Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 9:52 AM
410 online now:
caffeine, Diomedes, Faith, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,909 Year: 16,515/21,208 Month: 2,404/3,593 Week: 517/882 Day: 35/103 Hour: 5/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 166 of 191 (533662)
11-02-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Drosophilla
10-31-2009 7:06 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
rosophilla writes:
So, your car is parked at the top of a hill. Handbrake left off but the car is on the level on the top and is not moving. A sudden earth-tremor judders the car - it rolls slightly forward onto the slope and sets off merrily down the hill....voila - speed and no driver.

Ostensibly this excludes the need for a driver, but what if we replaced the car with a plane, a plane would need a pilot to lift it off the ground. Also with the car analogy I could be tempted to say, well all you have done is replace the driver with the tremor and the hill; at heart you still need something to set the car forth into motion (the tremor) and to keep it in motion (the hill) so at close range the car still needs a little push, and a hill to keep it in motion. Imagine that a tremor or any other disturbance never occurs to thrust the car downslope the car would still have all its parts in place and yet never move.

So again parts are not all that's needed for life to begin, a life force is needed, in your revised analogy the life force would be the tremor and the hill, expunge the tremor and the hill and you're stuck with a motionless car that has every part required for it to move.

Also in your analogy the car really isn't doing the moving at all, the engine isn't turned on, basically nothing is running inside the car, it's like someone attaching strings to a corpse and moving it around in a way that mimics life, and since movement is a characteristic of life the corpse appears to be alive and then you proclaim: It's alive! Yet in reality the corpse isn't alive it only has the appearance of life, nothing in the corpse is functional and the same thing applies to your car nothing in it is running, you might as well replace it with a ball or a human being, in fact almost anything has the ability to roll, tumble, slide or whatever down a hill/slope therefore in this case the the speed related to the movement is not an emergent property of how the car parts are assembled seeing that the car would even be able to go down the hill on its head and practically anything can go down a hill.

Therefore considering all the things I mention in this post your analogy has failed you yet again.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Drosophilla, posted 10-31-2009 7:06 PM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM Cedre has responded
 Message 170 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 2:54 PM Cedre has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


(1)
Message 167 of 191 (533664)
11-02-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
10-31-2009 5:17 PM


my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in.

-->
That clearly isn't true or the organism would still be alive.

You can't merely say that it isn't true and expect us to believe you, dish out evidence that clearly show that the carbon compounds needed for life are not in tact for a period after death. Note you should deny my claims in view of the links I provided, and those links clearly show that most of the bodies cells at least in humans are intact for a period following death. Deal with the links it seems no one here is willing to deal with the links that clearly show that most cells are in intact for a certain period after death.

For example, animal life requires oxygen. If you remove the oxygen, the organism dies. Therefore, the dead organism does not "have all the necessary components required for life."

Note my argument is about to carbon-compounds, so your objection here is unwarranted and without merit.

The entropy of an organism that just died is the same as the entropy of it one second ago when it was still alive. Do you even know what entropy is? Hint: If your definition includes the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then you haven't got it.

I would define it as the measure of the randomness or disorder of a system but as you have said above you do not adhere to this definition. Maybe you can provide me with your definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2009 5:17 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2009 7:39 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-03-2009 11:51 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 168 of 191 (533667)
11-02-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Cedre
11-02-2009 7:15 AM


Note my argument is about to carbon-compounds, so your objection here is unwarranted and without merit.

Oh well - in that case we agree. Carbon-compounds aren't the only thing that need to be in place for animals to be alive. But there are plenty of other things that go into maintaining animal life so that doesn't leave the conclusion 'there must be a spirit', I'm afraid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 7:15 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 169 of 191 (533702)
11-02-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cedre
11-02-2009 6:41 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Cedre

You say: "So again parts are not all that's needed for life to begin, a life force is needed..."

Let's stick with the car analogy to see where the "life-force" comes from. Consider a set of jump-leads attached between 2 cars. Car A is already running, and you use the leads from that car to get Car B running.

You may compare that directly to your mother's umbilical cord, which was like a set of jump-leads that got you running. There is the "life-force" that got you started.

Your mother got her "life-force" in the same way, as did her mother, etc, etc.

It is completely irrelevant how the first life-form came into existence when you are considering why the life-force that someone derived from their mother comes to an end. The fact that someone dies does not in any way prove or disprove how the very first beings came into existence.

To go back to the car analogy, if Car B suddenly stops running, does that in any way prove or disprove what started Car A?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 6:41 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 3:09 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:57 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 170 of 191 (533728)
11-02-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Cedre
11-02-2009 6:41 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Cedre:

Also in your analogy the car really isn't doing the moving at all, the engine isn't turned on, basically nothing is running inside the car, it's like someone attaching strings to a corpse and moving it around in a way that mimics life, and since movement is a characteristic of life the corpse appears to be alive and then you proclaim: It's alive! Yet in reality the corpse isn't alive it only has the appearance of life, nothing in the corpse is functional and the same thing applies to your car nothing in it is running, you might as well replace it with a ball or a human being, in fact almost anything has the ability to roll, tumble, slide or whatever down a hill/slope therefore in this case the the speed related to the movement is not an emergent property of how the car parts are assembled seeing that the car would even be able to go down the hill on its head and practically anything can go down a hill.

But over and over you keep missing the whole point of the analogy: that the arrangement of the said items cause emergent properties to arise: The pile of metal, oil, fuel, cloth, plastic etc etc will not roll down a hill when there is a tremor because it's (lack) of structural arrangement is not conducive to do so.

