Did autocells lead to life?

Sep 25, 2013 by Amanda Doyle
Convection caused by heating will generate a pattern of hexagons in a thin film of oil, showing that order can be brought to a system. Credit: Van Dyke 1982, An Album of Fluid Motion

The origin of life on Earth is still a hotly-debated topic. There are many different theories on how life was kick-started, as well as various experiments underway attempting to understand the processes involved. For example, a reverse engineering approach can be used by stripping away cells until the simplest possible system is left. However, evolution has ultimately hampered our understanding of life's origins as it has washed away the traces of the first forms of life, making it impossible to retrace life's early steps. This means that even the simple systems left after the reverse engineering approach are still too complicated to bear a resemblance to the first forms of life.

Life must have started simply; it couldn't be created from a complicated group of already working together. There had to a step prior to this in which these molecules themselves were created. Terrence Deacon, of the University of California Berkeley, outlined in a recent talk how this step could have taken place.

Life needs order

A tricky challenge that must be overcome before can form is that order must be generated. However, this is not as simple as it sounds because the state that things will naturally descend into a state of disorder. For example, a book placed precariously on the edge of a shelf will probably fall - thus creating disorder - but it is highly unlikely to create order by picking itself up again.

Order can still be created locally, even when the overall system tends to go towards disorder. Pushing heat through a system can organize it, for example a regular pattern of is created when a thin layer of oil is heated evenly to form Benard convection cells.

"If you heat something up and it gets regularized, what it's doing is it's getting rid of the heat as fast as possible," Deacon explained. "So if you don't keep pumping heat into the system, it'll shut itself down. In fact, self-organizing systems destroy the conditions that enable them as fast as possible."

Life can only be formed by generating order, but it has to do so in such a way that this order doesn't degrade and that the system doesn't ultimately destroy itself.

Autogenesis as a bridge to life

Deacon described a theoretical process called "autogenesis" which has the ability to create, preserve and reproduce order - the distinctive features of living organisms.

This process is effectively comprised of two sub processes: reciprocal catalysis and self assembly. A catalyst is something that speeds up a chemical reaction, and reciprocal catalysis means that two or more catalysts each contribute to the synthesis of each other. Some of the energy gets transferred from the initial molecule to the next, and this goes on to break up another molecule, in turn passing on the energy.

"It's a you scratch my back I scratch your back kind of relationship," said Deacon. "Almost all of the chemistry in living cells has this kind of circularity."

Spontaneous self assembly can occur because some molecules fit together easily in a symmetric manner. This can happen within cells to create microtubules.

A microtubule in a cell is an example where something in life is created spontaneously with self assembly. Credit: Eva Nogales

"Microtubules are kind of like the skeleton of a cell but they're also kind of the roadways inside a cell that molecules travel along," explained Deacon.

Reciprocal catalysis and self assembly give each other a helping hand, as each produces what the other one needs. Reciprocal catalysis produces a local concentration of molecules, but without anything to keep them in place, they will soon wander so far apart that they will no longer be able interact. However, the local concentration of molecules is just what self assembly needs to build a barrier around the catalysts, thus encapsulating them.

"The very thing that you need to do to keep these independent catalysts together is what they produce as a consequence," said Deacon. "The result is that containers contain the stuff that is necessary to make them."

If the container surrounding the catalysts becomes shattered, the catalysts will spill out. All is not lost, however, because they will just create another container for themselves. If the catalysts spread apart a little after the breakage, it's possible that multiple systems could then be created meaning they can effectively "reproduce".

These autogenic "cells", or autocells, are still not living cells in the traditional sense because they still lacks processes that are essential for life.

Nonetheless, the work cycle is similar to what living things can do. They have the ability to create order and then stop it from degrading, instead capturing the conditions needed to recreate itself.

Deacon emphasizes that, in our search for life elsewhere in the Cosmos, we need to stop thinking about how life was created on Earth, and the specific molecules needed, and instead focus our attention on the general principles involved in the creation of life.

Capturing energy

As the autocells repeatedly break apart and reform, they have the chance to sample their environment. If one of the autocells captures a catalyst that functions better than the others, it will produce more of these proactive catalysts, allowing a limited form of .

If this hypothetical molecule was actually something like a nucleotide, then it could also grab energy from the environment by capturing additional phosphates. This extra energy would speed up the system. However, high energy phosphates can hinder the system as it could break it apart completely. By grouping these energetic molecules into polymers, it is possible to store the energy when it is not being used.

