Why don't new forms of life emerge abiotically?
They could very well do, but they'd be out competed by the existing life
>>7888548
But if that is the case, could we not observe this?
>>7888549
No, because it would get almost instantly pwned before someone could notice it.
>>7888532
Because there aren't any free pools of random prebiotic precursors lying around. They've all been colonized by far more successful life already. Free chemicals that could serve as precursors for life are eaten basically instantly, long before any of them have the chance to aggregate into fragile complex forms.
Life has colonized everywhere from the inside of rocks three miles underground to toxic chemical pools to boiling geysers to the interior surface of the Chernobyl reactor. (Where it photosynthesizes with gamma radiation) Anywhere where there's energy, organic matter, and a temperature/pressure regime suitable for liquid water already has advanced life in it.
>>7888549
Consider how this would work.
Somewhere in the ocean, near a hydrothermal vent, a free nucleotide links up with another - the very beginning of an RNA chain that will, eventually, become a self-replicator.
Another nucleotide, in a fantastic stroke of luck, reac-
Oh, no, wait, it's just been eaten by a bacterium.
Any new life is destroyed long, long before it even counts as "life." Conditions suitable for the genesis of life - chemical energy, pools of free organic matter reacting, the right chemical conditions and long-term stability - no longer exist on Earth.
Also, all the oxygen in our atmosphere tends to make things rather unfavorable for complex organic compounds arising on their own. Life on Earth arose before all this oxygen got there.
>>7888608
how come they say every organism has a common ancestor than and everything came from one protocell?
what if a couple protocells formed on each side of the world and they both evolved into proper life? or 10s or 100s? is it just assumed since it's such a rare event?
>>7888679
this isnt wrong and is basically why there's so much diversity in biology.. but before the cambrian explosion all of the life on earth was very similar (simple microscopic organisms).
common ancestor is specific to each respective strata, i.e. all humans share a common ancestor that lived a long ass time ago
>>7888689
There is also a commonly referenced last universal common ancestor as the point from which the three domains of life - bacteria, archaea, and eukarya - branch off
>>7888532
>Why don't new forms of life emerge abiotically?
Because the conditions on Earth are exceptionally hostile to life.
All easily available resources have long since been consumed, there is intense competition everywhere, and ubiquitous predation. Hell, the atmosphere itself is a strong oxidizer that will rapidly destroy any unprotected organism.
We don't notice because we think those conditions are normal.
>>7889084
>Because the conditions on Earth are exceptionally hostile to life.
>exceptionally
I would hate to see the conditions on other planets in that case
>>7888603
If you're going to sprout this meme bullshit, why don't you try answer this?
WHY CAN'T WE CREATE POOLS OF THESE ''''''''''''''PREBIOTIC PRECURSORS''''''''''''''''' ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>7889124
>WHY CAN'T WE CREATE POOLS OF THESE ''PREBIOTIC PRECURSORS"
We can.
>>7888532
# emerge --sync
# emerge rebuild life-2.0
>>7888573
Then why not do 1000 experiments in which you attempt to produce life like even for a short time out of inorganic stuff - it would just serve as proof for abiogenesis theories or at least indicate that it's possible.
>>7889508
and wait millions of years for this new life to appear ?
the process certainly took a long time you know
>>7889513
It took million of years for the process to happen but not the process itself happened over million of years.
Just show matter can be animated by a specific sequence and you're done.
>>7889520
>not the process itself happened over million of years.
Yes it did.
>>7889508
>abiogenesis theories or at least indicate that it's possible.
Abiogenesis just means "life from not-life", it MUST be possible, assuming there was some time when nothing was alive.
>>7888532
>Why don't new forms of life emerge abiotically?
How would you even notice if they did?
Are you looking at every drop of water on Earth under a microscope every moment of the day for the last 4 billion years?
What if some species of simple bacteria antibioticly formed a scant billion years ago.
How would you know?
>>7889553
i'm not anti-vaccine, but what the fuck is with the vaccine load they are pumping into babies these days?
