The origin of life thread

[I am Legend]

ok, may as well start with this. we can keep our "what came first..........." debates here i guess. also, Ill kick it all off:

big bang: most likely scenario for the universe we have today. evidence overwhelms.

creation: unlikely as we understand creation. why? religion has failed miserably

so, we have a mass of evidence that gets us very close to the start of the BB. not yet before, but within milli or even nano seconds of the event. billions of years later, we have man suddenly start making boats and wheels and writing things down. evolution is basically proven, even though some wont accept it because it goes against their theological beliefs.

did life evolve from the primordial muck of RNA clinging to clay? is it possible that the amino acids basic to life self organized all on their own over time? did GOD do it all and sit back to watch? is there life anywhere else in the universe? is it possible or even probable? and how did we go from hunched tree climbing vegetarians to meat eating scientists so fast? andwhat makes us intelligent while animals are just getting by with being animals............why do we get to have TV and not the chimps?

[brokenandtwisted]

:lol: You are a witty fellow, IAL.

As stated already...I believe in theistic evolution. Ooo here's a stone to toss:...maybe God was the Big Bang? :erf:

You know all too well this will turn into a "You just don't understand. You're intellectually inferior." thread.

[swivel]

andwhat makes us intelligent while animals are just getting by with being animals............why do we get to have TV and not the chimps?

Probably best not to think of chimps as our closest competitors. It looks like there were many species of upright, intelligent members of Homo co-existing. The old idea of us evolving from Australopithecus afarensis, to Australopithecinus erectus, to Homo neanderthalus (forgive the spellings, Firefox is having a fit with my taxonomy) doesn't seem to be the true picture anymore.

There is a lot of agreement now that many of these species, and probably others that are not yet discovered, existed at the same time, much the way many species of apes exist together today.

Some suggest that we killed our near-cousins. Judith Harris posits that we actually ate them, which explains why we are hairless to this day. Gradual sexual selection for hairlessness was due to us differentiating ourselves from the "animals" that we ate.

Why is this important in understanding the seemingly huge void between our technology and that of apes? It is the mystery of the scaffolding. When we come across something that was built (or evolved) with scaffolding in place, we can't often figure out how it came to be for the simple reason that the scaffolding is gone. They pyramids were a mystery until we learned about the great ramps used to tug stones up gradual inclines. If you saw a large arch of stone, you would be confused unless you realized that the arch was laid out on something solid before the keystone was put in place.

Our near-cousins were the scaffolding in-between us and chimps. Had we not killed, eaten, or pressured them into extinction, they would co-exist with us today. You would have the Neanderthal, with their rudimentary religion, mastery of fire, and simple tools. You would have several species like this, with varying degrees of complexity of culture, language, and technology. And the transition would seem natural and complete to us today. There would be no mystery.

Unfortunately, the scaffolding is gone, and we have to use our best clues to determine what things would look like if it was still in place. And the same goes for the RNA question. There was most likely precursor chemical agents that came along before RNA. These inefficient compounds could thrive early on, with no competitors, but RNA pushed them aside, as DNA did (largely) to RNA. The scaffolding is gone, and the temptation is to rush to gods and aliens to bridge the gap, rather than proceed slowly with the clues at hand.

[I am Legend]

:lol: You are a witty fellow, IAL.

As stated already...I believe in theistic evolution. Ooo here's a stone to toss:...maybe God was the Big Bang? :erf:

You know all too well this will turn into a "You just don't understand. You're intellectually inferior." thread.

ill try to not let it get to that on my end. hell, maybe i can even learn something!

so, lets get this clear.......................

i believe in evolution. i think there is no doubt about it. i have a problem with humans advancing so fast. then i look at some human cultures and see, basically, jungle monkeys in people skin. why have certain cultures developed supercomputers and yet others are still killing each other with sticks and rocks and wearing fig leaves and shit?

[swivel]

i believe in evolution. i think there is no doubt about it. i have a problem with humans advancing so fast. then i look at some human cultures and see, basically, jungle monkeys in people skin. why have certain cultures developed supercomputers and yet others are still killing each other with sticks and rocks and wearing fig leaves and shit?

How do you know we are advancing "fast"? What is your metric?

At what point in history did we make a leap forward that is not accountable by the knowledge of the people involved?

[I am Legend]

fast as in, within the last few thousand years (say 4000 bc) to now, compared to the millions of years before that. it just doesnt work out for me.

kinda like this:


[-----------------1-----------------------------------------------------][---2--]-
<-----------------------------------------------------------------------/-------->

1. millions of years
2. few thousand years, in which more technological progress is made than in the previous few million years combined.

not an evolution expert here, but still seems weird to me. after a few million years we just start throwing down with writing,math, science, astronomy, advanced construction, and moral codes and judicial systems, etc et al.

[brokenandtwisted]

Hmmm. Yes, it is rather odd. Look at sharks and crocodiles. They've been the same for millions of years and we don't see them discussing philosophies on computers...