The famous Martian meteorite ALH 84001 contains a "fossil" that was ruled out as life because of its small size, however it could still be an autocell - a precursor to life. Credit: NASA

A helping hand from the gas giants

A huge problem lies in the fact that the autogenic process is unlikely to start on a planet such as the prebiotic Earth, as the polymers needed for life will break down in water. However, if we take our chemistry experiment to a gas giant like Jupiter, the high levels of methane and ammonia will produce hydrogen cyanide polymers. These polymers can only be produced in environments without water and have a "backbone" identical to proteins, but with different side chains. These are called polyamidines.

If these polyamidines hitched a ride to the Earth in earlier epochs when the Earth was being bombarded by outer Solar System material, they would come into contact with water. However, these particular polymers will resist being broken down for some time. Instead, they replace their side chains with the carbohydrates characteristic of proteins.

In this way, they create partial proteins, and this might be a way that autogenesis based on proteins began on the early Earth. The inner planets also have the advantage of containing phosphorous, sulfur and iron which are unavailable in the outer planets, and these metals speed up catalysis.

Deacon is adamant that whole solar systems are needed to generate life, not just terrestrial planets with water. Life probably needs a solar system similar to our own to start, although autogenic processes could still occur in a system that only has gas giants.

The catalysts could form enough molecules that self assembly occurs, creating a barrier around the catalysts so that they don't disperse. Credit: Terrence Deacon

He also raised an interesting point regarding the ALH 84001 Martian meteorite, which initially excited scientists by appearing to contain fossilized microbes. This possibility was later ruled out by most people, partly because the structures are thought to be too small. However the size and structure are what is expected from an autocell, so this meteorite could be showing us a fossilized precursor for life. Deacon believes that autogenesis could have occurred on Mars before Earth, but only our planet had the right conditions in the long term for this to lead to life.

Even in an alternate theory on life's origins, where it is suggested that life began with the "RNA world", there is evidence that life on Earth could not have started without the other planets. Stephen Benner presented an idea at the Goldschmidt conference in August that the conditions on the prehistoric Earth would only have served to inhibit the formation of RNA. Mars, on the other hand, would have been just right. While there was some water on ancient Mars, there wouldn't have been enough to hamper the formation of RNA. Also, while the early Earth was starved of oxygen, Mars would have had enough to create oxidized molybdenum and boron, which are pivotal in the construction of RNA.

Autogenic forms are probably more widespread than life in the Universe as they can be constructed from many different materials. It's a generic type of chemistry which may be similar throughout the Universe, indicating that the process is more important that than the molecules themselves.

Explore further: We may all be Martians: New research supports theory that life started on Mars

Related Stories

New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life

Sep 13, 2013

Before there was life on Earth, there were molecules. A primordial soup. At some point a few specialized molecules began replicating. This self-replication, scientists agree, kick-started a biochemical process that would ...

Could life have survived a fall to Earth?

Sep 12, 2013

(Phys.org) —It sounds like science fiction, but the theory of panspermia, in which life can naturally transfer between planets, is considered a serious hypothesis by planetary scientists. The suggestion ...

Molecules assemble in water, hint at origins of life

Feb 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—The base pairs that hold together two pieces of RNA, the older cousin of DNA, are some of the most important molecular interactions in living cells. Many scientists believe that these base pairs ...

Recommended for you

SpaceX launches supplies to space station (Update)

6 hours ago

The SpaceX company returned to orbit Friday, launching fresh supplies to the International Space Station after more than a month's delay and setting the stage for urgent spacewalking repairs.

Sun emits a mid-level solar flare

6 hours ago

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 9:03 a.m. EDT on April 18, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured images of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful ...

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

8 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...

The importance of plumes

9 hours ago

The Hubble Space Telescope is famous for finding black holes. It can pick out thousands of galaxies in a patch of sky the size of a thumbprint. The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided ...

Ceres and Vesta Converge in Virgo

12 hours ago

Don't let them pass you by. Right now and continuing through July, the biggest and brightest asteroids will be running on nearly parallel tracks in the constellation Virgo and so close together they'll easily ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2013
A tricky challenge that must be overcome before life can form is that order must be generated. However, this is not as simple as it sounds because the laws of physics state that things will naturally descend into a state of disorder. For example, a book placed precariously on the edge of a shelf will probably fall - thus creating disorder - but it is highly unlikely to create order by picking itself up again.


