is non-living stuff turning into living stuff from scratch even today?

RSF Group wrote:
i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
stuff turned into life stuff.

as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
of already existing life stuff?

suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
regardless of life already existing?

or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
oxygen done be existing.


actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

RSF Group wrote:
actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

Except I can bet it would probably run alot like "The Andromeda
Strain". Just no space capsule bringing the offending agent in.

Also, it's worth pointing out that most hypotheses about the creation
of life involve large, cataclysmic events due to large amounts of
electromagnetic or radioactive energy input. These events, it is
usually understood, are not really compatible with any pre-existing
life and so the process itself would likely wipe us all out, if it ever
DID happen again, whatever it was. Big Bang, indeed.

Douglas Adams has used that idea twice, once as script editor for Dr.
Who in the Jagaroth Episode with Duggan, and also in his book, I don't
remember which one, either "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", or "Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". The latter, I think.


SFK

RSF Group wrote:

RSF Group wrote:

i done believes at one time on earth, there was no life. but, unlife
stuff turned into life stuff.

as of now, there is life stuff and unlife stuff. all life stuff share
same origin. but, can unlife stuff today evolve into life independent
of already existing life stuff?

suppose there are some carbon matters. can it become life on its own
regardless of life already existing?

or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
oxygen done be existing.



actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

"Attack of the Sand People"
"Days of Asphalt"
"Revenge of the Lava" (Oh, wait. There was that Tommy Lee Jones film)
"Formica--The Beginning"
"The Fugitive Empire State Building"
"The Porcelain Strikes Back"
"Fiberglass From Hell"
"Shredder!!!"
"Smog--The Motion Picture" ("Godzilla VS. The Smog Monster" remake)
"Stephen King's 'S**t'" (and a sequal: "Meteor S**t", Creepshow fans)
"Carpet VS. Tile"
"Bad Photographs"
"Mouse Pads Attack!"
"Plastic Pain"
"War of the Waffle Irons"
"Ice Cube Trays Age"
"Field of Screams"
"Mount Everest Mounts Kilimanjaro" (XXX)
"Killer Kiln"
"Killer Kite"
"Stapler of Death"
"Cans"
"Glue Takes Charge"
"Tom Cruise Grows A Personality" (more fantasy than SF)

On 17 Aug 2006 21:20:05 -0700, "RSF Group"
wrote:

actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

It's been done. Remember in South Park, there's Mr Hanky the Christmas
Poo?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

RSF Group wrote:

actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

Could somebody please cancel this post before Michael Crichton gets wind
of it?

This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your time.

Luke

Ben Newsam wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 21:20:05 -0700, "RSF Group"
wrote:

actually, this is a great idea for a sci-fi film. a new form of life
begins to form from scratch--unlife stuff--and evolves quickly and
threatens life that already exists.

It's been done. Remember in South Park, there's Mr Hanky the Christmas
Poo?

Doesn't qualify. There's lots of living "stuff" in poo.

Luke

tension_on_the_wire wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:

Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
force'.



The ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic precursors
is not the definition of creating life. Creation of life is the
currently unexplained process of organizing and arranging organic
molecules into a self-sustaining, replicating, growing organism which
can transmit characteristics to future generations predictably. It
most certainly requires something which has still not been identifed or
qualified or isolated which, for lack of a better word, you choose to
call life force. I prefer to call it, more accurately, the ability to
resist entropy and the natural chaotic tendency to fall apart, or
decompose. The ability to synthesize urea has no bearing on that
process, as neither does the synthesis of peptides and amino acids.

And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.


S.F.K.

MD, FAAP
(B.Sc. Biochem McMaster)

I heard the comment that if lightning can create amino acid. There
is a whole world of difference to a living cell just like a scrap of
iron
to a space shuttle. So amino acid being synthesized by nature
doesn't say a thing about the creation of life or what is life.