If we truly came from 'apes' it seems nonsensical that'd we'd evolve so quickly. In time, 400000 years is nothing.

[swivel]

fast as in, within the last few thousand years (say 4000 bc) to now, compared to the millions of years before that. it just doesnt work out for me.

kinda like this:


[-----------------1-----------------------------------------------------][---2--]-
<-----------------------------------------------------------------------/-------->

1. millions of years
2. few thousand years, in which more technological progress is made than in the previous few million years combined.

not an evolution expert here, but still seems weird to me. after a few million years we just start throwing down with writing,math, science, astronomy, advanced construction, and moral codes and judicial systems, etc et al.

None of those advances have anything to do with biological evolution. You could take a human from 20,000 years ago and put them in today's society, and they would blend right in.

The advances that boggle your mind all came after the rise of agriculture. Before agriculture, every human life was consumed with the fending for itself and its small family. There was no leisure time. Watch some nature films today to see what life is like for animals, a perpetual state of near-starvation and constant work for food.

As soon as agriculture arose, you immediately had job specialization. Some people put the number as far back as 10,000 BCE, but that is bullshit. Those were people just being picky about their foods, causing minor changes. Real agriculture didn't start until around 5,000 BCE, and only by a few cultures (Egyptian and Sumerian). And that is exactly the cultures that started creating advances in other areas.

But, for all of the progress made over the next 6,000+ years, it really wasn't until the Middle ages that you had the big leap forward, crop rotation. It was maddeningly difficult to get people to NOT plant a field for a year, but the yields sky-rocketed and eventually it caught on. Keep in mind that a culture would still have over 80% of its people involved in the creation of food. Very few people left for any other advances.

The tractor is the next thing that really changed life. I personally blame the tractor for the Great Depression, a pretty unique theory. You had a situation where we went from 80% of the workforce being in ag, to under 40%. Food became so cheap to produce that prices plummeted, and congress wrecked the economy trying to prop up prices due to pressure from the farmers. Meanwhile, enormous hoards of workers were looking to do something else, and their advances in the last 100 years are mostly what you are amazed by.

If you went back 20,000 years and took away the need to eat and drink, you would have a man on the moon within 1,000 years, guaranteed. We take it for granted because we are used to it, but our stomachs hold us in bondage. We spend, still to this day, an enormous amount of money and time devoted to our own energy needs. And the story of technological progress has always been one of replacing farmers with thinkers, and that cycle has "fed" on itself over time (pardon the pun).

[swivel]

It just sank in that you are bemused by the "millions of years" in which little progress was made. Something to keep in mind: The first member of Homo to be fully upright (erectus) lived around 1 million years ago. Homo sapiens is only 250,000 years old. Neanderthals were still around 25,000 years ago.

Let's say we didn't emerge as the victor in the competition for resources with neanderthalensis until 30,000 years ago. That means we couldn't have started developing any advances in thought until then. We were too busy living like the rest of the animals. And then the agriculture bit that I mentioned earlier kicks in.

[I am Legend]

speaking of which, i sure could use a good frappuccino recipe................anybody.......

makes some sense, i dont buy it as the sole reason by a longshot though. the rise of agriculture also falls right in line with so many other advancements that i find it to be more than a little coincidental. not to mention it happens in the same area as almost every other early development regarding man (mesopotamia). whats kinda funny is that the earliest evidence of farming we have from that region (that i know about) is in the mountains/hills of the fertile crescent. and furthermore-evidence seems to show that agriculture did show up rather quickly. definitely makes some sense though.



JUST FOR FUN
didnt Noah supposedly start a vineyard after leaving the ark, supposedly around arreat somewhere, which is in turkey, which would make it up there in those hills of the fertile crescent? but not down in it maybe because of water? flood water..............

or maybe not, but that is kinda cool aint it:D

http://kinsey.schema.ca/WCI/Images/fertilecrescent.jpg


edit: got it

The Recipe .


1/2 C. Strong Coffee - espresso if you can
2 C. Milk
1/4 - 1/3 C. Sugar
1 1/2 C. Ice Combine all in a blender and blend well.

[I am Legend]

It just sank in that you are bemused by the "millions of years" in which little progress was made. Something to keep in mind: The first member of Homo to be fully upright (erectus) lived around 1 million years ago. Homo sapiens is only 250,000 years old. Neanderthals were still around 25,000 years ago.

Let's say we didn't emerge as the victor in the competition for resources with neanderthalensis until 30,000 years ago. That means we couldn't have started developing any advances in thought until then. We were too busy living like the rest of the animals. And then the agriculture bit that I mentioned earlier kicks in.

your big brain makes me homo erectus:D

question: is it now safe to say that originally, we came out of africa, and from there spread out to the nether regions?

question:are we decendents of cromag, or neandertal, or neither but related, or what? im still iffy on homo just showing up, had to come from somewhere, is it a common ancestor of em all, or more specific?

also, homo is, say 1 million years old, and yet in only, being nice, 10,000 years he goes from mud huts to skyscrapers after going "ungowa!" for 250,000 years? still seems fishy, but dont take offense, it always will to me.:confused:

[swivel]

question: is it now safe to say that originally, we came out of africa, and from there spread out to the nether regions?

