Is Life being formed all the time?

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Can a pallet pusher ask a daft question?

Is it true to say that life only began billions of years ago in a murky swamp or at the bottom of an ocean?

And that all life we now see, including ourselves, has evolved from those ancient beginnings?

Or is it possible that new life is being created all the time? That right now, out in your garden, deep in the soil, chemicals are combining and re-combining to form simple new lifeforms, some of which will die off, others of which will add to the life already on the planet and will move forward and evolve?

I don't know because I'm educationally challenged.

What say you bright boys and girls?

[Taibak]

That's actually a really interesting question. Unfortunately, for the time being, it's unanswerable partly because, from a scientific point of view, we don't yet fully understand how life was created at all. On the one hand, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for new life to arise today if the conditions are right. On the other hand, we don't know if conditions are right and we don't know exactly what conditions are needed.

[Amadeus]

Do we know enough about the conditions on the earth that life started in so we could recreate them in a lab to see what happens?

[Madcat]

Actually, we do have a fairly decent idea of what ancient Earth was like, hence the Miller-Urey experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

It's likely that the changes to the Earth's atmosphere caused by life (the oxygen released by photosynthesis) blocks enough radiation that whatever happened when the show got started can't happen now. Of course, not everyone accepts this hypothesis.

Some people think life started in hydrothermal vents:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...ogy/sites.html

If that hypothesis is correct, then I supposed new stuff could be forming, sure. But keep in mind that everything it's competing with has billions of years of evolution that it won't. I think it would be eaten pretty quickly.

By the way, I'm looking to study hydrothermal vents, so if it is correct I probably have a job again! \/

[Andreas]

Or is it possible that new life is being created all the time? That right now, out in your garden, deep in the soil, chemicals are combining and re-combining to form simple new lifeforms, some of which will die off, others of which will add to the life already on the planet and will move forward and evolve?

I don't think so. Life can evolve from the most primitive combinations in a lifeless environment. Once life is established in one place, a new inefficient primitive form of life has hardly any chance to compete for resources with many hundred million years of evolution. First life to spread conquers all.

[skrap1r0n]

I don't think so. Life can evolve from the most primitive combinations in a lifeless environment. Once life is established in one place, a new inefficient primitive form of life has hardly any chance to compete for resources with many hundred million years of evolution. First life to spread conquers all.

That really depends. Once could say that new life is being formed and surviving BECAUSE it's metabolism prevents competition. For example new life could form (not mutate) that specializes in metabolizing chemicals that are toxic to potential competition.

The real issue would be, would we RECOGNIZE a new life form. It could be completely defficient in DNA as we know it and use other methods of encoding. This is something we may have to face if Life is discovered off Earth.

There is potential that we may discover a new life form without realizing it on say Mars or Europa. once we determine that it IS a life form, it may open our eyes here on earth and we might find the same thing here, that has been here all the time without us realizing it.

I do not know the answer, However I would like to think that life is still being created. But then I am an optimist.

[JohnW]

After a couple of billion years of natural selection, life has worked its way into just about all the available niches, and has got pretty efficient at making a living. Any "new" life form would have to successfully compete immediately, and I can't see that happening unless it was extremely exotic (silicon) and not competing for any of the same resources.

[Betenoire]

If there's an energetic chemical or physical process, life is there making use of it, with the sole caveat that if it's extremely hostile towards proteins or lipid membranes, life might not be very active there.
The creation of life requires large concentrations of energetic, complex chemicals. To say that life originated at the bottom of the ocean is a bit misleading: the oceans were very shallow at the time, because the crust had just formed and there wasn't a whole lot in the way of plate tectonics and uplift. The complex molecules therefore concentrated in these shallow seas and, surprisingly quickly (from a geologic time scale), formed rudimentary cells.
If anything similar existed these days, a stray bacteria would float into it and stuff hisself silly, then proceed to divide and make a bunch more bacteria that would stuff themselves silly.

