The theory of life starting on earth by lightening striking a

>>8173679
>Retarded.
not that it matters to anyone... but why?
Do you have a better theory? Can you give reasons for why the theory should not be true? (I havent even heard of it, btw)

>>8173682
Because it has never been proven but is still lofted up like a goddamn golden bull for all to follow.

Abiogenesis is hailed as the one thing to follow when it comes to the origin of life as if the world of science is a goddamn religion. Usually when you say "uh, lightening hitting a puddle didn't start life on this planet. I don't know what did but it sure as hell wasn't that" /sci/fags tend to get a little pissy and start calling you a christfag and whatnot.

File: iguanodon-hand.jpg (52KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x413px

>>8173679
Iguanodon is my favourite hervivore dinosaur.

>>8173696
>not dimetrodon

Enjoy your flightless antics ya overgrown ground sloth.

File: tmp2E25_thumb22.jpg (48KB, 384x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 384x480px

>>8173754
This is what my Iguanodon does to your sailerbird

File: 1254452623002.jpg (44KB, 790x507px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 790x507px

>>8173679
>The theory of life starting on earth by lightening striking a tidepool or puddle
That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
If you can't tell the difference, why are you here, and not on /x/ or /b/?

File: milleruray.jpg (21KB, 301x450px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 301x450px

The theory is not about lightening striking a puddle. The theory is about how the earth early atmosphere gave the possibility of creating life's elementray life compounds.

There is an experiment that has proven exactly that earth early atmosphere were under the right conditions to create early life compounds such as DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Then it is all about game theory, when you have so many life compunds and structures, ofcourse it will be very likely that it will develop into advanced microorganism with structure.

Now, how lightening got into the picture I don't know; perhaps because Miller uray used a quick lightening in their lab to create the earth's early atmosphere.

>>8173679
>The theory of life starting on earth by lightening striking a tidepool or puddle is the most retarded thing
Yeah it's not in a "tidepool or puddle", but in the ocean itself.
But I agree, comets brining in the amino acids, or even life, is way better.

File: qMvwmOL.jpg (90KB, 1342x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1342x960px

>>8173679
>lightening striking a tidepool or puddle
>>8173689
>lightening hitting a puddle
That's one of many possible scenarios.

>>8173689
>lofted up like a goddamn golden bull for all to follow.
That's just wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models
>There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life.

The Wikipedia article is a good place to start. There are many different possibilities, and the scientific community really does have an open mind about the origins of life on Earth.

>>8173791
No derelict strands of dna will ever be able to create a single celled organism by itself.

>>8173796
The abiogenesis theory is the standard version for life on earth as of today. Science may say it isn't but the way they sell it to the masses screams that it is.

>>8173793
>But I agree, comets brining in the amino acids, or even life, is way better.

Which would be created how elsewhere?

>>8173789

THIS A MILLION TIMES OVER.

I FUCKING HATE EVERYONE HERE.

File: 1456108722642.png (120KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 320x240px

>>8173825
>>8173789
>scinazis pretending to lose their shit over some miniscule error because they can't combat the Op's argument

>>8173818
Do you realize how fucking stupid the majority of people are? It's geared towards them because it's pop sci and can make the distributer a lot of money.

What headline sounds better, this is all the pop sci media gives a shit about.

>>8173831

A FALSIFIABLE LOGICALLY VIABLE CONCEPT IS CALLED A FUCKING HYPOTHESIS.

YOU GET ONE OF THOSE AND THEN YOU TEST IT.

IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT YOU CALL IT A FUCKING THEORY YOU CUNT FLAP.

I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH YOU SHIT STAIN.

>>8173679
>>8173682
A better one
(mute the volume, it's distracting)

https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg?t=3m

File: 1331091056870.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>8173864
You understand a fuckton of scientists believe that because of Miller–Urey experiment that it is a theory now right?

You fucking autist.

>>8173837
>Do you realize how fucking stupid the majority of people are? It's geared towards them because it's pop sci and can make the distributer a lot of money.

Such a cheap fucking excuse. No wonder the science world is in a lull.

>>8173888

I'm raging against the failure of /sci/ cunts to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory, as well as being anti-speculation for no apparent reason.

I don't care about that particular hypothesis/theory.

I didn't even bring it up.

I just came in autist raging out of the blue.

BECAUSE I HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS!

File: 1333573968633.jpg (19KB, 190x222px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 190x222px

>>8173892

>>8173897

I literally just got diagnosed this morning.

>>8173679
>Doesn't understand chemistry
Ayyy lmao

>>8174081
nice retort faggot

I guess /sci/ really as retarded as /lit/. You all pretend to understand this world yet can't defend your beliefs. It's fucking pathetic.

>>8174098
It's not worth retorting when it's clear you have little understanding of basic chemistry. I'm not going to go over all of introductory chemistry just for you so I'll just leave you with a hint as to why it's an accepted theory: Energy, Thermodynamics and Redox Reactions. That's generalizing a whole lot but just apply it to the theory.
Stop bitching about /sci/ not entertaining your shitposts. /sci/ is not a replacement for entire university courses. Stop thinking we will dump entire lectures on you. It won't kill you to read a book, retard.

>>8174133
Holy shit you are beyond mad.

There is no way possible that warm soup can create life. Single celled organisms can not be birthed by stagnant dna.

Unless you would like to prove me otherwise.

Retard.

>>8174133
The point he was making was that /sci/ believes in a terrible theory without any sort of evidence to back it. By your empty response you proved him right.