>Birth
Hepatitis B (hepB)
>2 months
Hepatitis B (hepB)
Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis) (DTPa)
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV)
Rotavirus
>4 months
Hepatitis B (hepB)
Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV)
Rotavirus
>6 months
Hepatitis B (hepB)
Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis) (IPV)
Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV)
Rotavirus b
thats a lot of stress to dump on the immune system. compare that to 20 - 30 odd years ago.
fuck big pharma btw
>>7889571
>i'm not anti-vaccine
>fuck big pharma btw
Yeah, you might not WAT to be an anti-vaxxer, but I'm pretty sure you are.
>>7889575
*WANT
>>7889571
Studies have found that the more vaccines you've had in your life, the more able you are to fight off any given infection and the less likely you are to develop allergies or long-term inflammation.
Having more easy targets to fight against doesn't 'stress' the immune system, it makes it stronger and better.
>>7888532
Abiogenesis is a very very weak theory.
>>7889587
how? are you a creationist?
>>7889349
and do
>>7889571
>thats a lot of stress to dump on the immune system
Is that an assumption on your part ord do you have any proof to back that up?
>>7889591
It's weak because it has literally no scientific basis. And no I'm not a creationist.
>>7889591
>how? are you a creationist?
Even if God magically created life, that's still technically abiogenesis.
I always wondered if I put chemicals on a jar, life could emerge automatically. I also think it could happen instantanially
>>7889624
>It's weak because it has literally no scientific basis. And no I'm not a creationist.
So.... you're either saying life has just always existed.... or it doesn't currently exist.
>>7889635
Logic is the realm of philosophy, not science. Science deals in cold, hard facts. No one has yet been able to even theorize a mechanism by which self replicating molecules could come into being from non replicating ones. All the existing theories are highly vague and unscientific.
>>7889575
i'd vaccinate my kids but probably follow the schedule i had. the current vaccine load looks pretty over the top.
>>7889584
ok so you are definitively saying, with your complete understanding of the human immune system and its operation from birth to 12 months, that dumping 30 shots of vaccine from a range of diseases onto an immune system which was until recently completely dependent upon the mother is not a problem at all. and that comprehensive and conclusive studies that span generations have been conducted to conclusively prove that the increasing vaccine load has had no positive impact on the prevalence of any other childhood conditions that may last into adulthood.
that's what you're saying?
>>7889578
the fact that Dr. Oz is a board certified fucking cardiac transplant surgeon, and then goes and sells out on highest possible magnitude makes me REEEEEE as a health-profession student.
>>7889647
yeah that seems like a very good idea: follow your gut instinct and trust the science of yesteryear. Who the fuck needs the last 25 years of progress anyways?
>fucking retard
>>7889659
Aside from "that span generations," all of that is true.
>>7889670
"progress" huh? so because its new it has to be better?
it's all been for the good of the species, and everything is trustworthy because its new and the government tells us its good so it must be good right?
disregard the facts scientist are bought and sold just as much as politicians *cough* tobacco lobby / climate science * and take the word of a subsection of the entire scientific community with absolutely no generational data or seemingly critical review and forge ahead without question?? ok.
p.s. your wife might want to use thalidomide to assist with any ill effects of her pregnancy.
>>7889508
"Life" didn't start out as cells. It started out as self-replicating molecules catalyzed metallic particles that over time "mutated" into self-replicating RNA and protein-like RNA structures, then developed amino acid based proteins, and finally a protein to produce phospholipids for a cell membrane. We've already produced self-replicating molecules, but we haven't let them run their course for millions of years.
>>7889678
>complete understanding of the human immune system and its operation from birth to 12 months
pretty sure we don't have a complete understanding of the human immune system. even looking decoding the genome and looking at all the interesting infographics about our protein cycles, we are not near figuring out how its all put togther. we are well on the path, but maybe in 30 years the autismals will be the thalidomide kids of the next generations.
> that span generations
so you don't think thats an important part of gathering all the necessary data to make an informed decision? no new evidence may come to light perhaps?