[skrap1r0n]

Criteria for life

1) Living things need energy
2) Living things grow and develop
3) Living things respond to their surroundings
4) Living things reproduce

Hypothetically lets take a 3rd grade science experiement, Growing Crystals

Growing Crystals respond to Criteria 2 and 3 (alter the liquid medium and you can increase or decrease the rate of growth), possibly 1 (I don't know enough about what happens at the atomic level to say that energy is or isn't involved)

That potentially leaves only 4 out of the loop.

Is it conievable That a crystal saturates to the point where it begins to release its base element back into the medium, therefore allowing the creation newer crystals?

All of this is off the top of my head, and Incredibly simplistic. I am merely saying that Life as we know it here on earth may not be life elsewhere.

Suppose ExtraTerran life is not made of amino acids, or carbon based. Would we recognize it as life?

[Andromeda321]

I heard you couldn't have new life forming today because of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Because oxygen is such a great oxidant anything forming today would be killed off pretty quickly.
At least that's what we learned in bio class.

[skrap1r0n]

That is a possibility Andromeda321, However we cannot get fixated on what life is.

There could be several types of "life" as we know it. If it meets the Criteria for life, then it is life, regardless of whether or not is is carbon based, Silcon based, Hydrogen based etc.

All life on earth has DNA. That does not mean that all life in the universe has DNA.

I firmly believe that if we find Life elsewhere, It very well may not be Carbon based and may have a completely different encoding mechanism than DNA.

I also think that we may not recognize it as life unless we consider ALL the possibilities and remain open to an infinite number of Combinations

[countrywideoptionone]

Actually, this is a myth called "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous generation" or "life from non-life". It was debunked by Louis Pasteur in the 1800's.

[Andreas]

I don't think so. Life can evolve from the most primitive combinations in a lifeless environment. Once life is established in one place, a new inefficient primitive form of life has hardly any chance to compete for resources with many hundred million years of evolution. First life to spread conquers all.

That really depends. Once could say that new life is being formed and surviving BECAUSE it's metabolism prevents competition. For example new life could form (not mutate) that specializes in metabolizing chemicals that are toxic to potential competition.

It's more likely that existing life adapts to these conditions before new life could spring up there.

The important point is probabilities: Life will most likely evolve in the most likely place in the most likely form. Once it's there, it expands into all possible niches in time. Again, it's less likely that life evolves in the more difficult niches, life mutated from likely places will probably arrive there first. Less likely forms of life would probably only have a chance in a totally isolated environment (like a separate planet where there are no sufficient amounts of water and carbon for the common life solution).

We can look at ourselves and reasonably assume that water/carbon/RNA/DNA based life is the most likely. Maybe there are different forms, but it's unlikely that we would be one the unlikely ones. Yes, it's circular, but that kinda works here. If we ever find other intelligent life out there, they would probably be found in a system eerily similar to our sun-earth-moon.

The real issue would be, would we RECOGNIZE a new life form. It could be completely defficient in DNA as we know it and use other methods of encoding. This is something we may have to face if Life is discovered off Earth.

If it grows, metabolizes and reproduces it's probably a good candidate for life. You don't search for DNA when you search for life, you search for the more obvious traces.

[Yannox]

Today, scientists doubt that the “primitive” terrestrial atmosphere had the highly reducing factor used by Miller, a point favoring the recent creation of earth.

The Miller results led to the “primordial soup” theory, which assumes
life arose in such a mixture of gasses and chemicals as Miller
used, called a “primordial soup,” but now called a “prebiotic soup.”
The alternative is the “unthinkable:” God created life!

But as long as atheistic scientists can find a way to get out from
under that conclusion, they will, no matter how extreme. For instance,
if life can’t form on the surface of the earth because the temperature
was too high, or too wet, or too oxidizing, why not suppose that life
arose in hot springs and undersea thermal vents, where the temperature
is a boiling? After all, certain bacteria do live there. Closest to the
earth, and in the oceans whence evolutionists presume life began, these
obviously “must” be the ancestors of man, even though they eat sulphur
and hydrogen sulphide. Evolutionists have dubbed those bacteria a
new biological domain called Archaea. Is there any intelligent life left
on Earth?!

[skrap1r0n]

The alternative is the ?unthinkable:? God created life!

