One of the interesting things on earth is that fish aren't very smart...
They have as many reasons as other organisms to develop intelligence but they don't.
The reason is fairly simple...Air.
Now while I am a bit prejudiced (as an air breather) it is still true that thinking requiers a huge amount of concentrated energy on a continouus basis...We weigh from 110-250 lbs as adults but most of the energy in our large bodies is used by our brains.
On earth, and likley all other water planets, oxygen is the only wide spread oxydizer availible to produce the high power requierments of thinking.
Air has just over 20% oxygen
Water has just under 2% oxygen
You do the math
All inelligent water animals currently known are air breathing and evolved on land only to return to the ocean later.
As a Christian, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research either.
The bible clearly states that the unborn are chattle and while they are human life, they aren't a human person. Virtually all references to the start of life include breath/breathing etc. You actually have to strain very hard to find biblical support for embryonic protection.
I just personally disagree with the creation of embryo's for the sole purpose of destroying them. They may not be a person but they are still valuable.
They use all sorts of things to power them (like solar from the deserts).
Remeber the orbital subway system from "The moon is a harsh mistress"? They stored the power used to launch the cab in shipstones. They were recharged when the cab was slowed at the destination.
If you recall from "Friday" Shipstones are just extremly good batteries. They provide extremly convinient power storage NOT power creation......And I just realized how nerdy I am!
For instance, say you had a slightly less efficient protein that tended to drop things (high energy protons and electrons) before they were completly used slightly more requently than "normal." These dropped high energy particles will typically just generate extra heat or escape into the cell.
SOOO...you could eat more without gaining weight...
OR.... They would be dropped and escape the mitochondria and react with the cell causing oxidative stress leading to signs of aging or even cancer...
Both of these outcomes have been seen in people and both have "normal" mitochondria. While the nuclear DNA has a much stronger effect, mitochondria are critical and will also effect your life and health. Plus mitochondrial DNA mutates at a rate about an order of magnitude faster than nucear DNA (due to proximity to high energy reactions and reduced gene DNA protection systems) so your mDNA is almost certainly different than your mothers.
You can actually buy cell lines and even mouse strains that have defective mitochondria. With these lines you can give them a specific chemical and ALL the mitochondria will be killed. You can then add a different mitochondrial line which will replicate and save the cell...allowing you to study the altered metabolism.
Genetic researchers "know" why cloned animals don't necessarily look alike. A lot of the features we tune in on (spots and other colorations) are based on an absolutly random gene deactivation. Therefor identical twins (or clones) will have different freckles and slightly different hair colors etc.
But also it is important to remember that not all the information needed to create a cell is located in the DNA. All organells (like mitochondria) (with a few very obscure exceptions) cannot be recreated by the cell if removed. Therefore they contain unique information which can have a dramatic effect on the end result of development. These organells come exclusivly from the donor egg (with a few occasional exceptions (like mitochondria every now and then)).
What makes this experiment interesting is that they are now trying to develop finer controls over the clones organells which can help eliminate other diseases.
All the other "jobs" are simply side effects of the energy conversion function (calcium storage and membrane potential etc). The one exception to that is the example of ammonium degridation. This is controlled from the neculus NOT the mitochondria. If the mitochondria can't accept proteins from the nucleus then it will die. But if it can accept anything, it will accept everything with the correct targeting sequence.
Therefore if the gene for ammonia processing is messed up in the genome, it wouldn't matter if you changed the mitochondria.
Mitochondria are effecticly self contained bacteria with their own genome, rRNA, and other support structures as if they were real cells. Infact mitochondria replicate like cells inside the cytoplasm. Now they also requier some proteins that are encoded and imported from the nucleus, but they don't release anything except carbon dioxide, water and ATP.
Even if one mitocondria can only do half of the kreb cycle while it's neighbor can do the other half, they still couldn't coolaberate and function as a funcitonal unit.
So long as there are working Mitochondria, the defective one are just wasted resources.
I noticed there has been no recent update. My bet is that he got all his money back from the people who actually screwed up...the police and DA. By every deffinition of the word he was assaulted and kidnapped.
He was handcuffed, told to shut up and refused his civil rights. The police violated him NOT BofA. BofA did everything right except for not speaking with him first.
I am not surprised at all that BofA didn't send him 14K
I did exactly that. I told them that I received a large check from someone I have not yet done business with and asked if they could confirm the check was legit first.