>>7889642
Hum no. It has been tested that under presumed early earth conditions, a lot of organic molecules form. Start mesuring the imense time that those molecules had to "find" each other until you have a self reproducing RNA and you ll find that its quite feasible. Now envelop this madman on some lipids that aquire the vesicule form naturally on water and boom, a proto cell is made.
>>7889696
>Start mesuring the imense time that those molecules had to "find" each other until you have a self reproducing RNA and you ll find that its quite feasible.
What the fuck are you blabbering about?
>>7889687
>Oh you believe this straightforward research instead of my conspiracy theory? So you believe the government always tells the truth?
Classic tinfoiler logic
>>7889696
yeah all that is awesome. i'm really interested by the mechanism whereby a carbon chain folds in upon itself and officially starts self-replicating.
folding is the key i reckon. all the way through all levels of the universe, things need to fold in on themselves to create a stable environment to do whateverthefuck it is doing.
>>7889702
now refute without ad hominem.
>>7889710
Insulting you is not "ad hominem," retard.
>>7889710
>>7889702
As I am sure we can agree, there is really no winning this argument. The anti-vaccine fellow has points that sound reasonable because he has a limited education on the subject and has to introduce his "paid scientist," theory to fill in the gaps of his thought process. That said, it seems that with limited education and a good-enough sounding rhetoric, a meaningful discussion is not likely to happen. Anti-vaccine guy will continue to to have his opinion no matter the evidence. Time to ignore, I should think.
>>7889687
>so because its new it has to be better
New=/= progress
New and proven effective = progress”
Or do you prefer the internet in black and white as in 1954?
>muh tabacco/climate memes
Sure. There are bad apples in any field.
But, at least in my country, the national vaccination program is very well organized, very effective and new vaccines aren’t added on a whim. Also, most vaccines are only effective if you follow the regime. Skipping shots because “two was enough for me
So I’m left with the choice:
Do I go with the vaccination program which has a proven track record and is organized by top tier medical pro’s and researchers? Or do I go with the ill-informed attention whoring nutters that populate the internet?
>thalidomide
Wut? Did you just brainfart on my /sci?
>>7889720
i'll make it simple.
do you have a study (or can you point to peer review studie that have been conducted) that conclusively shows that over several generations there is no correlation between the increasing vaccine load in newborns and the rising incidence of childhood conditions such as autism?
it's a pretty simple question.
>>7889724
I know for a fact you use things that have not been around for "several generations," because you are currently using the internet.
>>7889727
that wasn't the question. allow me to repeat -
do you have a study (or can you point to peer review studie that have been conducted) that conclusively shows that over several generations there is no correlation between the increasing vaccine load in newborns and the rising incidence of childhood conditions such as autism?
if so please point it out and i will educate myself.
in the meantime, this is the depth of understanding we have with our hep b vaccine load -
Preterm babies do not respond as well
to hepatitis B-containing vaccines as term
babies. Babies born at <32 weeks gesta
tion or < 2000g birth
weight should be
vaccinated at 0, 2, 4 a
nd 6 months
> not respond well
> arbitrary <32 weeks / <2 kg
i'm not anti-vacc. i would like more information on jacking newborns with undeveloped immune systems with a shitton of visues to jack their immune systems up from diseases they hardly ever got in the first place.
>>7889721
>New and proven effective = progress”
well proven effective ... newborns never really got hep b in the first place except from unclean parents.
>Sure. There are bad apples in any field.
there are. including the medical and pharma fields. how's that ADHD diagnosis and ritalin script working out for you?
>Wut? Did you just brainfart on my /sci?
it was our generations version of the autismal. only more people now = more autsimals.
>>7889724
>do you have a study (or can you point to peer review studie that have been conducted) that conclusively shows that over several generations there is no correlation between the increasing vaccine load in newborns and the rising incidence of childhood conditions such as autism?
http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12498.full.pdf
I suggest you investigate the history of the vaccine-autism meme. You might be surprised.
