Abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.11168724]

Why have scientists found it impossible to create life? What's holding it back? If creating life is impossible for us, does that imply that Earth was deliberately seeded?

[Anonymous No.11168749]

There appears to be indeed some "irreducible complexity" in modern prokaryotes. We may actually live in a post apocalyptic world, after an apocalypse that happened some 4 billion years ago. And the Earth was a literally a paradise in the beginning, with no viruses and eukaryotic monstrosities.

[Anonymous No.11168751]

>>11168724
>Why have scientists found it impossible to create life
They havent

[Anonymous No.11168754]

>>11168724
>Why have scientists found it impossible to create life?
1: I think you're mixing up scientists and engineers.
2: Why couldn't Ben Franklin invent radio?

[Anonymous No.11168787]

>>11168724
>If creating life is impossible for us
Then God exists

[Anonymous No.11169168]

>>11168787
>>If creating life is impossible for us
>Then God exists
If we can't do it, why do you assume God can?

[Anonymous No.11169182]

>>11168787
>Yes
>Because yes
>Then yes

Really keeps my gnoggin jogging

[Anonymous No.11169183]

>>11169168
isn’t the whole idea that god is above man in all terms?

[Anonymous No.11169190]

>/sci/ stem autists discuss creation

[Anonymous No.11169195]

>>11169183
No, the idea of an all-powerful God was developed to instill fear into other tribes/nations to not fuck with the jews. "Our gods will ensure our victory in combat" "oh yeah? we'll our god made your god and your god is fake"

[Anonymous No.11170125]

>>11168754
>1: I think you're mixing up scientists and engineers.
no he's clearly not, I think you're confusing the two. Engineers apply established scientific principles. There's no established scientific principles regarding how to create life. There's almost 2 dozen theories right now and none of them have to be correct, in fact logically all but at most 1 are incorrect. That's not even remotely established science.

>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20249628/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-expect-create-life-next-years/

Saying engineers are trying to create life would be a misnomer.

>2: Why couldn't Ben Franklin invent radio?
Because requisite fundamental physics concepts were not discovered yet. What fundamental requisite physics concept are we missing that are required for abiogenesis? It's just chemistry that happened in "primordial ooze" rofl right? Do we need a paradigm shift in physics itself before we can create life?

[Anonymous No.11170200]

>>11168724
It’s not impossible, very few people are interested in doing so because there’s no money in it.

[Anonymous No.11170214]

It happened in a puddle

[Anonymous No.11170227]

youre curious why it's hard for a handful of people to replicate in one experimental vessel what happened over millions of years across the whole planet?

[Anonymous No.11170232]

>>11170227
>one experimental vessel over millions of years across the whole planet?
I thought the theory is that it only happened once and it was simple replicators that gradually became more advanced. Obviously I don't think OP means make a single celled organism from scratch, even though the oldest fossil life found was already single celled, nothing simpler...it just kind of popped into existence.

[Anonymous No.11170236]

>>11168724
The same problem arises at all fields of science when it comes to the genesis of any process we know, there are no explanations how a process begins in any field.

[Anonymous No.11170237]

>>11168724
>Why can't we just replicate unknown conditions of an unknown place billions of years ago

We don't even know how first life looked like. Was it RNA or something different? We don't know.

[Anonymous No.11170244]

>>11168724
Question shift correctly is not if earth was seeded, but how was abigenesis done. Still.

[Anonymous No.11170250]

>>11170236
>there are no explanations how a process begins in any field
nonsense. The inception of thermodynamic processes are very well understood, also chemistry. A star life cycle is a great natural example too.

Life is actually one of the ONLY processes we have no explanation as to how it began oddly enough...

[Anonymous No.11170255]

>>11168724
Organisms are machines. I think we're missing a large portion of the picture at the very beginning. I;ll bet the first "organisms" were molecular machines that (somehow) managed to become more complex, operating autonomously.