What?

Sounds like a intelligent design fundamentalist wrote this.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of order and disorder, is in a CLOSED SYSTEM ONLY.

An open system allows order to be restored or order to be made. The Earth is an open system.

nowhere
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2013
What?

Sounds like a intelligent design fundamentalist wrote this.

Why would you get that impression?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of order and disorder, is in a CLOSED SYSTEM ONLY.

Yet everything is part of a greater closed system.

An open system allows order to be restored or order to be made. The Earth is an open system.

Earth is an open system that's part of a greater closed system. Within this closed system it is possible for order to form locally, while the total system still tends towards disorder.
freethinking
1 / 5 (35) Sep 25, 2013
Evolutionists and Atheists make fun of creationist for having faith. But let me get this straight, according to evolutionists and atheists, even though it was never observed, can't be repeated, but if you wait a really really really really really long time, something can come from nothing. If you wait a really really really really really really really long time, life can occur on a planet, but just not on earth. If you then wait a really really really really really long time, this life can some how be transported to earth. If you then wait a really really really really really really long time, this life can turn into people.

Faith is defined at: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

depth12
3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2013
Evolutionists and Atheists make fun of creationist for having faith. But let me get this straight, according to evolutionists and atheists, .......

Faith is defined at: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


So you are making fun of religious people now. What you read here in the article is called speculation. How it actually happened is not really known which is mentioned in the article.
Why do you need to come to a science article spew nonsense, when clearly you don't understand science. Whereas religious people are certain of their belief(even if there is evidence which contradicts their belief),Science has nothing to do with faith and belief.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2013
What?

Sounds like a intelligent design fundamentalist wrote this.

Why would you get that impression?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of order and disorder, is in a CLOSED SYSTEM ONLY.

Yet everything is part of a greater closed system.

An open system allows order to be restored or order to be made. The Earth is an open system.

Earth is an open system that's part of a greater closed system. Within this closed system it is possible for order to form locally, while the total system still tends towards disorder.


You have completely misunderstood the 2nd law. If what you say is true, then life wouldn't exist, bigger atoms than hydrogen wouldn't exist. We would all be suffering entropy and nothing would be ordered.

The universe is big, very big, so it being a closed system has little affect on Earth, and open system. You've completely missed the point
Sean_W
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2013
"Deacon is adamant that whole solar systems are needed to generate life, not just terrestrial planets with water."

I am adamant that a bit of pre-terrestrial--possibly pre solar system--chemistry may have been involved but that having gas giants and a non aqueous precursor stage is in no way mandatory for life to develop. There are some pretty complex chemicals floating around in space which have no requirement to avoid water and in fact would be able to move about faster to try new orientations in water.

Whichever one of us is more adamant wins, right?
Sean_W
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2013
What?

Sounds like a intelligent design fundamentalist wrote this.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of order and disorder, is in a CLOSED SYSTEM ONLY.

An open system allows order to be restored or order to be made. The Earth is an open system.



The author is pointing out the thermodynamic fallacy so it can be dispelled a few sentences later.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
Too detailed (untested subprocesses), and yet lacking necessary details (barrier building).

First, entropy is only approximatively making "disorder". In confined systems, such as cells, the states with highest entropy are the most ordered.

Second, energy flow was sustained during most of abiogenesis. We already know from various homologies (CHNOPS sea water-cell, chemoosmosis gradient alkaline vents - cells, chemistry alkaline vents -cells) that life is a branch of energetic geochemistry (alkaline hydrothermal vents in sea water).

Reciprocal catalysis is subsumed into that homology. This is consistent with "the dirty RNA world", which contrary to Deacon and Benner likely is the main theory now. Nitpick: It remains to test that oxidized molybdenum and boron are constraining RNA production. Early protocell lipid membranes stabilize, and are stabilized by, their components.

We know the likely pathway life arose precisely because we studied astrobiology of Earth.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
[ctd]

And what about the hypothetical chemistry? Or worse, the infamous pattern matching of ALH 84001!? Brazier et al took out the sledge hammer on such 'fossils' already -06.

I like the "environmental sampling" hypothesis though. It's a keeper.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2013
Creationist trolling science is hilarious. And they make deconverts from religion, see Dawkins's Convert's Corner. Thanks guys!