But as long as atheistic scientists can find a way to get out from
under that conclusion, they will, no matter how extreme. For instance,
if life can?t form on the surface of the earth because the temperature
was too high, or too wet, or too oxidizing, why not suppose that life
arose in hot springs and undersea thermal vents, where the temperature
is a boiling? After all, certain bacteria do live there. Closest to the
earth, and in the oceans whence evolutionists presume life began, these
obviously ?must? be the ancestors of man, even though they eat sulphur
and hydrogen sulphide. Evolutionists have dubbed those bacteria a
new biological domain called Archaea. Is there any intelligent life left
on Earth?!

I am not a scientist, But I am A Christian. That being said, I cannot look at the universe without increasing my sense of a Creator. The complexity and the vastness of space, the unanswered holes in physics, even down to the smallest biological component. These things just don't happen.

I just accept that they are and that they will be. Every discovery I make I consider a gift. I wonder about these discoveries, mull them over and if I cannot find an answer to the question, I try to accept it.

Here is what I beleive though. When we encounter sentient life, I believe that through a culture comparison between Terran belief and the exraterran beliefes, we will find many things in common. They will have Multi-Diety groups, Monotheistc groups, Atheistic groups much like we have. I also believe that the monotheistic sects will have startiling similar life principles as terran monotheistic sects.

I do not for an instant believe we are the sole oasis in the universe. I think that Fundamentalist Biblical Scolars have a fairly serious case of tunnel vision. We have permission to explore all that we are exposed to and and to limit ourselves is to remain no better than the ants that get food and bring it back only to do it again until they die. The God I serve gave me everything. All the light, all the matter, a sky full of wonders, all mine to explore.

Fear is the only reason not to explore. Fear that we may find something out that will cause a HUGE shift in human perception about our seeming importance in the overall scheme of things. Fear that Today I am human, top of the food chain, and that tomorrow I may be just the ant. I'm ok with being an ant.

Open your mind to the possibilities. Unwavering belief in something without opening your mind to other possibilities is the number one Crippling factor of the human race.

Oh and I do apologize for the philisophal rant, it didn't start out that way and probably veered off topic.

[Cougar]

Actually, this is a myth called "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous generation" or "life from non-life". It was debunked by Louis Pasteur in the 1800's.

Even if that's true, which I doubt, a lot has been learned since the 1800s, but you are apparently happy to ignore such information. However, please do not misinform others due to your self-imposed ignorance. There are enough ignorant people in the world already.

Edit: Phrase in blue added.

[Cougar]

Today, scientists doubt that the “primitive” terrestrial atmosphere had the highly reducing factor used by Miller, a point favoring the recent creation of earth.

Not hardly. Please take a course in simple logic. Haven't you heard of the null hypothesis? You're trying to foist a simple logical fallacy. Your reasoning is pathetic.

The Miller results led to the “primordial soup” theory, which assumes life arose in such a mixture of gasses and chemicals as Miller used...

Incorrect.

The alternative is the “unthinkable:” God created life!

What God? Where is this God now? Where did God come from? What's the exact mechanism that God used to do this "creation" you're claiming? If you had ANY empirical support for this claim, I'm sure science would be interested. Unfortunately, none has EVER been supplied. Why not?

But as long as atheistic scientists can find a way to get out from under that conclusion...

"Out from under that conclusion"? You can't have a conclusion without any evidence, observational support... Conclusions are based on something. God is a hope, a dream, a subjective feeling, a myth based on historical morality tales. You could use a course in comparative religions, too. Man, you are falling behind!

But as long as atheistic scientists can find a way to get out from under that conclusion, they will, no matter how extreme.

"Extreme"? Don't you think the wholly unsupported hypothesis of a "supreme being" directing the actions on our little planet isn't just a little "extreme"?

Is there any intelligent life left on Earth?!

This is an extremely funny question coming from someone who shuns intelligence, buries his head in the sand, and attempts to mislead everyone he meets into burying their heads in the sand, too.

[Cougar]

That being said, I cannot look at the universe without increasing my sense of a Creator.

