Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 12:10 PM
200 online now:
14174dm, Diomedes, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Taq, vimesey (8 members, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,754 Year: 18,577/29,783 Month: 522/2,043 Week: 74/386 Day: 24/50 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2691 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 76 of 191 (533292)
10-29-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Were the chemical reactions that bought about abiogenisis random processes or not? If not, why not?

Because random means not predictable, and chemical reactions are predictable. Na and Cl form salt every time.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 8:03 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 10:26 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 77 of 191 (533294)
10-29-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Hi Buzsaw,

As lyxno2 pointed out, chemical reactions are not random. As I pointed out in Message 25 the evolution of replicators by natural selection is not random either. The most successful replicators would have won out and evolved until we have what we call life. Given that we have replicating molecules that do not copy themselves with 100% accuracy, this is a fact. (If you doubt this, then check out the link I provided upthread)

So the answer to your question is a resounding "no".

I had intended to use a well known analogy by Richard Dawkins, but upon hunting for a source I came across this. An essay from "simplychristians.eu", written by an "Architect" who is critiquing the ideas set forth by "theoretical scientists" (evolutionary biologists). I found it very funny, and sad, to see the ignorance demonstrated in the article.

The Confused Architect writes:

Sometimes, theoreticians offer the formation of snowflakes, ice crystals and other mineral crystals as examples of order and design spontaneously arising from chaos. What those "theoretical scientists" overlook is that a true scientist confronted with phenomena such as these would not assume that they occur by chance.

A research scientist would assume that if they had all the factors at their finger tips they would understand the reason why these crystals form as they do. They certainly would not write it of as order arising spontaneously by "fortuitous chance" from chaos.* Scientists involved in research, work on the basis that there is reason for everything they observe and they look for explanations based on reason not on chance. They do not write-off what they do not understand as being fortuitous chance operating on chaos. They look for answers, not cop-outs. They expect to find design - not just "the appearance of design" - to find reason, not just the appearance of reason.

[* Some scientists reason that the regular arrangement of snowflakes and crystals is determined by the directional forces in the atoms as arranged in the molecules, being influenced by the environment in which the crystal grows.]

Basically what they're admitting is that you can get pretty and complex designs in snowflakes through truly natural processes. But since evolution and abiogenesis is "random" and "fortuitous chance" (Dawkins is repeatedly quoted out of context in the article) they can't apply the same rules to life as to snowflakes.

Now I'm gonna read the rest of the article and see if I can't get myself a few more laughs at the expense of some architect who thinks he's a biologist.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 8:03 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:01 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 78 of 191 (533295)
10-29-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 3:52 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Meldinoor writes:

No, it is in fact an example of a decrease in entropy, and an increase in order within an non-isolated system. The water molecules do not have to combat the second law of thermodynamics in order to turn into ordered ice crystals. I think Bluejay was responding to your question about the original life forms having to fight entropy.

The water to ice model pertains to chemical only process, as I understand it. Is that correct? Can a chemical only process adequately model chemical to life process? Isn't that a stretch?

Buzsaw writes:
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.

Meldinoor writes:

Life did not emerge from inorganic compounds. It may have been assisted by inorganic compounds, but nobody is arguing that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones.

1. Nor did I argure that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones. It allegedly took, perhaps as long as billions of years, unless I'm mistaken.

2. I see the #1 online dictionary defines organic as living matter. However the #7 chemical definition is as you say, i.e. carbon compounds. Therefore I concede that I used the wrong application to inorganic. (In the Wiki link you cited, the term inorganic was used relative to abiotic molecules, citing a Martin-Russell paper. )

Meldinoor writes:

Why does it matter whether we call these first replicators "living" or not?

Logically, and as I understood one of your earlier statements, entropy pressure would be greater relative to replicating abiotic chemicals than to replicating living organisms.

Citing exerpts from your Wiki link, it appears that abiogenesis is based on various non-imperical postulations:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.
===================================================================
While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor.[45]

=====================================================================

From organic molecules to protocells
The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both....


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 191 (533298)
10-29-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lyx2no
10-29-2009 9:05 PM


Re: Is it Random?
lyx2no writes:

Because random means not predictable, and chemical reactions are predictable. Na and Cl form salt every time.