And no, we don't make fun of creationists just because they are deluded into accepting unwarranted belief. We make fun of the obviously stupid and useless idea of magic.

Historically, it has been found to be the worst idea one could come up with to 'explain' things.

It turns out that magic is incompatible with homogeneous (so long lived enough and having life) and isotropic (so having laws) Friedmann universes. Choose magic, but then no life. Or choose reality, and then you are unlikely to be without life.

Even worse is the idea of random "poofing" of individual species. Universal common ancestry is more likely than multiple ancestors by a factor > 10^2000. The most unlikely idea is creationism. It is much unlikelier than finding a specific individual atom out of the whole universe!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
[I meant magic _action_ in my previous comment. It is too much deviance from a spontaneously occurring zero energy universe that destroys the livable universes.]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
@Sean_W: =D

@nowhere: Earth is an open system, but it isn't part of neither "a greater closed system" or an open system.

Universes are, like black holes, resonances (fuzzy instantons). Since some (but not ours) can have planckian curvatures, like black holes, like black holes you need to sum over all geometries to ask the Hilbert space your quantum question. (This is how we know black holes preserves probabilities.)

It is iffier to ask a universe about its entropy than its energy. In the latter case it is semiclassically open (expansion works like friction) and closed (Friedmann universes are exactly zero energy - which means they are spontaneously created and _can't_ be magically created btw.)

But when you use holography you get the answer that universe entropy increases over time (so we have an arrow of time).

Order on the other hand goes first up (evolving galaxies and life) then down (heat death, since entropy increases to a max value; diluting towards zero matter density).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
Why a universe internally looks like an open system with changing free energy, so it can have phase transitions (from inflatons to whatever is more energetic than standard particles to standard particles), yet externally looks like a closed system (so can fluctuate into existence), is maybe odd if you think of other systems.

But it isn't odd if you think about how it has to work as a system (preferably having internal dynamics, but also having to be a universe unto itself).
freethinking
1 / 5 (21) Sep 25, 2013
I don't make fun of evolutionists just because they are deluded into accepting unwarranted beliefs. I make fun of the obviously stupid and useless idea that given enough time, unicorns can be made out of nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2013
I don't make fun of evolutionists just because they are deluded into accepting unwarranted beliefs. I make fun of the obviously stupid and useless idea that given enough time, unicorns can be made out of nothing.
-But you get all of your theories about creation from a book full of confirmed lies.
Faith is defined at: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
-This is incomplete. Faith is belief regardless of evidence.

Evidence tells us that the source of your beliefs (your book) is unreliable. And since there IS absolutely no other source for these beliefs of yours concerning creation, natural laws, and morality, then they can be disregarded without further consideration.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2013
The proper way to regard faith
http://www.youtub...1UWol7l8
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 25, 2013
Otto, you know as well as I do that evolutionists and Atheists will not consider evidence that doesn't fit their viewpoints or dogma.

Again it is the evolutionists and atheists that have dogmatic faith that preclude any consideration of any evidence that might in the slightest prove their closely held beliefs wrong.

DavidW
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2013
Faith is defined at: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


What gives?

Are you saying to believe in someone or something that is NOT REAL gives miraculous powers to the person completely trusting?

What about the others who do believe in something that IS actually REAL? What power do they get?

Blind trust doesn't ever take precedence over REAL 'Truthful' understanding. Not as far as the truth goes. We are equal. If the very REAL truth itself is ignored by trusting in something or someone not truthfully REAL, then the one holding faith and believing in what is truthfully REAL would have the power.

The things of real value only have value because they are Truthful.

Life IS Most Important. <--- The Most Important Truth. <--- The most valuable of ALL.

Blind faith is bad idea. Saying Jesus is Christ and FAITHFULLY believing it requires a Life and following the Truth. Killing animals needlessly does not follow the Most Important Truth.
malapropism
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2013
@DavidW
WTF are you on about dude? That makes no sense at all - and I've read it through multiple times really trying to figure something coherent out of it. (Or is the proper question more akin to, "what are you on?")
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2013
Life started simply, but the cell is complex. Researchers must not assume that one is dependant on the other...

My other point is that the word 'create' is repeated used in place of 'evolved', 'developed' or other more appropriate adjectives.

On entropy: to drive a lowering of entropy you need an energy input. We have the sun. The entropy of the sun's energy is much higher when it leaves the Earth.

