Years?)

 

That number is as good as any, traces of the chemical reactions of life, specifically photosynthesis, goes back 3.8 billion years and is thought to be around the same time the bombardment of the earth slacked off. To me that indicates that life formed very quickly, almost as soon as the surface cooled enough for liquid water to form.

 

Period 2: From the first cell to the first multicellular cell. (1500000 million Years?)

 

Again, where did you get that number? You seem to be simplifying this quite a bit. First of all the first cell and the first multicellular life are not separated by one step... Eukaryotes are the base of the complex life tree but the first eukaryotes were hardly more complex than bacteria, later eukaryotes like protozoa developed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterozoic they are at least as complex in comparison to bacteria as complex animals are to protozoa. Oxygen seems to have been the catalyst for complex life.

 

this video series gives some details about how oxygen and snow ball earth helped fuel complex life...

 

 

Im prone to typing errors: please correct any mistakes done!

 

I would like to know what factor to multiply the duration of the first period to get the duration of the second.

Also would I like to know what the theory PREDICTS that factor approximately to be.

In order to check the results for consistency...

 

Is my question very hard to treat Scientifically?

 

Meanwhile I appreciate any contributions illuminating the situation from any interesting perspective:

Where, how and why arose the first exemplars of the two types I ,perhaps unsuccessfully, tried to define.

 

I'm not sure those questions can be answered in the form they are being asked...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see this definition before? : Life is a thermodynamical dissipative system far from equilibrium.

Sounds like Prigogine. It also resonates with the work of Kaufmann and others at the Santa Fe Institute, exploring the emergence of complexity on the edge of chaos.

 

BTW Do you think I want to exchange Darwinism for something else?

I have no idea what you want to do.

 

Im just saying there may be more to the theory of life than darwinism!

Given that Darwinism is not equivalent to the "theory of life" and given that no one has suggested it is, I am at a loss as to why you felt the need to make this observation.

 

Do you have a problem with ADDING Theory TO Darwinism?

Darwinism has been routinely added to since its inception. The core principle, descent with modification from a common ancestor, remains intact. The details continue to be clarified. Do you have a problem with RECOGNISING this?

 

Ok so far then we have an acceptable estimation on how long it took to construct a cell...Next: Did it take two billion years to form complex cells...When this is settled we can compare the durations of the two time intervals to see if there is something that needs to be explained there.

You seem unaware that prokaryotes are complex cells. We cannot be certain (yet) when those complexities were added to the much simpler original cell. (We cannot even be certain that the first life was cellular.) Prior to the emergence of eukaryotes there were many complexities that had to be added to the prokaryote cells. you seem to think there was a period of stasis in celullar development. I suggest some further literature research will disabuse you of this notion.

 

Somebody, dunno who, said there is a problem there and I wanna see if it IS there.Ok? AND: Supposing there IS a problem...what then is the EXPLANATION?

So on the basis that some anonymous person says there is an ill defined problem you feel a powerful need for an explanation? Wouldn't it be better to first establish that a problem does exist? So far you have failed to convince me. You have failed on two counts: you have offered no evidence to support your assertion; there is abundant evidence that the assertion is false.

 

 

An idea ive heard is that all it takes to create a complex cell is for celldivision not to work properly (as a cause of mutation)so the cells stay attached together... Its strange (isnt it?) if such a mutation takes two billion years of "waiting" to occure IF it only take 500000 million years to make a cell. Again I dont know if the problem really exists yet!

You definitely seem confused. You now appear to be talking about multi-cellular life forms and equating these to complex life forms. I do think you need to straighten out your thinking so we can better resolve your concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Eclogite. You dont need to post here again. Your manner is offensive, you take care to misunderstand and you imply Im ignorant. I wont bother to read you again. It was not any anonymous nobody originally informing me. It was perhaps Edward O Wilson or Stephen Gould but I DONT REMEMBER and I printed in here to get help!...

 

I can manage without your scorn. Now off with you! EDIT: Or explain how one without malicious intent comes to this amazing conjecture of yours:

 

"So on the basis that some anonymous person

says there is an ill defined problem

you feel a powerful need for an explanation?"

 

1 "some anonymous person" where did I say that? Dont you imply by that that I tend to be influenced by such persons? Why do you try to dishonour me?

And imply that the problem that you seem not able to conceptualise is but another crackpot notion?

It was formulated by a well known and respected Scientist writing in an "en passant" manner... hopefully we will know who someday.And be able to check if the problem was solved.(But ,I predict,it will be in spite of your misapplied "efforts".)

 

2 "an ill defined problem" Dont you understand the difference between the problem and my recollection of it? What makes you think the problem was ill defined?

 

3 "a powerful need for an explanation?" Are you saying you dont feel a need of explanation? You take anything but what sigurdV says at face value? What kind of "scientific" reception is this?

 

Since things will probably not improve in here I shall now advertise for this thread in other forums.

Why dont you hypocrates vote my innocent question further down from minus three?

Try to get it down to Absolute Zero!