As you say, this is your sense. Your subjective feeling. Subjective feelings are fine, but of course they are outside the realm of science.

These things just don't happen.

Again, this is your belief, and you're certainly entitled to it. But since there is no empirical foundation for it, you should not be too surprised to find out that it is wrong, which is a good possibility. Read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe and you'll have some mathematical foundation to start thinking, "Hmm... It's possible that these things do just happen."

[skrap1r0n]

[quote="Cougar"]

That being said, I cannot look at the universe without increasing my sense of a Creator.

As you say, this is your sense. Your subjective feeling. Subjective feelings are fine, but of course they are outside the realm of science.

These things just don't happen.

Again, this is your belief, and you're certainly entitled to it. But since there is no empirical foundation for it, you should not be too surprised to find out that it is wrong, which is a good possibility. Read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe and you'll have some mathematical foundation to start thinking, "Hmm... It's possible that these things do just happen."[/quot}

You are correct these are my opinions. in any debate, both sides can be proven or disproven ad nauseum. I query, observe, and draw conclusions. I just happen to believe there are far greater beings than us. One of them being a Creator.

I do however respect all beliefes. Your entitled to them, and I cannot bring myself to disprove or convince you otherwise, because I would be taking a core part of who you are and attempt destroy it. That would be against who I am.

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Gentlemen, these are very learned and well thought out answers which have raised many interesting points.

Unfortunately I can only repond to them as a pallet pusher!..will do my best. #-o

I'm not sure the religious points are helpful..people may have their faith, but as someone has said..it's their faith, and the more extreme of these people can be very vociferous in their opinions. Was it on this site I saw the comment 'We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.'? Surely if life was created by a deity, one day science will see how He did it., so perhaps in the fullness of time we should hold that tack in reserve, Johnny Cougar and others?

And whether or not life is silicon based, carbon based or hydrogen based is only something we discover with very astute scientific observation. surely if something moves and wriggles about, eats things and reproduces, then it's alive?

Perhaps.

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Can I take this opportunity to digress?

There's something wrong with my mouse..I think the cat got hold of it!

The ball keeps sticking.

I took it out and blew out the dust and the wheel inside seems OK, but it still sticks so that the arrow on the screen is hard to control.

What should i do.

It's a Dell Intelimouse.

[Amadeus]

Can I take this opportunity to digress?

There's something wrong with my mouse..I think the cat got hold of it!

The ball keeps sticking.

I took it out and blew out the dust and the wheel inside seems OK, but it still sticks so that the arrow on the screen is hard to control.

What should i do.

It's a Dell Intelimouse.

A) Buy a new mouse. Buy an optical one you will never have sticking balls again.

B) clean the rolers and the ball with a old toothbrush, then take the cover off. Inside there should be wheels with spokes in them. Make sure theres no dust in the spokes. What happens is as the ball moves it turns the wheels that break up a light beam and thats how it gets it's signal.

C) Shave the Cat. (Before I get hate mail, let me point out that I have 2 very happy cats and I would never cause them harm. Even after they have decided to jump up on you lap and sink their claws into your groin.)

[informant]

Actually, this is a myth called "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous generation" or "life from non-life". It was debunked by Louis Pasteur in the 1800's.

No, it isn't the same thing. "Spontaneous generation" was the theory that fully formed, small organisms, like worms and microbes, were generated from inert matter with nutrients.
Pasteur proved that this theory was wrong, but that says nothing about the possibility that life could evolve from inorganic matter, slowly over millions of years, under appropriate conditions.

Abiogenesis vs. spontaneous generation

[skrap1r0n]

fair enough, I will get off the creationism.

Essentially it come to this. there is a fixed amount of elements. these elements can be combined in infinite combinations the can create an infinite amount of molecules. Some will work some won't. But eventually, a molecule will become self replicating. It has to happen.

The question we have to ask is if in the infinite number of combinations, do we REALLY believe that only one combination works? I doubt it. I believe there are quite a few combo's that will work. For all we know there may be non-carbon based life forms living in the earths mantle.

My point is, If we ignore the possibility that ANYTHING is possible we are limiting ourselves. If we close our mind to the possibility about new life forming on earth today, How can we reasonably expect to recognize Extraterran life?