There is no thermodynamic problem with this. You can take a lump of clay and make a nice bowl out of it, but you input energy. The Earth can generate life from basic constituents but it takes energy which comes mostly from the sun (a small contribution from the earth's core).
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2013
Once you have a process fore creating molecules with a hydrophillic end and a hydrophobic end you have a source of molecules that will automatically construct membranes.

Once the membranes form, they will soak up similar molecules from the surrounding solution and grow.

Surface tension will cause them to bud and produce daughter "cells".

Any self propagating molecule that is bound within such a "cell" will automatically have a high probability of being carried by the daughter cells.

If such a molecule can produce more membrane molecules as well, you have a nearly functional cell.

The rest just builds on those two basic elements.

DavidW
1 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2013
@DavidW
That makes no sense at all


Freethinking mentioned faith. I simply pointed out that faith in BS is BS and has no value.

The things that have value are the truthful things because they enrich and promote life, as indeed life is actually most important of all. Don't think so? Then argue your point without life.

Agree, then if faith is based in something or someone that is not truthful then faith has no value at all.

It's not enough to have faith. Listening to the Truth is what produces real faith that actually works.

I believe in a True Living God. People that eat animals when nourishing vegetation is available, whether they profess Christ as the Messiah or not, are not actually following their Messiah. It never ceases to amaze me the brainwashing false faith people will use to self-justify their wrong doing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2013
atheists do not consider evidence
I know you religionists tend to be compulsive bigots but even you know that this claim of yours is generally not true. Most atheists reached their conclusions BECAUSE of evidence. Religionists can only maintain their faith by IGNORING evidence.
belief in something real gives you miraculous powers
But your living loving god is not real because the only description you have of him, and the only source of evidence for his existence, comes from books which are demonstrably full of LIES.

And so your delusions and epiphanies and euphoria must originate somewhere else, perhaps in compulsive wishful thinking and gullibility and the power of the placebo and the disease of addiction.
I believe in a true living Cod
Truth is, your god is a lie. How can you possibly reconcile this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2013
It's funny to watch religionists debating the nature of truth. By the way Dave if meat is verboten why did god make it healthy and nutritious? Why isn't it poison? Why have many cultures such as the esquimaux and the Mongols eaten mostly meat of necessity, and have thrived on it?
DavidW
1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
I believe in a true living God

But your living loving god is not real because the only description you have of him, and the only source of evidence for his existence, comes from books which are demonstrably full of LIES.


Truth is, your god is a lie. How can you possibly reconcile this?



My evidence is Truth and Life. The two most important things of mutual observation. No books are necessary. A child that can't read can easily understand and everyone has equal access. We need only look to ourselves. Life and Truth are always right there, so long as we are alive.

DavidW
1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2013
It's funny to watch religionists debating the nature of truth. By the way Dave if meat is verboten why did god make it healthy and nutritious? Why isn't it poison? Why have many cultures such as the esquimaux and the Mongols eaten mostly meat of necessity, and have thrived on it?


I don't have to prove you wrong to understand that when hurting and killing Life is unnecessary, the actions are not truthful. You seem to think that everything is okay unless your point of view is proved wrong. Truth is, we are never above the Truth. Change your past or reply without using Life if you think you above the Truth. The Truth says that Life is Most Important. If we hurt and murder Life for any reason then the absolute necessity to save Life then the actions are untruthful. If you want to lie, that's your call. I'll stick with the truth rather than choose a lie and then look to others to prove my actions wrong like you are doing. Why? Because we are never above the Truth! That's real!

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2013
A child that can't read can easily understand and everyone has equal access. We need only look to ourselves. Life and Truth are always right there, so long as we are alive
Children are also apt to believe in santa claus and tooth fairies.

Children raised in religionist families hear what their parents and preachers repeat from their books. NOWHERE ELSE will you find descriptions of these grand promises of wishes granted and eternal life in paradise, than in your books. And since these books contain verifiable nonsense and deception, we can discount anything we find in them. ANYTHING.

Without your books you and your children would not have the least notion that these fantasies might be possible. And like the rest of us, if someone suggested them to you you would consider them ridiculous, in the same way you now consider the content of any other religion besides your own, to be ridiculous.

