PopSci: The secret of how life on Earth began

Quoting BBC, Michael Marshall

. . . But when some of these chemicals contact water they form spherical globules called "coacervates", which can be up to 0.01cm (0.004 inches) across.

If you watch coacervates under a microscope, they behave unnervingly like living cells. They grow and change shape, and sometimes divide into two. They can also take in chemicals from the surrounding water, so life-like chemicals can become concentrated inside them. Oparin proposed that coacervates were the ancestors of modern cells. . . .

How some things behave in fields of force :)

I really like the theory of panspermia. This was originally suggested in a coffee-table book, called The Intelligent Universe by cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle. He suggested that there are clouds of proto-organic chemicals drifting around the Universe, and that when the right conditions develop on a planet, then the evolutionary process begins to unfold there.

The idea I have always liked about this is the very term 'panspermia' which depicts comets as being like cosmic sperm cells, and planets as being like ova. When a suitable comet strikes a fertile 'egg', then life begins the extraordinary dance of evolutionary development. I think the idea is both spiritually and scientifically satisfying.


'Did the earth move for you too dear?'

The concluding paragraphs of the BBC article:

[i]Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution. But everyone alive now, barring isolated groups, can know the truth about our kinship with other animals.

Similarly, everyone born after Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth in 1961 has lived in a society that can travel to other worlds. Even if we never go ourselves, space travel is a reality.

These facts change our worldview in subtle ways. Arguably, they make us wiser. Evolution teaches us to treasure every other living thing, for they are our cousins. Space travel allows us to see our world from a distance, revealing how unique and fragile it is.

Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.

This knowledge will change us. On a purely scientific level, it will tell us about how likely life is to form in the Universe, and where to look for it. And it will tell us something about life's essential nature. But beyond that, we cannot yet know the wisdom the origin of life will reveal.[/i]

Another comment from the article:

Before the 1800s, most people believed in "vitalism". This is the intuitive idea that living things were endowed with a special, magical property that made them different from inanimate objects.
The chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that have nothing to do with life
Vitalism was often bound up with cherished religious beliefs. The Bible says that God used "the breath of life" to animate the first humans, and the immortal soul is a form of vitalism.
There is just one problem. Vitalism is plain wrong.

By the early 1800s, scientists had discovered several substances that seemed to be unique to life. One such chemical was urea, which is found in urine and was isolated in 1799.
This was still, just, compatible with vitalism. Only living things seemed to be able to make these chemicals, so perhaps they were infused with life energy and that was what made them special.
But in 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler found a way to make urea from a common chemical called ammonium cyanate, which had no obvious connection with living things. Others followed in his footsteps, and it was soon clear that the chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that have nothing to do with life.

This was the end of vitalism as a scientific concept. But people found it profoundly hard to let go of the idea. For many, saying that there is nothing "special" about the chemicals of life seemed to rob life of its magic, to reduce us to mere machines.

So - science has shown the religious accounts of creation are baloney, because we're piss and not wind! X-)

Quoting Wayfarer

Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution. But everyone alive now, barring isolated groups, can know the truth about our kinship with other animals.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the origin of life, but ...

I'm reading an interesting book on horse power in the US during the 19th century. Horse breeders had a few problems in getting the results they wanted (or at least getting them reliably):

1. They didn't know about dominant and recessive traits (Gregor Mendel's work wasn't republished until early in the 20th century). Of course they knew little to nothing of evolution.

2. Their more general ideas about breeding practice included: the stud was the transmitter of characteristics, their ideas about particular breeds (like percheron, quarter horse,, pinto, etc.) were contradictory and inconsistent.

3. They thought horses were "moral animals" and some people disliked the idea of breeding donkeys and horses together, because it was a violation of the horse's dignity. The term "mulatto" which was applied to people with black and white ancestry, originally referred to mules.

4. The sharpest theory (without mendelian principles) was "breed the best to the best" and fix features by inbreeding. But some people didn't like the idea of "incest" being "forced upon" horses who were, after all, "moral".

Considering that millions of horses were bred and raised, 19th century horse producers had some practical skill, but it didn't add up to a lot of understanding. If a horse got sick, which they did rather regularly, they didn't have much science until the the last quarter of the century, and even then, germ theory wouldn't have reached your average hamlet for a while.