File: image.png (267KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 420x420px

>>8174143
You have heard of Miller-Urey experiment and later variations of the experiment, right? We were able to create biomolecules from that necessarily for life. We also see that in some formations of compounds that they replicate the structures of DNA. That's not the whole story though but it's pretty simple to see why people believe in abiogenesis for those reasons, among others.
I'm not saying I blindly believe in it but my issue with you is that you understand none of the concepts with it/ arguments for it other than taking it at face value. You also do nothing but provide empty responses because people disagree with you. In my opinion, I see you no different from the "if evolution still exists, why we got monkeys" type of people.

>>8173679
>accepted as truth
no scientist claims to know how exactly life started.

>>8174193
seems to be this faggot does
>>8174179

>>8174179
>can't create single celled organism through the miller-urey experiment
>say that I don't understand core elements because you said so

Just because it created a fucking building block didn't mean that abiogenesis is validated.

>>8174179
You just sat there and basically said that he has no idea what he's talking about because you said so. Pretty pompous even by /sci/ standards.

>>8174204
Understanding the concepts behind it doesn't mean acceptance of the theory. I'm only playing devil's advocate as to why some may believe it. I didn't claim it's accepted, just that people believed in it.
>>8174214
Again the experiment was only one component of arguements of abiogenesis but not the end-all-be-all proof of it. That and there's not an accepted theory for the origin of life.

>>8174214
Electrical theories are invalid then, because we can't create wires from energy.

>>8174238
I get that you're playing devil's advocate, but you didn't have to be a douche about it. You may have some valid points but just dismissing the other guy claiming he doesn't know anything is very condescending.

>>8173814
You're right, and nobody is claiming that's what happened.

metallic catalyst particles -> self-replicating molecules -> RNA -> self replicating RNA develops ribosomes -> phospholipid bilayer/ first cell -> DNA

>>8173679
> life starting on earth by lightening striking a tidepool or puddle

I have never in my life heard this. What is this hypothesis called?
In school I only learned about abiogenesis happening near undersea volcanoes. But nothing about lighnting.
Wouldnt that mean life had to have started out in shallow water? Isnt that something that we can check?

>>8173689
Probably because the childish simplification of "le lightning hitting mud puddle" is a description which is usually peddled by creatards of various religions. It's just reducto ad absurdum, "the way I describe it sounds silly, therefor it's false!", if you were actually interested in discussing the hypothesis you would have at least read how the original experiment was set up. Having done so you would have noticed that nowhere in the experiment does the simulated "lightning" have to hit the water, it's just there to better simulate the early earth's atmospheric conditions.

If you don't want to be called a creatard, don't talk like a creatard.

>>8174250
Now that is a strawman and a poor one at that.

>>8174267
Well the lightening hitting mud theory is one of the situations where Abiogenesis could occur. So...

>>8174265
That progression has never taken place naturally.

>>8174349
Yes it has and there's massive amounts of molecular evidence for it?

>>8174334
No, it's not. We can create electrons and other matter using particle physics. We can study and define electrical properties using properties of electrons and mediums. Analogically we can study the synthesis of organic molecules, and we can study life that's already functioning. By "rounding" we turn quantum states into definite large-scale electrical behavior, and by "rounding" we turn organic dis-organized reactions into organized reactions.

YOU have to find any evidence or argument that a hyperabundance of organic molecules can't become self-propagating, otherwise I am more right than you.

>>8174359
Oh so by filling in the blanks and not observing a natural progression means that's how it occurred?

Modern science everyone!

>>8174343
He's saying that dismissing it as just that is pretty dishonest on OP's part.

>>8174357
>Yes it has and there's massive amounts of molecular evidence for it?

More like it's missing a massive amount of evidence for it.

>>8174377
Wow, good one! You sure just showed all of those molecular biologists!

>>8174381
And you sure showed hard evidence of the natural progression OF HOW LIFE IS CREATED.

You had one job. One. And you failed. Chop it up and make a new one.

Oh. Cripes. I thought there was a consensus on this now....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Carbon atoms absorb and dissipate heat. Under direct sunlight they will eventually organise themselves to dissipate heat more efficiently. Extrapolate.

Thus, with sunlight. Carbon. Liquid. Life is inevitable.

>>8174521
This is just an extension of the "lazy universe" model (principle of least action). If he has a lot of math to back it up on the physical level, I'd be interested.

>>8173754
>Dimetrodon
>a dinosaur
Please leave.

>>8174343
Sauce on that please, I don't think I've ever seen the paper that talks about how it is necessary for lightning to actually strike the water.

>>8173679
Damn, I had that exact dinosaur book.

Iguanadons are fucking ace.

Exactly how likely is it that life could've formed spontaneously? I assume pretty low since we haven't managed to manually recreate it yet.
If you believe in abiogenesis would you also have to believe in the multiverse?
also why does no one theorize that aliens just came and dropped a huge pod of prokaryotes into the ocean a billion years ago

>>8174640
But then how did those aliens form anon

>>8174673
more aleins
infinite aleins

>>8174179
This, I am the one who first linked to the expirment in this thread and I just wholeheartly agree with you.

I understand op, perhaps he just wants to discuss this but he is blindly believing that it will lead to a quality discussion by provocating us like that.

Nobody is claiming life is created from a lightening in puddle but I find it to be the most viable consdering so much experiments are pointing towards it. In other words, life coming from meteorites or comet is imo less viable.

>>8174214
Miller were the first experiment that sucessfully created building blocks, there have been many other more modern and more successful experiments.

>>8173679
Fuck!

This image is from a Dinosaur book I used to have as a kid! Thanks for the nostalgia flashback, I feel like I've jumped back 25 years ago..

>>8174521
If this is true than the entire universe is teaming with life.

You bitches need to get with the times . . .

Normal mode: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

God mode: http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf

Rere mode: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160630-how-does-life-come-from-randomness/