There is no criminal violation for HOLDING a bad check, only attempting to exercise it. So as long as you aren't trying to get money you are in no way violating any law.
Even holding bad currency is technically a federal offence unless you are a bank however the FBI doesn't prosecute you unless you have a lot on you etc.
Banks are requiered to confiscate counterfeit currency and are the only non-federal government organizations that can hold counterfeit money without risking prosecution.
However a check is not subject to such restrictions. Once you try to deposite the check it becomes the property of the bank and they will deliver it to the FBI or whoever. But there is no crime in mearly HOLDING a bad check, only exercising it.
I never tried to cash the check (since I would have been cahrged $30+) I only asked them to confirm the money order was legit...which they could not.
I called up Money Gram and told them about the bad check and they told me to destroy it if I wanted to....I decided to keep it as a reminder.
This is what I get for not looking up the proper spelling before I post....
For those who are interested MICR ink is raised, has very crisp edges and will not bleed through the paper.
If you have any concerns, look for those features. If all else fails, take it to a bank and ask them to run it through their MICR reader before depositing it.
Absolutly I accept other forms than cash. Craigslist is only really effective because it is all over the US for free...I have only done one local deal and it WAS cash. Requiering cash for non-local deals is a good way to not sell anything.
My Experience I have found Paypal to be very good so long as you send to a confirmed address and get tracking. I have had several people try and argue it but once I send Paypal the tracking number the dispute goes away in my favor.
Personal checks are riskier but I still haven't had that much of a problem. I always deposit them first and only ship once it has cleared. In over 1,000 check/money order transactions I have only had one bad check. And the check was bad for lack of funds. The person paid me immediatly with a money order plus my bank fee.
Legit money orders are usually so easy to identify that I would ship "at risk" before depositing them. I have run across 4 people trying to pass off fake money orders and never lost anything to them.
The grandparent is note worthy only because it was actually convincing in all but one detail.
I have had well over 20,000 online transactions and by following the rules above I have had about 30 problems and never lost money on any of them.
The moral of the story is:
Online business is safe and effective for everyone involved so long as you don't do anything stupid like ship before confirming payment and always get tracking numbers.
Last year I had someone send me a Money Gram money order to cash for something I was selling on craigslist. I was kinda suspicious when he asked to cash a check for more than I was selling the item for....
Now I have sold stuff online for years and can usually spot a fake immediatly...This one I had to take to a bank to confirm!
Someone had stolen a roll of blank money gram money orders and entered a valid serial number and everything. The only thing wrong was the micker ink. The numbers at the bottom of that check were standard ink, not magnetic...
A lot of times they use charge. You can determine the charge of a particle and then place it in a known EM field and observe how quickly it reacts which gives you mass.
I appreciate your compliment and my coworkers now wonder why I am grinning and blushing! I have just one further comment.
Your comment "The fact that the current (most popular) scientific theory of the origin of life seems to change with each new discovery or theory is precisely why I do not believe it should ever be taught as or considered fact." actually proves that evolution "conforming(s) to your ideal of falsifiability." Specific aspects are proven inadequate (common) or wrong(very rare) and replaced. Just like Einstein's theory of gravity proved that Newton's theory was wrong and therefore replaced it. Just like the egyptian Pi of 3 was proven wrong and replaced with 3.14... . That is the essence of scientific exploration.
But I also think you are confusing the deffinition of fact, hypothesis and theory. A fact is a direct observation. A theory is the reasoning that results in the observed fact. A hypothesis is a specific test to evaluate and attempt to disprove a theory.
Therefore:
Fact-New species are created through genetic diversification of ancestors. Theory-Environmental pressure creates a force to encourage the strong and discourage the weak therby exploiting pre-existing or new genetic changes. Hypothesis-Putting a species in a new environment will cause an observable change over time.
Fact-Jesus Christ led a ministry in and around current Jeruselum circa 30AD and was supsequently executed for blasphamy and sedition. (Confirmed through innumerable 3rd party records that outnumber the 3rd party records that prove the existance of Julius Ceaser) Theory-The big JC is the son of god and his death liberated the rest of us from our sins just like he said. Hypothesis-Try to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and find out for certain.
As far as our discussion goes: Fact-The biblical record has proven to be remarkable accurate from the time point of the book of Exodus onward. (Confirmed through archeological evidence) Theory-The book of genesis is equally accurate. Hypothesis-??? Hence the problem.