[Anonymous No.11170258]

>>11170250
No, neither of the examples you gave are well understood. They are emergent phenomena that nobody has been able to explain how emerge. There is NO explanation for the genesis of ANY emergent process.

[Anonymous No.11170267]

It's extremely easy to 'create life' by copying existing templates. We've been cloning sheep since the 90s, and we've been swapping bacterial genomes and cells since the 70s.

More recently, Craig Venter claims to have synthesized a genome with only 473 genes.

https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633

Whether or not this is new life is debatable. While the organism is new, all the genes are just copy-pasted from existing organisms.

The biggest problem with creating truly new life is understanding how proteins fold, and then what functions they perform.

The closest we've got to truly new life is designed 'genome encapsulating protein nanocages' which are proto-viruses that still need human assistance for replication.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927965

Viral proteins are extremely complex. 1 protein can perform 10 functions, while human designed proteins can barely perform 1 function properly.

We can start churning out truly new lifeforms only once we solve the protein design and enzyne design problems.

[Anonymous No.11170275]

>>11170267
Of course the context of 'creating life' in this thread has nothing to do with cloning or manipulation of cells, the topic of the thread is the process of abiogenesis.

[Justin Ramsey No.11170290]

[Anonymous No.11170292]

>>11170275

Oh, that's because of lagging protein synthesis technology.

You can create a simple virus with nothing but DNA and protein.

You can chemically synthesize DNA of any length, but you can only reliably synthesize proteins that are 60-70 amino acids long.

Viral proteins can be 1000+ amino acids long, and we can't do that just yet. Typically we 'hijack' the metabolism of E. coli to synthesize large proteins, but thats obviously not abiotic.

[Anonymous No.11170301]

>>11170267
RNA comes before protein, that's pretty certain.
The question is where the first ribosomal genes come from?

[Anonymous No.11170304]

>>11170258
>No, neither of the examples you gave are well understood
Yes, they are both well understood. There's literally laws which govern them they're so well understood. You being unable to understand them does not mean they're not well understood. Saying thermodynamics or chemistry are "phenomena" is incredibly ignorant.

[Anonymous No.11170307]

>>11170301
That's an evolutionary biology question, and I have no answer.

This thread is about human-created life, which is fundamentally different from spontaneously-arising natural life.

You are correct when you say that RNA is needed for natural protein translation, but humans can easily synthesize DNA/RNA and small proteins in the lab.

[Anonymous No.11170308]

>You put atoms together
>They begin to have thoughts, imagination
>They begin to study themselves

That makes no sense. When will you admit that our Universe is just magic.

[Anonymous No.11170317]

>>11170267
>We can start churning out truly new lifeforms only once we solve the protein design and enzyne design problems.
Why do people use the word "design" when referring to things that they believe came about from evolution? Natural selection, which is simply the slightly better chance of propagation of a random best fitting fluke in a given environment, is not "designing" anything in any sense of the word. Evolution does not design anything by definition. It is not a process guided by intelligence...

[Anonymous No.11170326]

>>11170304
There is no explanation currently for the emergence of thermodynamics or chemistry. We know about them, we do not how they emerge. And they are emergent phenomena in our universe in any number of models for the universe you pick. You can open up any physics book or paper on the subject and you won't find that someone that positions it in any other way. No physicists would ever claim to know how such a process emerges.

>Saying thermodynamics or chemistry are "phenomena" is incredibly ignorant.

You do not know what the word means. You are ironically an incredibly ignorant person who claims someone else is because he lacks fundamental understanding of both words and physics.

>There's literally laws which govern them they're so well understood.

This was so stupid it deserved to be highlighted just for the sake of it being so stupid.