Hey, Lyx2no, thanks. I see that would be correct relative to chemical reaction. (BTW, I appreciated your kind "goodby Buz" while my account was inactive.)

Now; would the process, involving a series of spontaneous chemical reactions relative to abiotic molecules constitute a random process during the pre-life amalgamation of abiotic chemicals which allegedly generated abiogenesis? (note that I said, spontaneous chemical reactions. I did not say spontaneous series...)

ABE: I see I got my last statement bass akwards. Make that: (I did not say spontaneous chemical reactions. I did say, a series of spontaneous chemical reactions.)

Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-29-2009 9:05 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 80 of 191 (533300)
10-29-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 10:04 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Hi Buzsaw,

Buzsaw writes:

The water to ice model pertains to chemical only process, as I understand it. Is that correct? Can a chemical only process adequately model chemical to life process? Isn't that a stretch?

I would argue that life is a chemical process. What else is your body but a complex chemistry kit?

Buzsaw writes:

1. Nor did I argure that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones. It allegedly took, perhaps as long as billions of years, unless I'm mistaken.

2. I see the #1 online dictionary defines organic as living matter. However the #7 chemical definition is as you say, i.e. carbon compounds. Therefore I concede that I used the wrong application to inorganic. (In the Wiki link you cited, the term inorganic was used relative to abiotic molecules, citing a Martin-Russell paper. )

Fair enough. When we're talking about chemistry we usually use the term "organic" to refer to carbon compounds. In that sense, life did not evolve from inorganic matter (it might possibly have used inorganic matter as a vehicle, more on that in the wiki article).

Buzsaw writes:

Logically, and as I understood one of your earlier statements, entropy pressure would be greater relative to replicating abiotic chemicals than to replicating living organisms.

I'm not aware of the term "entropy pressure". Entropy applies to everything, including life. Life is a subjective definition of chemical processes. There is nothing qualitatively different about simple replicating molecules and living organisms. Did you read the link I gave you about the experiment with the virus?? Essentially, the 220 nucleotide genome wasn't much more than a simple replicating molecule. Wouldn't you hesitate to call it life? What's so different about a naked viral genome and a simple replicating molecule? (They're really the same thing)

Buzsaw writes:

Citing exerpts from your Wiki link, it appears that abiogenesis is based on various non-imperical postulations:

quote:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

This is true. But why exactly is this a problem? If there are hundreds of different possible models and we just can't know for certain which one it actually was, isn't the problem too much possibility??

quote:
While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor.

*Scratches head* Well that explains why you used the term inorganic matter. Don't expect wikipedia to be without its typos and little errors. Considering the fact that even Donald Duck could log on to it and edit a scientific article, it's amazing it stays as accurate as it is.

I'm not sure why you gave me that exerpt though. It seems to make a fairly good case for the development of self-replicating molecules.

quote:
The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both....

Unfortunately we can't build a time-machine and actually watch the formation of early biotic molecules (even though we do get them in the lab). In cases like this it is intellectually honest to say "I don't know" and not make assertions about the exact mechanism life originated by. We can make guesses, and good ones at that, but we can't be sure exactly how life formed. If you want certainty, stick with creationists. They're the only ones who "know" exactly how it happened. (Down to the exact hour in some cases)

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 10:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 191 (533302)
10-29-2009 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Meldinoor writes:

As lyxno2 pointed out, chemical reactions are not random. As I pointed out in Message 25 the evolution of replicators by natural selection is not random either. The most successful replicators would have won out and evolved until we have what we call life. Given that we have replicating molecules that do not copy themselves with 100% accuracy, this is a fact. (If you doubt this, then check out the link I provided upthread)

So the answer to your question is a resounding "no".

1. I can understand that select, as in natural selection does not imply random, as in random mutation.

2. I can understand the logic behind living organisms effecting NS.

3. I cannot understand how abiotic chemical reactions could naturally select to effect abiogenesis, having no biotic pressure towards survival.

Thanks for the patient kind-spirited responses and links. Composing messages takes me a lot of time to think and do, since I'm a slow thinker, especially in the science fora, so I will leave off for now and return, God willing, when I get time.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 9:56 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 11:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 191 (533305)
10-29-2009 11:16 PM


Message Ratings
Heh. I see my message ratings suddenly nose dived after my comments relative to them, a few messages above. Goodby to fair minded message rating for Buzsaw's messages.