Fact-Modern lifeforms requier a complete biosphere to survive and the initial environment on earth could not support said life. Theory-The non-living earth gave rise to living organic lifeforms. Hypothesis-Create an environment like found on primordial earth and see if organic life arrises within a statistically relavant time.
No one but a lazy reporter or a politician say "evolution is fact." People who know about it say "evolution is a proven theory." While I freely admit that the abiotic start of life is not yet a "proven theory" neither has it been disproven to the point that it is impossible. I personally am looking forward to the first true abiotic life created in the lab.
I also sadly agree that your conversation is disapointingly accurate. I have really enjoyed conversing with you. In the end, science needs to be kept out of morality because it cannot provide a why, only a how. Religion needs to be kept out of science because it cannot provide a how, only a why.
Man introduced Ciclids into lake Victoria about 200 years ago. There are now a dozen more species of Ciclids than were ever introduced and they are all found exclusivly in lake Victoria. Also other African lakes with Ciclids have shown similar but not quite so dramatic changes. I remember an exibit from the Field Museum in Chicago where a sample of Ciclids were inventoried. Shortly after the local fisherman started using nets with large holes. A few decades later the fish in the lake were inventoried again and they discovered new species of small fish. The then fisherman changed their nets to catch the smaller fish. Very quickly large fish developed which were capable of breaking through the new nets. This is only remarkable because the large species is different than the original large species. This is less significant than the lake Victoria example because it is possible (although very unlikley) that the species already existed and was just missed in the very through inventory earlier.
Ring species are simply a proof of evolution. There is no way to explain them in a faslifiable maner without evolution.
Also, I suggest you research chaos theory. You will find that in any complex, self-supporting system with an energy input, complexity will tend to increase and at the same time make the system more stable against outside disruption. In biological terms, the clotting cascade is a perfect example. To clot we have a large number of steps from the initial injury to a final clot. Each step provides a handle for added control. Currently we need each step to work right or we will either spontaneously clot (your blood becomes solid in your veins) or not clot at all (we bleed out from a minor scrape). Through random changes it is very easy to add steps to this system but extremly difficult (but not impossible, look up dolphins) to remove a step without killing the organism. At this point in history we are absolutly reliant on our blood to transport the oxygen we need for our high energy lifestyle. However this was not always the case. Some species of sponges have a blood equivalent but minimal if any clotting ability. They can do this only because they don't NEED blood. They can survive without it, it just makes the sponge more efficient so they can afford to bleed out as the tissue around the wound heals instead of stopping the flow first.
We know through direct observation that speciation happens through evolution.
Now, with that all said, you are correct. Evolution as an Origin of life is WRONG. Evolution requiers a funcitoning system to work on. The system can be extremly simple but it still must be minimally self supporting. Therefore by deffinition, evolution cannot be the origin of "life." All the development from the point of the first self supporting sytem onward CAN be account very well with current evolutionary theory. But just because evolution can't demonstrate how the first life form originated doesn't mean we have to resort to divine intervention.
For evolution to work, we must have a self supporting system. This doesn't mean it has to be made of lipid membrane bound protein, sugar and nucleic acid as we see today. As I understand it, the current hypothosis is that life probably started as free floating RNA in a sheltered lake with some specific but relativly common clay types in the rocks. The entier lake would be a self supporting system and would be "alive." Over time evolution would add complexity and optomize the chemistry to encorporate simple proteins and lipids as they would make the chemistry easier. Eventually all the necessary components would happen to be enclosed in the lipids they were associated with (this is a very easy senario to replicate in the lab) and form the first cell. Since everything was self contained it would be many times more efficient and this this cell would quickly consume the resources of the lake and spread out across all habitable areas on the globe. In all probability there would only be one cell randomly form
Slashdot Mirror
One of the interesting things on earth is that fish aren't very smart...
They have as many reasons as other organisms to develop intelligence but they don't.
The reason is fairly simple...Air.
Now while I am a bit prejudiced (as an air breather) it is still true that thinking requiers a huge amount of concentrated energy on a continouus basis...We weigh from 110-250 lbs as adults but most of the energy in our large bodies is used by our brains.
On earth, and likley all other water planets, oxygen is the only wide spread oxydizer availible to produce the high power requierments of thinking.