[Anonymous No.11170330]

>>11170317

Um... no. It's called 'Protein design' because humans are the ones designing proteins, which are distinct from naturally evolved proteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_design

Read a bit more about my subfield above. The wikipedia article is pretty informative

[Anonymous No.11170342]

OP, you absolutely must study the origin of life and paleontology in order to have even a slightly deep understanding of what life is. Synthetic life is not possible at the current technology level, that is the answer to your questions. Maybe Earth was seeded, maybe not. But the viruses must come after proteins, because they code only for proteins and "nonsense" (themselves).
Evolutionary biology is the key to your interest. You clearly has a lot to study yet.
Create another thread when you learn more.

[Anonymous No.11170347]

>>11170292
All of that is some organic process, the thread is about the creation of organic material from inorganic material.

[Anonymous No.11170354]

>>11170326
>There is no explanation currently for the emergence of thermodynamics or chemistry.
I mean, if you want to push the goal post SOOO far back and say there's no grand unifying theory yet, I suppose this nonsense statement would not be 100% wrong, just laughable. Your statement before this saying both of those are not well understood, however, is still just pure and outright idiocy. Moving the goal post does not change that.

These are well understood processes that emerge from consistent rules and laws in physics. We don't know exactly why the universe's laws were shaped as they were, but even if we did know how life emerged on earth sufficiently enough to satisfy the questions posed in this thread, these questions about reality itself would still remain. So it's entirely irrelevant and you're just splitting hairs to make it sound like you're not a moron.

We can understand how a process emerges without needing to understand the fundamental precursor tenants of reality itself.

>This was so stupid it deserved to be highlighted just for the sake of it being so stupid.
I would cope this hard too if I didn't understand something. You've obviously never taken a thermo or chem class. Google the laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer and then come back and pretend they're not well understood....

[Anonymous No.11170360]

>>11170347

It is now possible to synthesize nucleotides and amino acids from simple organic molecules, which can themselves be synthesized from inorganic compounds or elements.

Here's a review on the current chemical processes for synthesizing nucleic acids: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00174#

Amino acids can be synthesized easily too, using strecker synthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00174#

[Anonymous No.11170365]

>>11170354
I am not moving any goal posts. I simply responded to your response to my initial post
>The inception of thermodynamic processes are very well understood, also chemistry. A star life cycle is a great natural example too.
>No, neither of the examples you gave are well understood.

Now YOU are moving the goal post to a general understanding of the subject in the general meaning, to my initial post(s) about the emergence of these.

>These are well understood processes that emerge from consistent rules and laws in physics.
>We can understand how a process emerges without needing to understand the fundamental precursor tenants of reality itself.

No, you do not understand the EMERGENCE of something just because you define mathematical models on the BEHAVIOR of something. There is literally nothing you can explain the emergence of as I already, yet you continue to move the goalposts into some absurd position about the knowledge we have of these things being proof that we understand the emergence of it. Absolutely nonsense from a complete moron.

[Anonymous No.11170372]

>>11170330
Um yes... if you're mimicking patterns in nature you're not "solving" a "design" problem. The Wright brothers were not solving a design problem via mimicking nature with their airplane because they were not actually practicing the concept of design: it was aimless trial and error which is the opposite of design. There was no foresight planning involved because they did not understand how lift works.

Solving a design problem necessitates you already have a design, which we don't, and must fix the associated problems with that design. Hence, you saying solving the design problems associated with creating biological life necessitates you're just copying nature at this point, which would not make sense as evolution does not produce designs.

Maybe you meant to say once we solve some underlying issues with protein folding we can start churning out life.

[Anonymous No.11170379]

>>11168751
they have retard

[Anonymous No.11170383]

>>11170365
>No, you do not understand the EMERGENCE of something just because you define mathematical models on the BEHAVIOR of something.
This is adorable. I should have stopped feeding your troll responses when you said thermo/chemistry is not well understood. There aren't models explaining these things buddy. They are well understood laws. If you move the goalpost and say we must understand where all the laws of the universe come from before we can understand how anything emerges within the universe then you're a clueless troll and nobody can convince you to change your mind no matter how much evidence we show you, speaking of....

>There is literally nothing you can explain the emergence of as I already,
https://www.reference.com/science/stars-form-7d9a9180ad248282

And viola! The emergence of stars well explained and simple enough a child could understand, my first specific example. There is literally no way you can pretend this is not a valid explanation of the emergence of something without moving a goal post, like I showed you were doing above, and pretending we need to understand how reality itself emerged before we can understand how stars emerged, or something.

[Anonymous No.11171813]

>>11168751
>>Why have scientists found it impossible to create life
>They havent
>>11170379
>they have retard
Ain't nobody proved it's impossible to create life.
Get off your high horse.

[Anonymous No.11171815]

>>11168724
Artificial life has been created in the lab many times now.

[Anonymous No.11171817]

>>11168724
>Why have scientists found it impossible to create life?

Prove they have.

[Anonymous No.11171819]

>>11170308
The simplest forms of life do not have thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11171820]

>>11170232
>even though the oldest fossil life found was already single celled, nothing simpler...it just kind of popped into existence.

No. You’re deliberately lying.

[Anonymous No.11171821]

>>11168724
>deliberately seeded?
And who seeded them? Life has to have occurred naturally at least once. Why not here? We don't understand it completely yet but it's entirely possible that the rock on which we live gave birth to life. But you're right to suggest panspermia and seeding as possibilities. We don't know enough just yet and this is exciting.

[Anonymous No.11171823]

>>11170125
>no he's clearly not, I think you're confusing the two.
Nah, I think it's more either/or.
The stereotypical "mad scientist" in sci-fi is actually an engineer, not a scientist.
But scientific experiments typically bridge the two disciplines.
>>11170125
>There's almost 2 dozen theories right now and none of them have to be correct, in fact logically all but at most 1 are incorrect.
How so?
It's entirely possible there was more than one origin of life on earth.
Consider viruses. OK, technically they don't count as "life".
But they are reasonably complex, and probably arose after at least one abiogenesis event.
Where did they come from? I'm guessing a second, highly improbable event occurring because a zillion metaphorical monkeys sat down a a zillion hypothetical typewriters.
Also, if we assume those monkeys might write Hamlet by accident, and they never stopped typing, maybe they accidentally wrote Macbeth a million years later.

[Anonymous No.11171836]

>>11171823
>technically they don't count as "life".

Meaningless semantics of zero consequence whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11172041]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943892/

Scientists already did, they created extremely simple RNA based "lifeforms" that self replicate given certain conditions, and also change their structure between generations, undergoing darwinian evolution and increase replication efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11172049]

>>11171821
>And who seeded them? Life has to have occurred naturally at least once.
Perhaps it occurred in a universe with different natural laws than ours

[Anonymous No.11172058]

If we were so good chemist in geneticists we are not so good like inside the cell

[Anonymous No.11172061]

>>11170383
>>11170365
This whole fight was hilarious guy

[Anonymous No.11172068]

>>11172041
But they didn’t program the universe so those codes can behave in a survival way you might as well make a pattern of rocks

[Anonymous No.11172074]

>>11172041
this isn't abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.11172136]

>>11168724
If creating life is impossible for us, why would it be impossible for specific certain conditions in Earth?
If some extraterrestrial being was able to find out how to create life, why wouldn't we?

[Anonymous No.11172182]

>>11172041
Enzymes aren't life dude

[Anonymous No.11172188]

>>11170125
I think he was just making a joke calling engineers gay anon

[Anonymous No.11172206]

>>11168724
They can try to begin to create new life, but there's microbes already there that just consume the precursors, and they're near impossible to get rid of.

[Anonymous No.11172407]

>>11168749
>t. prokaryote

[Anonymous No.11172678]

>>11171823
>It's entirely possible there was more than one origin of life on earth.
Stacking separate extremely unlikely and unexplainable abiogensis events on the same planet just because you don't have a better explanation is not logical. It's an excuse.

The quote
>When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
is a fallacy but you seem to be acting like it isn't.

>But they are reasonably complex, and probably arose after at least one abiogenesis event.
They are incredibly complex, just far less so compared to all other life. Pic related is an HIV 3d model. A human red blood cell would be the size of a house when viewing that pic on your screen.
Also, they're parasites. Life must have existed before them or you have the chicken before egg problem.

source of pic
https://www.visual-science.com/projects/

>>11171820
Haha reaaally? Which part is the lie? What fossil evidence [do you believe] is of LIFE before bacteria? Do tell. If you have none, it just sort of popped into existence exactly like I said.

[Anonymous No.11172698]

>>11172678
Why would something without a cell leave a fossil?

[Anonymous No.11172701]

>>11170308
What is
>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

[Anonymous No.11172719]

>>11172698
>something
define and give a non theoretical example of "something without a cell" 2.5 "billion" years ago, after which cells popped into existence.

Certainly if there was nothing before cells then nothing would be leaving fossils... I don't have to prove that nothing is leaving nothing behind....You must explain what was there first before there can be a valid explanation of why nothing was left. Otherwise you must admit your theory is faith based, which is fine by me.

[Anonymous No.11172728]

>>11172049
If it occurred in an entirely different universe than ours how on earth would it make its way here? A wormhole?

[Anonymous No.11172852]

because (if correct) abiogenesis happened in a billion-years-ago unique enviroment that cannot be simulated anymore

[Anonymous No.11172862]

>>11172678
> Haha reaaally?

Yes. Pre-cellular life would be incapable of leaving distinctive fossils.

> If you have none, it just sort of popped into existence exactly like I said.

Wrong. It evolved from earlier precellular life that left no fossils. It did not “pop into existence”.
That is the lie.

[Anonymous No.11172878]

haven't scientists created a protein machine from scratch by using simpler proteins? A molecular "machine" that has reasonable chance of ocurring naturally on earth given enough time (to say, in a time lapse of thousands or maybe millions of years)

[Anonymous No.11172951]

>>11172862
>Yes. Pre-cellular life would be incapable of leaving distinctive fossils.
You don't even have a remotely plausible description of "pre cellular" life (rofl whatever that means, might as well say they were leprechauns) yet you somehow know it can't leave traces of its existence? Please. You pulled this straight out of your ass. If we did find pre-cellular fossil "evidence" tomorrow (we won't because duh these lifeforms never existed;but one of your leaders might pretend they found evidence and you'd fall for it ) you'd change your tone at the drop of the hat and realize you were just making things up to fit the narrative and pre-celluar life can totally leave fossil evidence.....

Bacteria leave fossil evidence; you can't form a valid reason to think bacteria "precursors" would not be able to do the same if you can't even describe what "they" were. I can't form a valid reason to think "they" would be able to either. It's simply a gap in the fossil record, nothing more. However, you are FORCED to invent the excuse your imaginary leprechauns/pre-cellular life was "incapable" of leaving fossils, all to explain this gap in the fossil record to up hold your narrative. It's a made up excuse, nothing more.

And to preemptively answer your inevitable and obvious response; No, I don't have to explain how your theoretical descriptionless pre-cellular life theoretically should leave evidence. If there is no evidence you default to disbelief.

And no, I don't have to offer an alternative theory.

>It evolved from earlier precellular life that left no fossils. It did not “pop into existence”.
>That is the lie.
Ok so we "know" life existed before cellular life because it left no evidence??
haha wow and you've somehow managed to convince yourself I'm the one who's lying. The only person here that's lying is you, and it's to yourself...keep deluding yourself with your religion

[Anonymous No.11173102]

>>11172182
Then whatever evolved into life during abiogenesis wasn't life either.

[Anonymous No.11173118]

>>11168749
cyclical micronova

[Anonymous No.11173376]

>>11172678
>Stacking separate extremely unlikely and unexplainable abiogensis events on the same planet just because you don't have a better explanation is not logical. It's an excuse.
Unexplainable?
We have several possible explanations, we just don't have enough observations/data to narrow it down.

And why not several? Earth has been here 4.6 billion years, the oceans about 4 billion and the earliest signs of life date to over 3.7 billion years ago. That means life only took 300 million years get here, and we've had oceans for another 3300 million years since. If conditions had remained the same, we could reasonably expect about another 11 abiogenesis events since. (discounting panspermia, of course)

>>11172678
>Life must have existed before them
That's my point.

>>11172678
>If you have none, it just sort of popped into existence exactly like I said.
More likely pre-cellular chemicals don't leave fossil evidence.

Go back to /x/, creationist.

[Anonymous No.11173381]

>>11172719
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Anonymous No.11173386]

>>11172951
>You don't even have a remotely plausible description of "pre cellular" life
https://www.google.com/search?q=pre+cellular+life

[Anonymous No.11174166]

>>11173376
>We have several possible explanations, we just don't have enough observations/data to narrow it down.
Complete nonsense. You can't just arbitrarily act as if one of the explanations is "correct" and just assume it's a matter of narrow it down. There are theories, crackpipe ones, that have no reason to be correct.

>we could reasonably expect about another 11 abiogenesis events since
So many fallacies here. This is no different than saying since you won the megamillions lottery on your first try at 18 it's reasonable to expect it to happen again 11 times by old age.

> (discounting panspermia, of course)
Discounting?? LOL the evidence (lack of) does not differentiate, in the least, your theories from panspermia. You cannot distinguish your theory being entirely and completely wrong with another theory which has the same lack of evidence. You have NO evidence of either so why are you certain of one over the other??

>That's my point.
And my point was it's illogical to expect unexplainable and for all we know extremely unlikely/next to impossible events just stack on top of each other to fix the holes in your narrative. It's more logical to just throw out the narrative and look for a new one, but no. It's a religion to you people.

>More likely pre-cellular chemicals don't leave fossil evidence.
A lack of evidence does not mean something must have existed but couldn't leave evidence. Ridiculously simpleton fallacy. The only point here is that you believe in something without being able to provide any evidence for it, and then think the burden of proof is on me??

[Anonymous No.11174171]

>>11173381
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
A LACK of fossil evidence requires me to prove these hypothetical things, which you cannot explain or prove existed, should have been leaving fossil evidence if they did exist? Are you insane? Hey everybody, the loch ness monster is not leaving loch nes monster eggshells around, you must prove why they didn't!!!! It's nonsense to just assume they don't exist!!! The proof is on YOOUUU!!!

HAHAHA The burden of proof lies squarely on you. What were these imaginary pre-cellular "things" and why didn't they leave fossil evidence?

[Anonymous No.11174182]

>>11174171
Prove that they should have left fossil evidence. We aren't talking about the loch ness monster which mythically speaking is 20 feet long. We are talking about something microscopic with no bones or skin or feathers or scales to leave fossils with.

[Anonymous No.11174187]

>>11168724
>Humans can't do it so it must be impossible.
So I guess planets, stars, etc must be impossible too since we can't just whip one up in a lab eh? Fucking retard. What is it in life that made you so arrogant to think that in the tiny fraction of a percent of human history in which the proper scientific method has existed that we suddenly know everything now and should be able to just do everything and anything we want and solve any mystery we want in a timescale to satisfy you?

[Anonymous No.11174191]

>>11171819
you take that back

[Anonymous No.11174214]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid

[Anonymous No.11174528]

>>11168724
If you want some resources on the subject, try the "Hidden Hand interview", "The Law of One" material, and Lloyd Pye's e-book "Everything You Know is Wrong" along with his Youtube presentations. They give explanations relating to where life on Earth came from, and what Earth and reality itself generally is. You can judge the information for yourself, of course. I'm personally into spirituality and came across these in my past, and they inform my current views on the subject. Essentially, I believe that there is firstly One Infinite Consciousness which experiences everything in reality from a plurality of perspectives, and there are also lower-level entities which go on to create their own forms of life and let them evolve on their own into a realization of their underlying nature. On Earth, life was seeded here, but then subsequently allowed to grow and also genetically modified at times. Homo sapiens are a genetic modification by a group the Sumerians knew as the "Annunaki". Therefore "God" (if you want to call it that) does exist, but it's a pantheistic conception which includes your own eternal consciousness within it, rather than being something which created you entirely, and there are also smaller-scale intelligent deities who create and modify their own lifeforms, such as the homo sapiens avatar you are presently dwelling inside. That's what I believe at the present moment.

[Anonymous No.11174571]

>>11174528
this actually makes a lot of sense, can you expound on this view

[Anonymous No.11174585]

>>11174187
>So I guess planets, stars, etc must be impossible too since we can't just whip one up in a lab eh?
Of course they're impossible for us, nitwit, because we lack the resources.
Creating life on the other hand should be well within our means because we can very easily replicate the conditions of precambrian Earth and we possess the necessary building blocks. It is surprising that it hasn't happened because it theoretically should be very easy.

[Anonymous No.11174623]

>>11174571
Sure, and thanks for the receptivity. While it's too much too explain in a single post, you should essentially see all of reality as being a singular, unified consciousness which is experiencing itself through a specific form of entity. The sun, our planet, and every form of entity on here are consciousness in the guise of a particular vessel. Each had their own function within a grand "play" or "game", which it aims to orchestrate. Our Sun is not an unsentient ball of gases, it is itself an intelligent creator. And the Earth is too, albeit sub-ordinate to the Sun. Just as the Sun eventually allows for the Earth to come into itself, so does the Earth eventually and gradually allow for the conditions of life to flourish on itself. It doesn't create life directly, but the Earth is apparently a sentient organism which intentionally fosters the development of sentient life on itself, which could be considered it's "children", in the same way that the planets of the solar system could be considered those of the sun's. The species of Earth are essentially a microcosm of the Earth's macrocosm, extensions from it rather than separate to it. And we ourselves now use our minds to bring further creation into existence - just as our physical vessels were cultivated into existence by the former.

I'm not explaining myself too well, and that's because I don't have a great memory of what I've read thus far. It's all a bit disorganized in my head. So instead of confusing you further, try reading these links here:

Law of One:
https://www.lawofone.info/synopsis-prev.php
http://www.lawofonesociety.com/index.php/what-is-the-law-of-one

Hidden Hand:
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018

Lloyd Pye:
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCrTm4P9ST0Fo626B0OkhiTg

I hope these help you. Try and see whether the information makes sense to you, and see if you can incorporate any of it into your existing worldview. Take care anon.

[Anonymous No.11174662]

>>11168724
because even the minimally complex self replicating system is ridiculously complex. it doesn't mean it can't have happened by chance though. given enough time every event that is physically possible will occur, it doesn't matter how improbable it is.

[Anonymous No.11174677]

>>11174585
It may also require an inordinate amount of time even if the environment can easily be replicated. Scientists might have to spend a few hundred or thousand years running that experiment for anything to come of it, maybe even more. Just because life began a geological instant after stable volumes of water were available doesn't mean it happened in a timescale we can easily run an experiment for. After all a geological instant can be many thousands of years long or even longer, or maybe there's something lacking in the artificial environment we don't know about yet.

[Anonymous No.11174922]

>>11174182
>mythically speaking is 20 feet long
You almost hooked me with this bait. Bravo. I was seriously about to give a real response.

[Anonymous No.11175023]

>>11170232
>I thought the theory is that it only happened once
"across the whole planet" was meant to say that the experimental vessel was the size of the planet, not that it happened more than once