Ask a Biologist Thread

[Psi Wavefunction]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

I'll let Spastic answer that one!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

I'll let Spastic answer that one!

If he can I'll bear his children.

[Psi Wavefunction]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

I'll let Spastic answer that one!

If he can I'll bear his children.

There would probably be one hell of a line up by then!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

I'll let Spastic answer that one!

If he can I'll bear his children.

There would probably be one hell of a line up by then!

Who says biology isn't sexy.

[Trolldor]

Ok, a long time ago there was a massively big explosion.
Then, shit started to happen, lots of banging of opposing things, which helped fill t3h universe with t3h energy.
Then, shit start to form out of what was left of the opposing thingies, which wasn't much compared to how muc space there was.
Then, some shit started to get really hot, and then other shit started to be made in ther eally hot shit due to physics.
Then that shit made other shit which in turn landed on our planet which was volatile and super heated and super charged with electricity and rank with the early shit. Then the shit which came here and the shit which was heree fused, and that made bigger and better shit which start to make it's own shit.

Well, that's my theory anyway.

[Psi Wavefunction]

Ok, a long time ago there was a massively big explosion.
Then, shit started to happen, lots of banging of opposing things, which helped fill t3h universe with t3h energy.
Then, shit start to form out of what was left of the opposing thingies, which wasn't much compared to how muc space there was.
Then, some shit started to get really hot, and then other shit started to be made in ther eally hot shit due to physics.
Then that shit made other shit which in turn landed on our planet which was volatile and super heated and super charged with electricity and rank with the early shit. Then the shit which came here and the shit which was heree fused, and that made bigger and better shit which start to make it's own shit.

Well, that's my theory anyway.

I have a simpler one:

GODDIDIT



And as to who did god: where did Jesus come from? :twisted:

[Trolldor]

From the fruit of cold lions.

[Psi Wavefunction]

From the fruit of cold lions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

From the fruit of cold lions.

I think he meant "loins".

[Trolldor]

No, lions.


It's a long story...

[Psi Wavefunction]

No, lions.


It's a long story...

[ScholasticSpastic]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

Simple answer:

It didn't.

Complex explanation:

We conceptualize life as a category discrete from the inanimate, but this isn't actually true. There is no discrete division between life and non-life in the platonic sense- which would involve real ideals for living and non-living things. To be alive, there need only be a specific collection of traits, together in the same time and space. None of the traits are unique to life, however, and can be observed in relatively simple systems if we know how to look for them- it's just chemistry. If we simplified our definition of life, more things would be alive. If we restricted our definition of life, fewer things would be alive. Life is a human invention to describe a category of chemical reaction- typically one involving a relatively complex chemical system.

The line between the animate and the inanimate isn't a thin one or a sharp one. We will very likely see that definition change within our lifetimes. When the definition of life changes, so too will the explanation of its origins. I think it's safe to say that life (as we currently define it) probably originated with the accidental juxtaposition of chemical elements which functioned in a complimentary manner and tended to cause similar elements to organize in the same way. We can see that complex, inanimate molecules are capable of a sort of replication by serving as templates for other extant molecules by observing the activity of prions. As soon as some mechanism for the reproduction of complimentary systems arose, natural selection would be inevitable- all that is needed for natural selection is some sort of imperfect replicator and nature doesn't care whether it is living or not.

So, to summarize: The first replicators probably didn't fit our current definition of what is alive. But the first replicators are usually what people are thinking of when they think about the origins of life. As the question is very probably flawed, it is possible to answer it with a simple negative. But, as I like to hear myself talk (or type, in this case), you get an involved negative rather than a simple one.

Now it's time to accept my beating as, even in a group this small, there is bound to be someone who spots a flaw in what I just said.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do we need a reason to beat up on you?

[Psi Wavefunction]

Simple question, please.

How did life begin on Earth?

Simple answer:

It didn't.

Complex explanation:

We conceptualize life as a category discrete from the inanimate, but this isn't actually true. There is no discrete division between life and non-life in the platonic sense- which would involve real ideals for living and non-living things. To be alive, there need only be a specific collection of traits, together in the same time and space. None of the traits are unique to life, however, and can be observed in relatively simple systems if we know how to look for them- it's just chemistry. If we simplified our definition of life, more things would be alive. If we restricted our definition of life, fewer things would be alive. Life is a human invention to describe a category of chemical reaction- typically one involving a relatively complex chemical system.

The line between the animate and the inanimate isn't a thin one or a sharp one. We will very likely see that definition change within our lifetimes. When the definition of life changes, so too will the explanation of its origins. I think it's safe to say that life (as we currently define it) probably originated with the accidental juxtaposition of chemical elements which functioned in a complimentary manner and tended to cause similar elements to organize in the same way. We can see that complex, inanimate molecules are capable of a sort of replication by serving as templates for other extant molecules by observing the activity of prions. As soon as some mechanism for the reproduction of complimentary systems arose, natural selection would be inevitable- all that is needed for natural selection is some sort of imperfect replicator and nature doesn't care whether it is living or not.

So, to summarize: The first replicators probably didn't fit our current definition of what is alive. But the first replicators are usually what people are thinking of when they think about the origins of life. As the question is very probably flawed, it is possible to answer it with a simple negative. But, as I like to hear myself talk (or type, in this case), you get an involved negative rather than a simple one.

Now it's time to accept my beating as, even in a group this small, there is bound to be someone who spots a flaw in what I just said.

Looks good to me!

But then again, I'm seriously beginning to consider visuses and languages+ideas as living organisms...

The animate/inanimate divide, while likely rooted deep into our innate thinking (most languages make the distinction, for one thing), is not as sharp in reality as it seems!

[soul_biscuit]

Here's one: what is the adaptive value of this?

It's an SEM of a beetle penis from Pharyngula. It's covered in spikes, all the better to tear the shit of a female beetles reproductive tract. I remember reading why many male insects have penises like that, but I don't remember the explanation. Something about females trying to collect sperm and use that of the best male to fertilize their eggs, and males trying to circumvent that.

Help!