Edited by Buzsaw, : rephrase


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 83 of 191 (533306)
10-29-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
10-29-2009 6:41 PM


Re: Play nice
NosyNed writes:

He has demonstrated a total lack of comprehension to any of the science invovled. I doubt very much that he is being so tricky.


If anyone else used the word "random", I would have just let it go. But Buz has been here how many years? He's been told how many times that neither chemical reaction nor evolution is random?

Person A: The sky is green.
Person B: No, it is not.

1 month later.

Person A: The sky is green.
Person C: No, it is not.

2 months later.

Person A: The sky is green.
Person B: No, it is not.

2 weeks later.

Person A: The sky is green.
Person D: No, it is not.

3 months later.

Person A: The sky is green.
Person E: No, it is not.

5 months later.

Person A: The sky is green.

Heads explode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Meldinoor, posted 10-30-2009 12:12 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 84 of 191 (533309)
10-29-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 11:01 PM


No such thing as "biotic pressure"
Hi Buzsaw,

Buzsaw writes:

3. I cannot understand how abiotic chemical reactions could naturally select to effect abiogenesis, having no biotic pressure towards survival.

It's easy to make the mistake to think of life as a class of organisms that "want" to survive and therefore strive to develop new traits that will boost their survival. This is a very human way to look at things, as we humans like to attribute will and meaning to processes we see around us (those clouds look angry etc.)

However, most life on earth does not have a "will" or even an awareness of its own existence. Bacteria do not, of course, have the ability to think or desire anything. Everything a bacterium does is automatic. Mr Bacterium doesn't care if lives or dies, because he doesn't even know he's alive
Even much more complex organisms like mushrooms, or (some) insects are entirely automatic. An ant doesn't go about thinking, "If I protect the queen I will help ensure the survival of her genes for another generation".
An ant would be more like: "Beep. Intruder detected. Activating defense procedure 2x15. Standby for aggressive engagement."

So why do life forms and abiotic molecules evolve if they don't want to? Do they have a "biotic pressure for survival" as you put it? No. An abiotic molecule is just as excited to survive as a bacterium is. The simple truth is that when you have a number of molecules, be they alive or dead, the ones that take over will be the ones that replicate and survive well, regardless of their "will" to do so. This is true of any molecule, biotic, or non-biotic.

The "biotic pressure" you describe is actually something inherent in the universe, not something specific to living matter.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

PS. It is unfortunate that some members have demonstrated undue hostility towards you. Don't let attacks on your character, including your member rating (which recently plummeted, I have an inkling that it has nothing to do with the quality of your recent posts) scare you away from the science fora. Civil and honest debators, regardless of their opinion or grounding in subject matter, are always a welcome boon to a discussion IMHO.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 85 of 191 (533310)
10-30-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Taz
10-29-2009 11:20 PM


Re: Play nice
Good point. But Buz has acknowledged that evolution and chemical reactions are not random.

Buzsaw writes:

I see that would be correct relative to chemical reaction.

Buzsaw writes:

1. I can understand that select, as in natural selection does not imply random, as in random mutation.

2. I can understand the logic behind living organisms effecting NS.

If he ever uses the word random inappropriately again, you can just throw his own words back at him. That should be far more effective than anger. I find it indicative of his honesty that he conceded his mistake.

Save your righteous wrath for nutcases like Calypsis.

I consider this side-discussion to be a pointless waste of time and will not discuss it further.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 11:20 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 86 of 191 (533313)
10-30-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Drosophilla
10-29-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Now if you start it up and drive it away that car will possesses something we label as 'speed'.

I'm not exactly sure if you are likening the speed of a car with the life of an organism? If you are I must observe that you have left out a few things that is a car won't have speed unless it is driven by somebody, by the same token a body won't have life unless it is accompanied by the spirit and the soul. You can have a car with all its parts intact but until somebody gets into that car and start driving it that car will not display any speed, using this line of reasoning you can have a human body but unless it's accompanied by the soul and spirit it won't display any sign of life.