Air has just over 20% oxygen
Water has just under 2% oxygen
You do the math
All inelligent water animals currently known are air breathing and evolved on land only to return to the ocean later.
As a Christian, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research either.
The bible clearly states that the unborn are chattle and while they are human life, they aren't a human person. Virtually all references to the start of life include breath/breathing etc. You actually have to strain very hard to find biblical support for embryonic protection.
I just personally disagree with the creation of embryo's for the sole purpose of destroying them. They may not be a person but they are still valuable.
They use all sorts of things to power them (like solar from the deserts).
Remeber the orbital subway system from "The moon is a harsh mistress"? They stored the power used to launch the cab in shipstones. They were recharged when the cab was slowed at the destination.
...with a lead cup!
If you recall from "Friday" Shipstones are just extremly good batteries. They provide extremly convinient power storage NOT power creation... ...And I just realized how nerdy I am!
The last I heard there wasn't a very good "White" LED.
Does anyone have a good lreference to the current sate-of-the-art?
Also, what counts as "functioning?"
For instance, say you had a slightly less efficient protein that tended to drop things (high energy protons and electrons) before they were completly used slightly more requently than "normal." These dropped high energy particles will typically just generate extra heat or escape into the cell.
SOOO...you could eat more without gaining weight...
OR....
They would be dropped and escape the mitochondria and react with the cell causing oxidative stress leading to signs of aging or even cancer...
Both of these outcomes have been seen in people and both have "normal" mitochondria. While the nuclear DNA has a much stronger effect, mitochondria are critical and will also effect your life and health. Plus mitochondrial DNA mutates at a rate about an order of magnitude faster than nucear DNA (due to proximity to high energy reactions and reduced gene DNA protection systems) so your mDNA is almost certainly different than your mothers.
You can actually buy cell lines and even mouse strains that have defective mitochondria. With these lines you can give them a specific chemical and ALL the mitochondria will be killed. You can then add a different mitochondrial line which will replicate and save the cell...allowing you to study the altered metabolism.
Genetic researchers "know" why cloned animals don't necessarily look alike. A lot of the features we tune in on (spots and other colorations) are based on an absolutly random gene deactivation. Therefor identical twins (or clones) will have different freckles and slightly different hair colors etc.
But also it is important to remember that not all the information needed to create a cell is located in the DNA. All organells (like mitochondria) (with a few very obscure exceptions) cannot be recreated by the cell if removed. Therefore they contain unique information which can have a dramatic effect on the end result of development. These organells come exclusivly from the donor egg (with a few occasional exceptions (like mitochondria every now and then)).
What makes this experiment interesting is that they are now trying to develop finer controls over the clones organells which can help eliminate other diseases.
All the other "jobs" are simply side effects of the energy conversion function (calcium storage and membrane potential etc). The one exception to that is the example of ammonium degridation. This is controlled from the neculus NOT the mitochondria. If the mitochondria can't accept proteins from the nucleus then it will die. But if it can accept anything, it will accept everything with the correct targeting sequence.
Therefore if the gene for ammonia processing is messed up in the genome, it wouldn't matter if you changed the mitochondria.
That doesn't really work with Mitochondria.
Mitochondria are effecticly self contained bacteria with their own genome, rRNA, and other support structures as if they were real cells. Infact mitochondria replicate like cells inside the cytoplasm. Now they also requier some proteins that are encoded and imported from the nucleus, but they don't release anything except carbon dioxide, water and ATP.
Even if one mitocondria can only do half of the kreb cycle while it's neighbor can do the other half, they still couldn't coolaberate and function as a funcitonal unit.
So long as there are working Mitochondria, the defective one are just wasted resources.
Yeah, we made the Atomic bomb first....except that we didn't.
We had a controlled fission pile at University of Chicago well before the first bomb.
Even though Civilian power plants came after the bomb, controlled fission came first.
We are likley to see a controlled self-sustaining fusion reaction well before we see a pure fusion bomb.
The REAL reason Fusion power will be perfected...so the Generals can fire their fancy guns more than a few times an hour.
I noticed there has been no recent update. My bet is that he got all his money back from the people who actually screwed up...the police and DA. By every deffinition of the word he was assaulted and kidnapped.
He was handcuffed, told to shut up and refused his civil rights. The police violated him NOT BofA. BofA did everything right except for not speaking with him first.
I am not surprised at all that BofA didn't send him 14K
I did exactly that. I told them that I received a large check from someone I have not yet done business with and asked if they could confirm the check was legit first.