Your use of the words god and truth in the same context is obscene.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2013
I don't have to prove you wrong to understand that when hurting and killing Life is unnecessary
-Most everything we eat was once alive.
Truth is, we are never above the Truth.
-Except for you religionists who seem to revel in lies.
That's real!
-But the gods in your books are not real. If you want to save animals and the world youve got to start by admitting this. Because your religions threaten to destroy everything.

Your use of the words god and truth in the same context is obscene.
jsdarkdestruction
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2013
what did those nourishing plants do to deserve being killed and eaten by you? just because a plant can't run away or show pain and/or a desire to live it's ok to eat it? isn't that just like an old angle you vegetarians played when it came to animals and killing them? those plants are far more innocent than the herbivores that devour them that we humans eat. perhaps its time you reconsider and join the side of good and eat only meat in atonement for all the innocent plants you've murdered and devoured.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2013
what did those nourishing plants do to deserve being killed and eaten by you? just because a plant can't run away or show pain and/or a desire to live it's ok to eat it? isn't that just like an old angle you vegetarians played when it came to animals and killing them? those plants are far more innocent than the herbivores that devour them that we humans eat. perhaps its time you reconsider and join the side of good and eat only meat in atonement for all the innocent plants you've murdered and devoured.


Ideally, take a leaf or pick a fruit, not the whole plant, if you can.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2013
not the whole plant
-So it is better to remove an arm or a leg rather than to eat the whole creature? Don't you think that ripping off a leaf before it is ready to fall tortures the plant?

That act reduces the plants ability to sustain itself and forces it to expend resources to replace that leaf. This weakens it and leaves it susceptible to competition from it's brethren who do not share your concerns as to it's comfort and welfare.

Religions force overgrowth by requiring adherents to reproduce beyond their means, in order to outgrow and overrun their neighbors. Like plants they don't care whether their neighbors suffer or not.

But unlike plants, humans have no natural attritive elements to keep their numbers in check. They are fully capable of stripping the landscape and of devouring all of your precious animals and plants right down to hoof and squeal and root and seed.

Your religions force the destruction of all you hold dear. Time to ADMIT this and give them UP.
meBigGuy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2013
I've posted this before.
"Mathematically it is near impossible "

Actually, it has been shown that it is mathmatically very feasible. Based on the principle that the combinations deriving from failed mutations can be excluded. But, you won't hear that. Your mind is made up.
Also, the number of choices needed to get highly improbable results is much less than one would intuitively suspect.

I think in Wistar some idiot said the chances of life arising randomly was 1 in 10^350 (BTW, there are only 10^80 atoms in the Universe). He later recanted, but let's go with his number. It only takes 1163 correct decisions to resolve a 1 in 10^350 choice. That doesn't prove anything, only illustrates how small 10^350 actually is on a decision tree.

The supposed math arguments against the origin of life are all a joke. A distraction.
Whats next_
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2013
God created cattle (sheep, cows etc) for us to eat, hence even after us eating them on a daily basis they haven't gone extinct. Look at Lions, Tigers, Pandas, Cheetahs, Science is trying with all their might to save them but having a hard time as they are not meant to be staple food for humans. Now quote all stupid examples you want to, the Truth is clear from falsehood.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2013
God created cattle (sheep, cows etc) for us to eat, hence even after us eating them on a daily basis they haven't gone extinct. Look at Lions, Tigers, Pandas, Cheetahs, Science is trying with all their might to save them but having a hard time as they are not meant to be staple food for humans
Actually it's pretty obvious that people created domesticated animals, in part because we continue to do so today. If your god created anything it was the wild animals, but he chose to extinct 99.9% of them in the process.

How come? Did it actually take that many iterations before he could get it right? By the way if you think that wild animals are superfluous, consider that if too many species are lost, ecosystems will collapse and then no amount of praying will save our own species from extinction.

But then you don't much care do you? Because you'll be in heaven with all the other dodos and gooney birds and dinosaurs.

Oh wait - you're a troll aren't you? Never mind then.
Whats next_
1 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2013
In both scenarios (God or just Science), we would win hands down (if no God, what the heck we enjoyed the benefits of Science), but you my friend on the other hand would lose out in the next life! So it's actually 2 to 1!
Happy researching for us Believers!
JohnGee
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2013
Pascal's Wager is the best you can come up with?
Whats next_
1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2013
You can come up with something better then please help us fools...

More news stories

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...

Researchers successfully clone adult human stem cells

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers, led by Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, has announced that they have performed the first successful cloning of adult human skin cells into stem ...