I do not believe life on other planets will bear any molecular similarity to Terran Life, but it will be life non-the less

[Betenoire]

fair enough, I will get off the creationism.

Essentially it come to this. there is a fixed amount of elements. these elements can be combined in infinite combinations the can create an infinite amount of molecules. Some will work some won't. But eventually, a molecule will become self replicating. It has to happen.

The question we have to ask is if in the infinite number of combinations, do we REALLY believe that only one combination works? I doubt it. I believe there are quite a few combo's that will work. For all we know there may be non-carbon based life forms living in the earths mantle.

My point is, If we ignore the possibility that ANYTHING is possible we are limiting ourselves. If we close our mind to the possibility about new life forming on earth today, How can we reasonably expect to recognize Extraterran life?

I do not believe life on other planets will bear any molecular similarity to Terran Life, but it will be life non-the less

Um... this is better understood after an Organic Chemistry course, but...
Carbon is the slut of the periodic table. It, and those elements in its family (column), form more bonds than any other element. This behavior is essential for the massive complexity needed to create life. Silicon is the next row down in carbon's family, but it doesn't behave like carbon because it's more massive and it's larger.
If it's chemical life, it's carbon based.
If it's any other sort of life, we wouldn't even be able to see it.

[Yannox]

"The difficulties become clear when we look to see what building
blocks were actually formed in the course of the simulation experiments
of Miller and others. Robert Shapiro, professor of
chemistry at New York University, pointed out in his 1988 book,
Origins, that, contrary to what is sometimes stated, there was no
synthesis of nucleotides and, indeed, only two of the component
bases (adenine and guanine) were produced to any significant extent.
Also, only two of the required 20 amino acids were formed
in appreciable amounts, which was reduced to one when the experiment
was repeated later with a less reducing atmosphere, reflecting
changed views about the primeval Earth" (Palmer, 1999, "Controversy – Catastrophism & Evolution" p. 266).

At the time it was assumed that hydrogen, the most abundant element
in the universe, would predominate on the “early earth.” An atmosphere
rich with hydrogen is called a reducing atmosphere. Subsequent
analysis of rocks and “early” fossils show little, if any, hydrogen
in the atmosphere when they were laid down.

[skrap1r0n]

If it's any other sort of life, we wouldn't even be able to see it.

Granted, I have not taken organic chemistry, but why wouldn't we be able to see it?

[Richard of Chelmsford]

B) clean the rolers and the ball with a old toothbrush, then take the cover off. Inside there should be wheels with spokes in them. Make sure theres no dust in the spokes. What happens is as the ball moves it turns the wheels that break up a light beam and thats how it gets it's signal.

Fixed my mouse!

Thanks.

Now lets fix the mystery of life.

[Trakar]

I don't think so. Life can evolve from the most primitive combinations in a lifeless environment. Once life is established in one place, a new inefficient primitive form of life has hardly any chance to compete for resources with many hundred million years of evolution. First life to spread conquers all.

One of the reasons I am optimistic about the fact that we do not find traces of alien chatter as we scan the universe, rather than depressed by such findings. I personally find the idea of no, or sparse, competition more comfortable than the idea of a filled and teeming with life universe.

[Cougar]

Is it true to say that life only began billions of years ago in a murky swamp or at the bottom of an ocean?

On this planet, yes, I think that's correct. Well, the "murky swamp or at the bottom of an ocean" are just two possibilities of many.

And that all life we now see, including ourselves, has evolved from those ancient beginnings?

I think a molecular biologist would be able to confidently say yes to this question and would be able to explain why - due to the genetic similarities of all life on this planet.

Or is it possible that new life is being created all the time? That right now, out in your garden, deep in the soil, chemicals are combining and re-combining to form simple new lifeforms, some of which will die off, others of which will add to the life already on the planet and will move forward and evolve?

As others have pointed out, this is highly doubtful. There is, however, a kind of new life that is probably different than what you were thinking. It's not out in your backyard. It's silicon based - right inside your computer: Artificial Life.