That will look good in the eyes of future visitors. ;)

Edited by sigurdV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe complex multicellular life could develop before we had a sufficient amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and from what I understand that process took many millions of years. The thing about life is that it has to follow the steps that terraformed our planet. Life as we know today cannot exist without a biosphere that supports it. As to when it all started, anybodies guess is as good as mine is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe complex multicellular life could develop before we had a sufficient amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and from what I understand that process took many millions of years. The thing about life is that it has to follow the steps that terraformed our planet. Life as we know today cannot exist without a biosphere that supports it. As to when it all started, anybodies guess is as good as mine is.

I have no disagreement with what you are saying. I distinctly remeber somebody mentioning 2 BILLION years for crating complex life ...and comparing with a mere "a few MILLION years to build life from scratch. It seems to me the conclusion is that the problem is still unsolved since no explanation is known by anyone entering this thread.

But perhaps this thread is visited by too few experts...Looking at the daily updates is not too encouraging.

Im looking elsewhere!Taking it easy...theres no need to hurry.

The problem will not go anywhere ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no disagreement with what you are saying. I distinctly remeber somebody mentioning 2 BILLION years for crating complex life ...and comparing with a mere "a few MILLION years to build life from scratch. It seems to me the conclusion is that the problem is still unsolved since no explanation is known by anyone entering this thread.

But perhaps this thread is visited by too few experts...Looking at the daily updates is not too encouraging.

Im looking elsewhere!Taking it easy...theres no need to hurry.

The problem will not go anywhere ;)

 

 

sigurdV, you seriously need to ask the questions in some kind of comprehensible form. The first life is gone now, no extant life forms equate with the first life. The simplest life forms currently alive are almost overwhelmingly complex highly evolved organisms, the next step up is much more complex than those life forms as is the nest step up which is us, complex multicellular life. But there are intermediate steps in there as well. Except for the the life before bacteria, RNA viruses might be the remnants of simpler life forms than bacteria but we just don't know yet, we may never know. But the implication of life arising so soon after the earth had liquid water suggests life forms fast if not easily.

 

I could direct you to a couple of videos that attempt to make some sense out of the chaos but that plain fact is that the veil of deep time keeps that knowledge from us, perhaps forever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigurdV, you seriously need to ask the questions in some kind of comprehensible form. The first life is gone now, no extant life forms equate with the first life. The simplest life forms currently alive are almost overwhelmingly complex highly evolved organisms, the next step up is much more complex than those life forms as is the nest step up which is us, complex multicellular life. But there are intermediate steps in there as well. Except for the the life before bacteria, RNA viruses might be the remnants of simpler life forms than bacteria but we just don't know yet, we may never know. But the implication of life arising so soon after the earth had liquid water suggests life forms fast if not easily.

 

I could direct you to a couple of videos that attempt to make some sense out of the chaos but that plain fact is that the veil of deep time keeps that knowledge from us, perhaps forever...

Thank you. I appreciate your concern. But Theres only my memory ...and it doesnt tell me what was meant by "complex cells" visavi cells of the first kind to appear on earth. We have only fossil evidence to go by and its surprising to hear that it somehow has been possible to show evidence that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear.

 

I wonder how! There surely are no fossils of any single cells are there? I think the demonstration of the first cell has to do with isotopes of C so you can determine that life (=cells?) deposited the coal and you can date the rock containing the coal. So you say that life appeared after 100000 million years after the date when earth was cool enough to sustain life. How to show when complex cells appeared? I dont want to speculate here...You do it first so I can see that you dont get Trolls on you! Looking at the updates I suspect maybe this forum is dying. We will see. Ill watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I appreciate your concern. But Theres only my memory ...and it doesnt tell me what was meant by "complex cells" visavi cells of the first kind to appear on earth. We have only fossil evidence to go by and its surprising to hear that it somehow has been possible to show evidence that it took two billion years for complex cells to appear.

 

I wonder how! There surely are no fossils of any single cells are there? I think the demonstration of the first cell has to do with isotopes of C so you can determine that life (=cells?) deposited the coal and you can date the rock containing the coal. So you say that life appeared after 100000 million years after the date when earth was cool enough to sustain life. How to show when complex cells appeared? I dont want to speculate here...You do it first so I can see that you dont get Trolls on you! Looking at the updates I suspect maybe this forum is dying. We will see. Ill watch.

 

 

100,000 million years?

 

Ok, define complex cells for me and we can talk... The first cells to appear on the earth were no doubt simple, extant bacteria are quite complex... except when compared to protozoa, protozoa are quite complex except when compared to multicellular life.

 

coal by the way is thought to be produced by complex multicellular life...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100,000 million years?

 

Ok, define complex cells for me and we can talk... The first cells to appear on the earth were no doubt simple, extant bacteria are quite complex... except when compared to protozoa, protozoa are quite complex except when compared to multicellular life.

 

coal by the way is thought to be produced by complex multicellular life...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=0

Say 500000 million years then. Thats why Im asking if someone knows the source of my vague memory!