I'm not 100% sure. My suspicion is that we find most of the old fossils in Africa because it is arid there. We tend to find fossils where fossils will last for millions of years. I would not be surprised if we eventually settle on West Asia as the source, or the Middle East. There have been some strange findings in the Far East that don't jibe with everything else. We are very, very early in our hunt for old fossils. It's like having one corner of a puzzle put together and wasting time conjecturing about the final image.

Think about this: If you took every early hominid fossil ever found, you could throw them all into the back of a single pickup truck. Stay tuned. The real story is bound to be complex, with some ancestors migrating out of Africa at one point, and then other species migrating back in, with a final emigration at a third point.

question:are we decendents of cromag, or neandertal, or neither but related, or what? im still iffy on homo just showing up, had to come from somewhere, is it a common ancestor of em all, or more specific?

Nobody know for sure. Remember, all the bones we have could go in the back of my Dodge Ram. In 200-300 years, we will have theories that make today's look juvenile. It helps me to remember that we for sure came from shrews. And bats. Once you get used to that, the exact ordering of the monkeys doesn't mean that much. I see more similarities in all the apes (including us) than I see differences. We share a ton of DNA with starfish, another distant cousin.

also, homo is, say 1 million years old, and yet in only, being nice, 10,000 years he goes from mud huts to skyscrapers after going "ungowa!" for 250,000 years? still seems fishy, but dont take offense, it always will to me.:confused:

For most of that 250,000 years homo was competing directly for resources with other upright apes. You can't sit around working on mathematics while you are starving and at war. Besides, and this is a HUGE key to keep in mind, there are some advancements that are required for technology that needn't have EVER come about. And before they did, NOTHING was going to move forward.

Language is the biggie here. Communication is one thing, language is another. And you don't get advancements without language. There is an ENORMOUS sacrafice to be made in order to gain the sort of complex vocalizations that we have. We are one of the only mammals that can choke to death. Other animals can have food stuck in their esophagus, and keep right on breathing. If you think about how much we eat, this is a HUGE risk we take, so the difficulty we had in evolving this was very great, as is the reward.

Another of these is our brain sizes. Humans are born months premature, in a helpless state. The reason is simple: to keep the hips of MEN organized for long-distance running. Even though it is a woman's hips that crush a baby's skull during birth, the same genes that build a woman are the vast majority of genes that build a man (the reason, also, that we have nipples). To keep a man's hips narrow, women give birth to premature infants which finalize outside of the womb. This leads to an unusually dangerous birthing process (most animals give birth with little trauma to the mother and baby, and both go right about their days). Another CRAZY risk taken in the name of leading to technological innovation.

You could easily go 150,000 before complex language was fully-formed. You could go another 50,000 before the idea of writing words down hit some caveman, and he/she was able to transmit this idea to others. All of your lack of progress could easily be pinned down to a single one of these major, lucky innovations. And as soon as you got it, BOOM, you go from Geometry to Apollo 11.

[swivel]

I am Legend, if you want to get into some cool shit, you should look into fringe scientists. These are the people that are doing research that flies in the face of their entire profession.

Related to this thread, you have Chris Knight. An extreme Marxist, whose ideas on human culture center around the menstration cycle of women. He has a book out called "Blood Relations (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Relations-Menstruation-Origins-Culture/dp/0300063083/ref=sr_1_1/002-5572520-6988053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185813819&sr=8-1)" that makes so much sense it is scary. A good review of it can be found here (http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Publications/Knight.htm).

You have Judith Harris, a psychologist turned down for graduate school who is revolutionizing the entire field. Check out her two books, The Nurture Assumption (http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Turn-They/dp/0747548943/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5572520-6988053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185813942&sr=8-1) and No Two Alike (http://www.amazon.com/No-Two-Alike-Nature-Individuality/dp/0393329712/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5572520-6988053?ie=UTF8&qid=1185813942&sr=8-1). They will blow your mind. She is 100% correct with her theories, as future research will demonstrate. Get in on the ground floor with these two books.

How about Thomas Gold's theory that oil is NOT biological in origin? Do a search and read up on his Deep Hot Biosphere (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535) and his abiotic theory of oil formation.

And, of course, everyone on planet Earth should read The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-5572520-6988053?ie=UTF8&qid=1185813942&sr=8-1) by Stephen Pinker. He is not a rebel, he is one of the top psychologists in the country, but his book goes against what most people think about human nature.

[CPL CHUD]

The Blank Slate is an awesome book. I've read it about 5 times now.

[swivel]

The Blank Slate is an awesome book. I've read it about 5 times now.

One of the most important works of Non-Fiction in the history of mankind.

If every psychologist would read it they could start doing some great things for people. (Instead of mostly relying on the placebo effect, and taking credit when people come into therapy at their worst, and of course, leave when they are feeling better)