There is no criminal violation for HOLDING a bad check, only attempting to exercise it. So as long as you aren't trying to get money you are in no way violating any law.
Even holding bad currency is technically a federal offence unless you are a bank however the FBI doesn't prosecute you unless you have a lot on you etc.
Actually, the bank never asked for it and money gram told me I could keep it if I wanted after I offered to send it to them.
Remember, a check/money order is not currency.
Banks are requiered to confiscate counterfeit currency and are the only non-federal government organizations that can hold counterfeit money without risking prosecution.
However a check is not subject to such restrictions. Once you try to deposite the check it becomes the property of the bank and they will deliver it to the FBI or whoever. But there is no crime in mearly HOLDING a bad check, only exercising it.
I never tried to cash the check (since I would have been cahrged $30+) I only asked them to confirm the money order was legit...which they could not.
I called up Money Gram and told them about the bad check and they told me to destroy it if I wanted to....I decided to keep it as a reminder.
This is what I get for not looking up the proper spelling before I post....
For those who are interested MICR ink is raised, has very crisp edges and will not bleed through the paper.
If you have any concerns, look for those features. If all else fails, take it to a bank and ask them to run it through their MICR reader before depositing it.
Absolutly I accept other forms than cash. Craigslist is only really effective because it is all over the US for free...I have only done one local deal and it WAS cash. Requiering cash for non-local deals is a good way to not sell anything.
My Experience
I have found Paypal to be very good so long as you send to a confirmed address and get tracking. I have had several people try and argue it but once I send Paypal the tracking number the dispute goes away in my favor.
Personal checks are riskier but I still haven't had that much of a problem. I always deposit them first and only ship once it has cleared. In over 1,000 check/money order transactions I have only had one bad check. And the check was bad for lack of funds. The person paid me immediatly with a money order plus my bank fee.
Legit money orders are usually so easy to identify that I would ship "at risk" before depositing them. I have run across 4 people trying to pass off fake money orders and never lost anything to them.
The grandparent is note worthy only because it was actually convincing in all but one detail.
I have had well over 20,000 online transactions and by following the rules above I have had about 30 problems and never lost money on any of them.
The moral of the story is:
Online business is safe and effective for everyone involved so long as you don't do anything stupid like ship before confirming payment and always get tracking numbers.
Last year I had someone send me a Money Gram money order to cash for something I was selling on craigslist. I was kinda suspicious when he asked to cash a check for more than I was selling the item for....
Now I have sold stuff online for years and can usually spot a fake immediatly...This one I had to take to a bank to confirm!
Someone had stolen a roll of blank money gram money orders and entered a valid serial number and everything. The only thing wrong was the micker ink. The numbers at the bottom of that check were standard ink, not magnetic...
I still have that check on my fridge.
Well...you know how often them physics nerds find a new particle...a phonton is not a boson or a lepton but is a typoion
A lot of times they use charge. You can determine the charge of a particle and then place it in a known EM field and observe how quickly it reacts which gives you mass.
The particle that transmits electromagnetic radiation either through light or EM field is the phonton.
The electron carries a charge and creates the photon to transmit the field.
The extra wieght of the Higgs particle is what makes the change fall out of my pocket!
I knew it wasn't me!!!
I appreciate your compliment and my coworkers now wonder why I am grinning and blushing! I have just one further comment.
Your comment "The fact that the current (most popular) scientific theory of the origin of life seems to change with each new discovery or theory is precisely why I do not believe it should ever be taught as or considered fact." actually proves that evolution "conforming(s) to your ideal of falsifiability." Specific aspects are proven inadequate (common) or wrong(very rare) and replaced. Just like Einstein's theory of gravity proved that Newton's theory was wrong and therefore replaced it. Just like the egyptian Pi of 3 was proven wrong and replaced with 3.14... . That is the essence of scientific exploration.
But I also think you are confusing the deffinition of fact, hypothesis and theory. A fact is a direct observation. A theory is the reasoning that results in the observed fact. A hypothesis is a specific test to evaluate and attempt to disprove a theory.
Therefore:
Fact-New species are created through genetic diversification of ancestors.
Theory-Environmental pressure creates a force to encourage the strong and discourage the weak therby exploiting pre-existing or new genetic changes.
Hypothesis-Putting a species in a new environment will cause an observable change over time.