If I try to imagine whay was said I might falsify things. I really want to re read the original argument!

Meanwhile Ill do what I can. Problem one: The first cell...when,why and how did it get complex.

I distinctly remember the figure of TWO BILLION years in contrast to less than a million million years.

I think he said 100000 million years. So any change that makes the cell complex will do.

 

I think of two possibilities.

Either the cell failed in assimilating another cell that survived inside the first cell...mitochondria for example...or the cell did not divide properly and managed to live on as two cells forming one cell...a complex cell.

Are there more possibilities?

 

Did he mean the stromatolites or whatever they are called? Perhaps their beginning can be dated?

Somebody should be able to tell when scientists think the complex life first appeared surely?

And how they get the date! With only single cells on one side and complex mix on the other.

 

Then we can ask whether the time periods involved are reasonable or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont need to post here again.

I don't need to , but I do want to, so I hope you will indulge me.

 

Your manner is offensive,

It was not my intention to be offensive. It was my intention to point out to you that your own post was rather aggressive in places. I did so by mimicing your own style. Perhaps you may wish to reflect on that.

 

It was not any anonymous nobody originally informing me. It was perhaps Edward O Wilson or Stephen Gould but I DONT REMEMBER and I printed in here to get help!...
In your earlier post you remarked: "Somebody, dunno who, said there is a problem there and I wanna see if it IS there.Ok?"

 

When somebody says something and we do not know who that person is we describe that person as anonymous. So the answer to the first part of your next question is obvious:

"Or explain how one without malicious intent comes to this amazing conjecture of yours:

So on the basis that some anonymous person

says there is an ill defined problem

you feel a powerful need for an explanation?"

Based on the information you had cared to share to that point, the assertion of a problem originated from an anonymous person.

 

Was the problem ill-defined? Very definitely. It hinges upon what is meant by complex. Based upon the information provided by you to that point no attempt was made to define complex. I gave you some insight as to issue of complexity, explaining that contrary to popular (but not scientific) opinion, prokaryotes are complex. Further, they are complex to a degree that could not likely have arisen contemporaneously with the first life. In short, the supposed problem does not actually exist. That was the way in which I was seeking to help you. (You say "I prineted in her to get help".) I have provided that help by explaining that your premise was faulty. More accurately, the premise of an unknown author, as remembered by you from many years ago, is faulty. There is no problem to address.

 

 

(why do you) imply that the problem that you seem not able to conceptualise is but another crackpot notion?
I do not imply it is a crackpot notion. I state that, as presented, it is simply mistaken. There is nothing crazy about suggesting that life arose rapidly, but complex life took almost two billion years to arise. It is simply wrong. That only becomes a problem if you insist upon the correctness of the statement after its inherent error has been explained to you.

 

"some anonymous person" where did I say that? Dont you imply by that that I tend to be influenced by such persons? Why do you try to dishonour me?
I have explained to you that the source is an anonymous person. Stating so does not dishonour you. Stating so was not intended to dishonour you. May we move on?

 

Dont you understand the difference between the problem and my recollection of it? What makes you think the problem was ill defined?
You have presented problem. As presented, by you, from your recollection, that problem is ill-defined. That is the problem you have asked us to help you solve - an ill-defined problem. As originally stated the problem may have been defined with exquisite grace and profound precision. However, what we have to work with is an ill-defined problem.

 

In other words, to answer your question, I think the problem is ill-defined because you have not given it clear definition. It is ill defined. That is an accurate description of it.

 

3 "a powerful need for an explanation?" Are you saying you dont feel a need of explanation? You take anything but what sigurdV says at face value? What kind of "scientific" reception is this?
I have given you an explanation. It is very likely the correct explanation. You are free to reject it if you wish.

 

Yes, I take what you say at face value. The alternative would be to put words into your mouth. Are you encouraging me to do that?

 

 

Since things will probably not improve in here I shall now advertise for this thread in other forums.

Why dont you hypocrates vote my innocent question further down from minus three?

Try to get it down to Absolute Zero!

For the record I did not supply any of those negative votes. It might be worth your while to consider why you received them. I suggest it is because you wholly misinterpreted a sincere attempt to provide you with an answer to your 'problem'.

 

At present you give the impression that you have a belief that will remain unshaken by anything anyone may say to the contrary. That is not objective and that is not scientific. It is, however, the only rational conclusion one can reach by taking the face value of what you have posted. If there is a more subtle message imbedded or implied in your words I recomment bringing it out into the open and stating things more directly.

 

Finally, if one searches for your name one finds that you had asked this question on at least one other forum. It is interesting that you received much the same reception there. You could consider two major explanations for that:

1) Forums are frequented and run by short-sighted, dogmatic, ignorant individuals with power complexes.

2) Your understanding of possible problem is faulty and you are placing too much importance on a dimly recollected reading of a remark taken out of context.

 

Obviously I can't choose between these two options for you. I'll be happy to address any technical issues arising from your percpetion of the problem, but I should prefer that we now cease discussion of alleged motives for replies, etc. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...