For now that debate looks set to rumble on. But it will not be decided on a whim. The decision will be driven by the chemistry and the protocells. If it turns out that one of the scenarios is missing a key chemical, or contains something that destroys protocells, it will be ruled out.
This means that, for the first time in history, we have the beginnings of a comprehensive explanation for how life began.

The basic conditions are in the process becoming outlined, the boundaries, the sufficient and necessary conditions with which, and without which any comprehensive theory (or any theory) must start. How contingent events and facts, possibilities can combine to become sufficient and necessary processes encompassing what we mean when we say a 'comprehensive explanation'.

Quoting Wayfarer

Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution. But everyone alive now, barring isolated groups, can know the truth about our kinship with other animals.

Except for Anaximander, Empedocles, Carl Linnaeus, Pierre Louis Maupertuis, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon and even Erasmus Darwin? Also, Alfred Russell Wallace, (who everyone keeps forgetting), independently discovered the same thing, based on different observations. I think there quite a few cultures that had origin stories of animals transforming into humans or being related in some way to animals. It was probably more post Plato view of "fixed forms", later adopted by Christianity, and taught this "traditional" view. Sounds more like BBC is a bit subconsciously biased toward British history.

Reply to swstephe Wallace agreed with Darwin on the biological principle of natural selection, but he didn't believe it accounted for human intellectaual and moral factulties:

Alfred Russel Wallace:We thus find that the Darwinian theory, even when carried out to its extreme logical conclusion, not only does not oppose, but lends a decided support to, a belief in the spiritual nature of man. It shows us how man's body may have been developed from that of a lower animal form under the law of natural selection; but it also teaches us that we possess intellectual and moral faculties which could not have been so developed, but must have had another origin; and for this origin we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of Spirit.

Conclusion of Darwinism Applied to Man

Which would needless to say be a complete heresy to neo-Darwinism also.

Vitalism is plain wrong.
...

In 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler found a way to make urea from a common chemical called ammonium cyanate, which had no obvious connection with living things. Others followed in his footsteps, and it was soon clear that the chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that have nothing to do with life.

How does the fact that human beings can produce certain chemicals essential to life prove that these chemicals can be produced without life? That conclusion requires the unstated premise that anything a man can produce, can be produced without man. This implies that all the products manufactured by human beings could have come into existence without the existence of life, just because we build them out of naturally occurring elements. It's truly unbelievable to think that computers and airplanes could have come into existence on earth without the presence of life

Quoting Wayfarer

Wallace agreed with Darwin on the biological principle of natural selection, but he didn't believe it accounted for human intellectaual and moral factulties.

I was talking about giving credit for the discovery of evolution. Wallace and Darwin are credited as co-discoverers, working independently. It seems strange that they don't even get a mention. I was challenging the idea they propose that Darwin was the first to even think of evolution. It wasn't that nobody had thought about it before, but because the official British science at the time actively repressed those kinds of ideas.

Also, wasn't the reasoning or evidence for a material source of intelligence and morality only to come about much more recently? It also seems to me that the vast majority of people still cling to some form of dualism and human exceptionalism. Just try to make a hard determinist argument in a free will thread. Most people are essentially compatibilists like Wallace.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How does the fact that human beings can produce certain chemicals essential to life prove that these chemicals can be produced without life? That conclusion requires the unstated premise that anything a man can produce, can be produced without man. This implies that all the products manufactured by human beings could have come into existence without the existence of life, just because we build them out of naturally occurring elements. It's truly unbelievable to think that computers and airplanes could have come into existence on earth without the presence of life

I suppose you are right that airplanes and shit don't just pop out of nowhere. They are built by humans, living creatures.

But the point of naturalism is to try to explain things without the use of other-worldy, "supernatural" forces. There is no supernaturalism required to explain the existence of planes - humans created them. All x must come from not-x. So far so good. So "LIFE" cannot come from life. It had to start somewhere. And so Life came from non-Life. And yet what is this non-Life?

The naturalist will say it came from inorganic matter. The supernaturalist will say it came from something else, like a god or something. But this is a clear case of simple ignorance. Naturalism doesn't have to know everything, it merely has to say "I don't know" and try its best to figure it out. Whereas alternatives are simply god-of-the-gaps arguments.

And in any case the fact that humans can create "vital" stuff like urea means that in different conditions, urea could potentially arise naturally. And in fact we see this a lot in science in general. Things are modelled in the lab or on a computer simulation or what have you and then lo and behold we see it in nature. We knew about lightning before we knew about electricity - does the mere ignorance of naturally-occurring urea legitimately give credence to vitalism?

