Not for unthinking Christians. The OUP blog looks at the question, How Did Life Begin on Earth?

by fulltimestudent 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fulltimestudent

  Oxford University Press daily offers thoughts on many serious topics. In this life it examines the possibilities of a 'non-created' beginning of life.

  The blog post commences:

  Quote,"News broke in July 2015 that the Rosetta mission’s Philae lander had discovered 16 ‘carbon and nitrogen-rich’ organic compounds on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The news sparked renewed debates about whether the ‘prebiotic’ chemicals required for producing amino acids and nucleotides – the essential building blocks of all life forms – may have been delivered to Earth by cometary impacts. The argument goes that the shock of an impact may be sufficient to produce these essential life chemicals, so seeding the young Earth with the ingredients required to get life kick-started."

  Read more at, http://blog.oup.com/2015/10/how-did-life-on-earth-begin/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=oupblog
• 

  Simon

  The news sparked renewed debates about whether the ‘prebiotic’ chemicals required for producing amino acids and nucleotides – the essential building blocks of all life forms – may have been delivered to Earth by cometary impacts

  The "life came on a comet" argument always seems like cop-out to me and just pushes back the problem. Like trying to sweep that last line of dust into the pan ... it just moves backward.

  Where did the life that was on the comet come from? How did it get onto the comet and survive through space?

  It seems to be far more problematic that it developing on some planet that has perfect conditions for life.

  People make the same argument for fire - aliens much have discovered it and shown man. Well, how did they discover it? At some point, someone had to. Adding space travel to the theory just makes it less likely.

  (but I know, there are microbes that survive any conditions)
• 

  Mad Irishman

  Sorry, all of these ideas are just theories. When they can replicate something scientifically then there would be a real news story. There are no examples of life starting on its own anywhere in science so the onus is on science to prove it. Otherwise, it's just, don't hit me for saying this, science ... fiction ...
• 

  cofty

  Mad Irishman to what extent are you up to date with the latest developments in abiogenesis?

  I'm guessing not at all? Am I right?

  These ideas are not "theories" at all. They are merely hypotheses. We are a long way from a theory at the moment.

  I tend to agree with Simon on this. It's not impossible that life arrived from elsewhere but that wouldn't answer the big questions. It's actually possible that multicellular life is actually more of a challenge than the origin of life. The universe might be teeming with something like prokaryotic life.
• 

  sir82

  Where did the life that was on the comet come from?

  I didn't see anything in that article that indicated any "life" was found on the comet.

  It says "organic compounds". Organic compounds are not alive.
  

  I think the idea is, in a gross oversimplification, that if you add organic compounds from a comet to the ideal "growing conditions" found on planet earth, you eventually end up with life.
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Simon - i think you're confusing this with panspermia. This is just saying that the building blocks of life have been found on comets and thus they could've been delivered to earth that way. For a long time amino acid formation was one of the things that creationists would hold up as a hurdle to abiogenesis, but now it is known that not only do amino acids form naturally on earth but they even do so in space on asteroids and comets.
• 

  ctrwtf

  For the purpose of this website, I've always thought that the origin of life was not as important as the absolute fact that sentient life on this planet did not begin with "Adam and Eve" 6000 years ago. Acceptance of this fact negates any belief in the god of the bible and the rest of the fantasy that hinges on this dark aged thinking.

  I get why philosophically or scientifically minded people want to know the absolute origins of life but does it really matter?
• 

  prologos

  ctrwtf9 minutes ago.

  "I get why philosophically or scientifically minded people want to know the absolute origins of life but does it really matter?"

  It would matter, if we assume that we can get an inside understanding into the workings of the creator*** by -- how, and by what means, what processes he pulled off this big one, the start of life.*** assuming that the universe did not create itself.

  One reason it is so hard to replicate abiogenesis could be, that the conditions for it were so rare and unique even extreme, that they fail to appear in the quiet of a laboratory. (think of inserting organic compounds into the CERN circuit.) extreme pseudo science speculation just for fun of course.,
• 

  cyberjesus

  I am happy finding the discoveries.... while I enjoy other things.
• 

  prologos

  cyberjesus2 hours ago

  I am happy finding the discoveries.... while I enjoy other things.reminds me of newton (Isaac) that compared the nature laws he discovered, and put equations to, as smoothly [curved] pebbles on a randomly strewn beach. he could have enjoyed your "other things" had bikinis been invented then, and if he would have been thusly inclined. we do not understand yet how life started, but we know how it continues, on the beach, from here to eternity. bsw: we might discover that the instructions for abiogenesis was inherent in the laws that came through the beginning bottleneck.