>>7889724
I recently read an article that suggested there is a link between chemicals that are used in pesticides, fodder and food processing, that filter up the food chain into unborn children and newborns causing a range of disorders.
That aside, the scientist who initially linked Autism to vaccines came out and admitted he falsified his research and made things up. That should be enough to debunk any anti-vax argument.
Second. Vaccines are just weakened strains of preventable diseases and chemicals to allow them to survive. Those chemicals are there in such small doses they are immediately absorbed and processed by the body (like mercury in fish). If the disease can't get a foothold in the body and is fought off by the immune system it can't have an adverse effect on the health of the victim, thus vaccines are harmless on both fronts and cannot cause aforementioned disorders.
And on the topic of fish. I read an article about a women who was eating fish three times a day and had a miscarriage. When she was tested the doctor found that her mercury levels were 400 times higher than normal.
So, in closing. Eating fish is worse for you than getting vaccines.
>>7889749
Autism was never really diagnosed until more recently. Historically, super autistic people were either seen as eccentric or geniuses in maths, science, art, music and literature, or complete retards and sectioned.
So with autism actually being recognised and recorded, it makes sense that there would be an increase in autism cases.
It doesn't mean that vaccinations are the cause, just because there has been an increase in vaccinations.
"Global temperature has been increasing steadily over the past 200 years, and as has autism. Temperature causes autism". This is how stupid you sound.
>>7889749
>> arbitrary <32 weeks / <2 kg
that is only arbitrary if you know nothing about embryology and neonatal physiology
>>7889755
thank you for the research anon.
http://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
summary - vaccines have some bad impacts. we're pretty sure not autism though. mostly the data isn't conclusive, but we'll just towards "no problem"
> http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
summary - our tiny sample only covered only the first 2 years of life from kids jabbed 15 years ago. will read more though.
> http://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12498.full.pdf
giving a single compound to monkeys didn't seem to give them autism.
thank you for the info anon, but data seems far from complete to make an informed decision.
also its not just autism (although that is the most public face of it). i'm just interested more broadly.
>>7889758
you're thinking of glycophosphates
and once again, is not just autism. i'm just curious about the broader implications of increasing vaccine loads and its underlying cost / benefit assumptions
>>7889761
please enlighten
Unliving matter is the egg, and living matter is the chicken. Study the metabolism charts - they're infinite loops. A successful biosphere is the complete loop - plants free oxygen, and we capture it, die and go into the ground, and release carbon dioxide.
>>7888603
>Because there aren't any free pools of random prebiotic precursors lying around
Guanine exists in the skin of spiders. Every single molecule which is a result of a metabolism exists in some amount - if you murdered every cell in a human body, you'd still be able to start life with it's flesh.
>They've all been colonized by far more successful life already
Different forms of life require different environments. You would die if you were torn from your house, and taken to Venus - yet DNA can survive those temperatures unprotected, and various proteins don't denature at those temperatures, such as alpha-amanitin.
Life as you know it is an adaption to Earth as you know it - change Earth and you change the requirements to succeed.
>Free chemicals that could serve as precursors for life are eaten basically instantly
Even when we isolate the precursors, we can't make life from molecules.
>Anywhere where there's energy, organic matter, and a temperature/pressure regime suitable for liquid water already has advanced life in it
Life has survived being sent to the moon and brought back. Spores have probably escaped from Earth, and panspermia is probably the means life used to get to Earth. In that case, life probably began in the early universe, as soon as the heavy elements formed.
As you say, fungus can survive in nuclear reactors and eat gamma rays. That ability - along with proteins that can survive 1,000C - so obviously evolved to survive around objects spewing gamma rays.
The most likely reason other forms of life don't take over the Earth is lack of energy - any form of life that photosynthesize gamma rays works at a higher order of magnitude than something that uses visible light.
>>7888679
>how come they say every organism has a common ancestor than and everything came from one protocell?
because every life-form we know uses the same genetic code
>>7888532
>implying new forms of life do not emerge abiotically
>because I know all new forms of life
GTFO fgt pls