Fact-Jesus Christ led a ministry in and around current Jeruselum circa 30AD and was supsequently executed for blasphamy and sedition. (Confirmed through innumerable 3rd party records that outnumber the 3rd party records that prove the existance of Julius Ceaser)
Theory-The big JC is the son of god and his death liberated the rest of us from our sins just like he said.
Hypothesis-Try to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and find out for certain.
As far as our discussion goes:
Fact-The biblical record has proven to be remarkable accurate from the time point of the book of Exodus onward. (Confirmed through archeological evidence)
Theory-The book of genesis is equally accurate.
Hypothesis-??? Hence the problem.
Fact-Modern lifeforms requier a complete biosphere to survive and the initial environment on earth could not support said life.
Theory-The non-living earth gave rise to living organic lifeforms.
Hypothesis-Create an environment like found on primordial earth and see if organic life arrises within a statistically relavant time.
No one but a lazy reporter or a politician say "evolution is fact." People who know about it say "evolution is a proven theory." While I freely admit that the abiotic start of life is not yet a "proven theory" neither has it been disproven to the point that it is impossible. I personally am looking forward to the first true abiotic life created in the lab.
I also sadly agree that your conversation is disapointingly accurate. I have really enjoyed conversing with you. In the end, science needs to be kept out of morality because it cannot provide a why, only a how. Religion needs to be kept out of science because it cannot provide a how, only a why.
Man introduced Ciclids into lake Victoria about 200 years ago. There are now a dozen more species of Ciclids than were ever introduced and they are all found exclusivly in lake Victoria. Also other African lakes with Ciclids have shown similar but not quite so dramatic changes. I remember an exibit from the Field Museum in Chicago where a sample of Ciclids were inventoried. Shortly after the local fisherman started using nets with large holes. A few decades later the fish in the lake were inventoried again and they discovered new species of small fish. The then fisherman changed their nets to catch the smaller fish. Very quickly large fish developed which were capable of breaking through the new nets. This is only remarkable because the large species is different than the original large species. This is less significant than the lake Victoria example because it is possible (although very unlikley) that the species already existed and was just missed in the very through inventory earlier.
Ring species are simply a proof of evolution. There is no way to explain them in a faslifiable maner without evolution.
Also, I suggest you research chaos theory. You will find that in any complex, self-supporting system with an energy input, complexity will tend to increase and at the same time make the system more stable against outside disruption. In biological terms, the clotting cascade is a perfect example. To clot we have a large number of steps from the initial injury to a final clot. Each step provides a handle for added control. Currently we need each step to work right or we will either spontaneously clot (your blood becomes solid in your veins) or not clot at all (we bleed out from a minor scrape). Through random changes it is very easy to add steps to this system but extremly difficult (but not impossible, look up dolphins) to remove a step without killing the organism. At this point in history we are absolutly reliant on our blood to transport the oxygen we need for our high energy lifestyle. However this was not always the case. Some species of sponges have a blood equivalent but minimal if any clotting ability. They can do this only because they don't NEED blood. They can survive without it, it just makes the sponge more efficient so they can afford to bleed out as the tissue around the wound heals instead of stopping the flow first.
We know through direct observation that speciation happens through evolution.
Now, with that all said, you are correct. Evolution as an Origin of life is WRONG. Evolution requiers a funcitoning system to work on. The system can be extremly simple but it still must be minimally self supporting. Therefore by deffinition, evolution cannot be the origin of "life." All the development from the point of the first self supporting sytem onward CAN be account very well with current evolutionary theory. But just because evolution can't demonstrate how the first life form originated doesn't mean we have to resort to divine intervention.
For evolution to work, we must have a self supporting system. This doesn't mean it has to be made of lipid membrane bound protein, sugar and nucleic acid as we see today. As I understand it, the current hypothosis is that life probably started as free floating RNA in a sheltered lake with some specific but relativly common clay types in the rocks. The entier lake would be a self supporting system and would be "alive." Over time evolution would add complexity and optomize the chemistry to encorporate simple proteins and lipids as they would make the chemistry easier. Eventually all the necessary components would happen to be enclosed in the lipids they were associated with (this is a very easy senario to replicate in the lab) and form the first cell. Since everything was self contained it would be many times more efficient and this this cell would quickly consume the resources of the lake and spread out across all habitable areas on the globe. In all probability there would only be one cell randomly form