When religious people say to me 'where does your soul go when you die' to me this is analogous to saying 'where does 'speed' go to when a car breaks down?

The soul and life are not synonymous, the soul is more like who you are, your personality. Unitedly with the brain the soul determines your behavior, just like the driver determines where the car goes and how fast it travels but also the engine to a degree limits the choices of the driver and thus infringes on the overall movement of the car. Thus it would be wrong to say the brain single-handedly determines your behavior just like it would be wrong to say that the engine alone determines the behavior of the car, a driver is present that for the most part determines the behavior of the car.

There is no issue at all here to abiogenesis. It's exactly what you’d expect.

It's not what is expected, as I showed above, a car may have all the necessary parts intact but unless there's a driver it won't have speed, in the same vein a body may be present but without a spirit and soul it won't have life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 3:24 PM Drosophilla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-30-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 96 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-30-2009 6:06 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 10-30-2009 7:12 AM Cedre has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3871
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 87 of 191 (533314)
10-30-2009 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Cedre
10-30-2009 2:18 AM


Contact with the topic theme getting pretty tenuous
It's an abiogenesis/origin of life topic.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 2:18 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 3:08 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 88 of 191 (533315)
10-30-2009 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 4:08 PM


No what you have is a lifeless organism a body not life.
Thank you for sharing your religious beliefs with us.
Now, let's address the facts.

There's nothing religious about my quote above.

I'm not referring to decomposition on a larger scale. A cell that is starved of oxygen will quickly be damaged by certain chain reactions and it will die.

I have shown you that this destruction doesn't happen as fast as you're proposing, it's a process taking place in stages; the earliest cells to undergo deterioration are brain cells "Brain cells can die if deprived of oxygen for more than three minutes." http://www.deathonline.net/...hanges/heart_stops.htm,however despite damage to the brain life can carry on, in fact this is what is seen in victims of brain damage, which is the total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of blood flow and oxygenation in line with Wikipedia. Conversely, muscle cells live on for several hours meaning that heart is still intact for several hours following death even at the cellular level. Bone and skin cells can stay alive for several days as well. A great deal of cell deterioration doesn't happen right after death as Wikipedia here says,"The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years" http://en.wikipedia.org/...Decomposition#Human_decomposition, for this reason I said a couple of times already that a dead body and a living one are not all that different from each other.

Since this is the case I reasoned out that body parts is not all that is needed for life to exist. Thus abiogenesis that claims that life spontaneously began when all the requirements for life where met cannot be true, since dead organisms, for the most part resemble living ones, having all the necessary parts for life yet are not alive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 4:08 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by caffeine, posted 10-30-2009 5:45 AM Cedre has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 89 of 191 (533316)
10-30-2009 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Adminnemooseus
10-30-2009 2:56 AM


Re: Contact with the topic theme getting pretty tenuous
What comprises life is relevant to the question of abiogenesis, if life is just a collection of parts then abiogenesis may be possible if it isn't, then it isn't so possible, and my post deals with these things. How is it irrelevant or tenuous.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-30-2009 2:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 90 of 191 (533317)
10-30-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Evidence please
Dear Adminnemooseus this post is a reply to Meldinoor's post 69. My goal is not to wander off topic I just feel that I have to respond to my critics, lest I give them the impression that I can't respond.

Before you continue to assert this, perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of "unnatural deaths".

Death comes through natural means this is how one ceases to exist on this physical planet, even if demons or some other supernatural entity causes death he/she/it does it via attacking the physical body of the targeted individual maybe by means of a sickness as in the case of Job.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why a person who chokes to death can be resuscitated, while a person who is heavily irradiated (cell damage) can not.

I actually can, pardon me first of all administrators for discussing an irrelevant topic, I'm but responding to a post more so seeing that Meldinoor has said that unless I can respond to these questions, he doesn't see how my concept of what it takes to be living has any foundation in the real world. Well as I said earlier at least in our case, we need a body a soul and a spirit to be alive in this physical realm, a body to interact with matter, and the spirit to power the body and the soul as I said is who you are. So in cases of severe cell damage you body has undergone great damage thus it's harder to be revived in such a case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:13 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Meldinoor, posted 10-30-2009 3:42 AM Cedre has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018