I like your Big Bang of Biology comment. What's the latest about
this search for the origin of life and especially how complexities
are built from simple amino acids and chemicals. Any algorithm
that can do it or comptuer simulations?

dm

On 14 Aug 2006 13:01:21 -0700, "RSF Group"
wrote:
or, is it impossible cuz whatever is created will be immediately be
destroyed by already existing life stuff? or, is it cuz of existence
of oxygen? i done heared that life cannot evolve out of unlife is
oxygen done be existing.

I believe the villagers come with torches and pitchforks.

viz: The New Prometheus, and "Puttin' on the Ritz"

dm wrote:
tension_on_the_wire wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:

Freidrich Wohler synthesized an organic compound (urea) from inorganic
precursors back in 1832, thus disproving the theory of vitalism. There
is nothing special about 'organic' molecules- no such thing as a 'life
force'.



The ability to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic precursors
is not the definition of creating life. Creation of life is the
currently unexplained process of organizing and arranging organic
molecules into a self-sustaining, replicating, growing organism which
can transmit characteristics to future generations predictably. It
most certainly requires something which has still not been identifed or
qualified or isolated which, for lack of a better word, you choose to
call life force. I prefer to call it, more accurately, the ability to
resist entropy and the natural chaotic tendency to fall apart, or
decompose. The ability to synthesize urea has no bearing on that
process, as neither does the synthesis of peptides and amino acids.

And, for the record, the process of creating life as I just defined
above is pretty damned special when you consider that it still can't be
reliably reproduced under any experimental conditions.


I like your Big Bang of Biology comment. What's the latest about
this search for the origin of life and especially how complexities
are built from simple amino acids and chemicals. Any algorithm
that can do it or comptuer simulations?

dm

The simple answer to your question is....no. What research is done in
this area is considered a bit esoteric and with not great hopes of
yield, at the moment, however there are some areas that have parallel
significance that are being researched vigorously such as the
principles of cell senescence (meaning the signals whereby a cell can
tell itself that it is old and time to die, via a somewhat mysterious
process of collapse and cessation of function, also known as
apoptosis). There are some hopes that if we can understand just
exactly what the process of "natural death" entails, we might somehow
provide, via "reverse engineering" in a manner of speaking, a new
starting point from which to look at the investiture of "life force".
The limitation on this is, of course, that we are dealing with The
Cell, already a supremely complex level of organization in itself, and
perhaps quite far away from whatever the first molecule might have been
that could be defined as living. That would be another Holy Grail/Big
Bang moment right there...the missing link...the first true living
organism. We don't really know what form it took, nor how it could get
to the cell stage through generations of reproduction if there were no
cells to divide and reproduce (or contain the first prions or
virus-type DNA's, etc). In other words, we are still whistling in the
dark. :-o

Not to change the topic completely, but this is why Darwin's Theory of
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the search for the origins
of life. Many people, mostly those who haven't actually read his
work, mistakenly believe that Darwin explained how life originated on
earth. Darwin only explained how species could perpetuate and change
into other species, but he did not try to explain how living things
came into existence in the first place, as he admitted directly. Since
his whole theory cannot even come into play until there is functioning,
duplicating, and dividing DNA in the first place, again it comes down
to the first ever cell to come into existence, and how it got there.
Here. Whatever. ;-P

---tension

tension_on_the_wire wrote:

Many people, mostly those who haven't actually read his work, mistakenly
believe that Darwin explained how life originated on earth. Darwin only
explained how species could perpetuate and change into other species, but
he did not try to explain how living things came into existence in the
first place, as he admitted directly. Since his whole theory cannot even
come into play until there is functioning, duplicating, and dividing DNA
in the first place, again it comes down to the first ever cell to come
into existence, and how it got there.

At least in theory, evolution doesn't require DNA -- simply some way of
passing along characteristics that are reproductively helpful/harmful.
What that characteristic is or how it's passed along, isn't really
important to the basic theory.

But of course you're right -- evolution doesn't say how life began, and
it's *impossible* for it to explain how life began, since life is it's
topic.

--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg