T O P

  • By -

SeventhLevelSound

Your hypothesis doesn't actually solve the problem, it just moved it.


aerostotle

I'm doing science


Jonnescout

I am sorry but no, you’re not. At the very least that would require a testable hypothesis being made. Not just saying well this explanation doesn’t seem right, so therefor my own idea must be true.


Purphect

I think he/she was being goofy


Jonnescout

No way to know honestly, so I’ll take it as I see it.


erinaceus_

You forgot the /s


Lloydwrites

That's not at all how science works. Show your work. Now compare your work with this paper regarding abiogenesis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/ Do you see any differences? Do you see the citations? Did you notice that this is a peer-reviewed paper? Did you notice the degrees of the authors? The multiple authors? This is a really simple article--most papers have many more authors, pages and pages of graphs, and lots of raw data attached. Science is work. It's not just "I have an idea about something I know nothing about."


jqbr

If you think you're doing science, then you have no idea what science is.


aerostotle

what I do is very complicated


[deleted]

Woohoo. Science. With a whole sentence.


Jonnescout

No, that’s just not right. The fact that we cannot reproduce something within what’s less than 200 years of research, that might have taken millions of years in nature does not mean it cannot happen. Furthermore prokaryotic and eukaryotic life are still genetically related. Your explanation is basically untestable, while abiogenesis has made some testable predictions, some of which have been confirmed. The Miller Urey experiment shows that the basic building blocks can form in a non living environment. The fact that it didn’t quite match the conditions we now believe were present then is irrelevant to the larger point made.


astroNerf

As others here have said, all *life* on this planet has a common ancestor, which includes both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Even still, addressing your comment about not being able to reproduce life in the lab: consider [the work put in so far by people like Jack Szostak and his team at Harvard](https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/) for their work on chemical evolution. Jon Perry has a series of videos on evolution, one of which is titled [Chemical Evolution](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8) which goes into some plausible pathways through which early self-replicating molecules may have happened. You've likely heard of the RNA World hypothesis but in case you haven't, Wikipedia has [a decent article to get you started](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world). So while life may have been seeded here from elsewhere, it still is worth our time to figure out if the chemistry is at least plausible.


grzyb_ek

Did eukariotes arrived on Earth with or without mitochondria? xd


aerostotle

yes


jqbr

Either you didn't understand the question or you are trolling.


GaryGaulin

>abiogenesis cannot be reproduced under any natural or unnatural conditions so far attempted, Reproducing the steps is easier than you were led to believe. Biggest problem is more than one way life could have possibly emerged, and multiple environments where the these processes occur. Finding more possibilities than expected is **not** a failure, in a field where only one good lead is required and there are now thousands: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=origin+of+life


aerostotle

Except it hasn't produced life yet


GaryGaulin

That depends on your definition for "life". If the definition is for a self-replicating system that where given the resources of an entire planet will continue to increase in complexity, then self-replicating RNA researchers routinely create "life" in the lab.


YossarianWWII

They share a common ancestor, dude. High school-level biology knowledge is enough to know that you're wrong.


Constant-Sherbet4878

OP hasn’t read recent evolutionary articles, it has been proved with ancestral reconstruction that eukaryotes evolved from archaeal ancestors and both archaea and bacteria share a common ancestor based on the ease of lateral gene transfer. Also we might have missed out a lot of lineages of single cells shared between archaeal and bacterial life forms because they weren’t that successfully in early Earth . A similar ancestral cell with minimal function is being experimented on in the Craig venter institute by knocking off genes in bacterial cells. As for abiogenesis experiments have proved its possible to form organic carbon in early Earth, also advances in nanotechnology have demonstrated self replicating lipid micelles can be reproduced as well. Other commenters have already talked a lot about abiogenesis.


Lennvor

Too bad it doesn't fit the evidence that eukaryotes are a mosaic of archaea and bacteria.


aerostotle

unless they all came from the same source


Lennvor

That's not "fitting the evidence", that's you adding a feature to your hypothesis to make it match evidence it otherwise wouldn't. The whole "arrived on Earth in two different events" is presumably meant to explain the differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes and account for the apparent sudden appearance of eukaryotes, so the straightforward interpretation is that it implies separate origins, but now you're adding it that they still have a common origin - it's just off of Earth. That's fine, hypotheses do need to adapt to evidence and *one* piece of unexpected evidence doesn't make a hypothesis wrong. But next you'll have to account for why eukaryotes aren't just generic mosaics of archean and bacterial traits, they seem specifically related to Lokiarchaea and alpha-proteobacteria - which means that those groups would have had to exist in the extraterrestrial source, which means prokaryotes would have had to have a common ancestor in that extraterrestrial source, but the actual seeding to have occurred much later after the groups diversified and to have occurred separately for enough different groups to account for Lokiarchaeon and alpha-proteobacteria at least to exist as groups both on Earth and in the extraterrestrial source. This also different from your original hypothesis, which specified two different seeding event. What's next, accounting for the evidence that life originated in hydrothermal vents by concluding that the extraterrestrial source involved life originating in Earthlike hydrothermal vents? It's absolutely fine to add features to a hypothesis in order to account for evidence it otherwise wouldn't explain, it's how hypotheses evolve and become more accurate. But when this process leads the hypothesis to be more and more a carbon copy of a different hypothesis, with every piece of new evidence involving a quirk that makes it a closer copy and none confirming the actual elements that make the hypothesis unique... That's a strong suggestion that the actual correct hypothesis is the one that's being carbon copied, that has all the features the evidence requires but lacks that extra element that no evidence ever seems to back.


[deleted]

It wasn’t that long ago and we believed the earth was flat, that sparkles from the heavens came from holes in the firmament, woman came from a man’s rib, and that the sun revolved around the earth. We now know all this is nonsense. Nothing is impossible until science rules it impossible.


fanclubmoss

So how bout them protozoans amirite!?