Quoting Wayfarer

"Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution."

It's like Anaxemander and Pedocles never existed! Poor forgotten Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, except in France where he is regarded as the father of Evolution.

Reply to tom People are attributing that quotation to me, but I was quoting a passage from the BBC article that was the subject of the original post. And, hey, Lamarck's not done for yet - he passed some of his characteristics on to later generations ;).

Quoting Wayfarer

People are attributing that quotation to me, but I was quoting a passage from the BBC article that was the subject of the original post. And, hey, Lamarck's not done for yet - he passed some of his characteristics on to later generations

Actually, Darwin also believed in inheritance of acquired traits as well! He was a Lamarckian!

Quoting darthbarracuda

But the point of naturalism is to try to explain things without the use of other-worldy, "supernatural" forces. There is no supernaturalism required to explain the existence of planes - humans created them. All x must come from not-x. So far so good. So "LIFE" cannot come from life. It had to start somewhere. And so Life came from non-Life. And yet what is this non-Life?

I follow a traditional definition of "natural", which opposes natural to artificial. Therefore an artificial thing is not natural. If someone wants to say that all things which a re not natural are supernatural, this would make artificial things supernatural, for me. I would prefer to allow more than one class of non-natural things, artificial and supernatural.

Quoting darthbarracuda

The naturalist will say it came from inorganic matter. The supernaturalist will say it came from something else, like a god or something. But this is a clear case of simple ignorance. Naturalism doesn't have to know everything, it merely has to say "I don't know" and try its best to figure it out. Whereas alternatives are simply god-of-the-gaps arguments.

The point I was making is that the quote provided by Wayfarer boldly stated "Vitalism is plan wrong", and offered that woefully inadequate proof. To say vitalism is wrong, is not the same thing as to say what you claim here, "I don't know". It is to "I know" your position is wrong.

Aristotle identified what he called the potencies of the soul, or the powers of the soul, some of which are the power of self-nutrition, the power of self-movement, the power of sensation, and the power of intellection. Lower level living things have only developed some of these powers, higher level ones have them all. He produced demonstrative argumentation for why these must be considered potentialities rather than actualities. Furthermore, he produced argumentation as to why such potentialities must be supported by something underlying, substantial, actual, and this he called the soul. I believe it is Aristotelian biology which supports vitalism.

To dismiss vitalism in the manner proposed within the quoted article would require demonstrating how such potentialities could come into existence naturally, without requiring the underlying actuality, the soul. Another way would be to demonstrate that these potencies are not really potencies at all, they are actualities disguised as potencies, which Aristotle misinterpreted as potencies. The problem with naturalist arguments is that they are very confused, without clear premises or logical proceedings. They are generally. as the one quoted above, appeals to emotion.

The Aristotelian arguments are much stronger than modern naturalist arguments, because they begin from clear premises of categorical separation between potentialities and actualities. The need for this categorical separation is well explained and documented. Then he proceeds to classify things according to these principles, and follows clear logic when coming to conclusions.

Quoting Wayfarer

Lamarck's not done for yet - he passed some of his characteristics on to later generations ;).

Lamarck's "Zoological Philosophy: Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals" (1809) is a very good read. I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in life on earth; that should include most people. Unlike Darwin, who concentrates on physical features, Lamarck includes detailed descriptions of the activities of living things, and being a "philosophy", the book persistently questions "why?". "Habituation", in the context of the Aristotelian/Thomistic concept of habit, as what a living being has, its properties (check the etymology of "habit"), becomes a central theme.

There is a principle of inversion required to understand Aristotelian biology. In hie physics, matter makes up the underlying substance. Matter is passive, but it necessarily has form, and form is active. We find the properties of matter within the form. When we proceed to his biology, we go to a further level of substance, beneath matter, which is explained in his metaphysics as necessary to substantiate the existence of matter itself.

The underlying substance in his biology, is the soul, which is an active form. The properties of the soul are potencies, powers, which are inherently passive, inactive, material, but are activated by the living soul, in the activities of living. So there is a very important inversion. In physics, matter is the substance and its properties are the active form. In biology, the soul, as an active form, is the substance, and its properties are the passive matter which comprise the habits of the soul. The inversion is necessary to account for the fact that the principal source of activity in the living being is within, while in physics we describe activities in terms of external causation.