IOW as a result of the way in which the parts are organised, an emergent property comes out - speed. That property CANT be realised if the material is not organised as required. The fact that an emergent property arises as a result of organisational structuring should make you very wary against saying "there must be a god to give a life force?" What the fuck is "a life force?" There is NO scientific need to invent one....emergent property is all that is required.

You are 'pissing in the wind' with your insistence to need to reference irrelevancies. You keep doing this over and over, not understanding (despite being told by more than just myself) that your assertions are utterly irrelevant, and your 'god life force' is a fanciful figment of your imagination.

Occam's Razor doesn't need it, science doesn’t need it, only creationists do....sorry bud, when you 'piss in the wind' it's only your trousers that get wet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 6:41 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:40 AM Drosophilla has responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 171 of 191 (533729)
11-02-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-02-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Hi JUC:

It is completely irrelevant how the first life-form came into existence when you are considering why the life-force that someone derived from their mother comes to an end. The fact that someone dies does not in any way prove or disprove how the very first beings came into existence.

You're wasting your time pal. Cedre doesn't like the word “irrelevant". He's worked out that if he throws out any old thing and views 'emergent properties' as being a fictional invention of the evilutionists, then he wins by default.

I am torn between believing that he genuinely hasn't advanced to Piaget's highest level 4 abstract reasoning level as in Message 132where I compared his analytical reasoning powers to an 8 year old boy I knew. (Cedre's reply if you follow the messages was to say he didn't see how the analogy I made (re meat-eaters) was comparable. If that is the case we are wasting our time.

Alternatively he could have already realised that by admitting emergent properties do exist, and then this would smash his "life force" theory to pieces, so of course the only option then would be to refuse to allow the analogy by referencing an irrelevance in order to stop the emergent property function from being vindicated. If that is the case we are, again, wasting our time.

Summary: We are wasting our time....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:46 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 172 of 191 (533802)
11-03-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Drosophilla
11-02-2009 2:54 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
that the arrangement of the said items cause emergent properties to arise: The pile of metal, oil, fuel, cloth, plastic etc etc will not roll down a hill when there is a tremor because it's (lack) of structural arrangement is not conducive to do so.

At this point your desperation to make your analogy work in your favor is evident. To counter your first analogy I showed that a car with all its parts intact wouldn't move unless a driver started its engine and got it moving. I showed that your second analogy doesn't work either because almost any object can go down a slope/hill and even if you had a complete car on a hill it won't ever move to display speed unless a tremor got it moving and without the hill the car won't be able to sustain its motion.

You are 'pissing in the wind' with your insistence to need to reference irrelevancies. You keep doing this over and over, not understanding (despite being told by more than just myself) that your assertions are utterly irrelevant, and your 'god life force' is a fanciful figment of your imagination.

Exactly I'm being told all of the above continually but no one bothers to provide clear evidence demonstrating that I'm in the wrong, where I have provided links everyone else for the most part has only provided their opinion and the best you could do yourself was to cook up an analogy that ended up working against you. And what I've noticed about your posts is that they strongly consist of slurs and insults as opposed to good arguments.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 2:54 PM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Meldinoor, posted 11-03-2009 2:47 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 176 by Drosophilla, posted 11-03-2009 3:01 AM Cedre has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 173 of 191 (533803)
11-03-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Drosophilla
11-02-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
I am torn between believing that he genuinely hasn't advanced to Piaget's highest level 4 abstract reasoning level

Well your beliefs are your own you're entitled to them, and they do not really affect me because I do not think they are grounded in truth.

Alternatively he could have already realised that by admitting emergent properties do exist, and then this would smash his "life force" theory to pieces,

Why should I be obliged to admit something that you have a hard time proving via you're analogy.

Summary: We are wasting our time....

Accurate summary: Your views are being challenged and you do not fancy that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 3:09 PM Drosophilla has not yet responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 174 of 191 (533805)
11-03-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-02-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Let's stick with the car analogy to see where the "life-force" comes from. Consider a set of jump-leads attached between 2 cars. Car A is already running, and you use the leads from that car to get Car B running.

It is completely irrelevant how the first life-form came into existence when you are considering why the life-force that someone derived from their mother comes to an end.

It is not irrelevant seeing that car A itself had to be started by a driver, so there's no way of escaping the need for a driver or a "life-force"

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-03-2009 4:45 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 11-10-2009 1:55 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 175 of 191 (533811)
11-03-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Cedre
11-03-2009 12:40 AM


4 simple questions
Hi Cedre,

I'd like to ask you a few questions:

1. Do simple microbial life forms requires a life force in able to function? If, for instance, I removed some parts from a bacterium, and then reinserted them, would it come back alive? Or do I need to provide it with spirit?

2. Can simple life be synthesized in a lab? Or does it require "spirit"?

3. Is there any particular known process within the body of any living organism that can only be explained by "life force".

4. You mentioned earlier that the cells of a brain-dead person are still alive. Does this mean the spirit of a brain-dead person has to stay in the body? Dude, seriously, that would suck.

(You can ignore question 4 if you want)

Before you answer question #2 I'd like you to see what you think of this (clicky)

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:40 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1081 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 176 of 191 (533812)
11-03-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Cedre
11-03-2009 12:40 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
almost any object can go down a slope/hill and even if you had a complete car on a hill it won't ever move to display speed unless a tremor got it moving and without the hill the car won't be able to sustain its motion.

nonsense. How does a patch of oil, cloth, metal et al trundle off down a hill after a small tremor? Any analogy has it's limits - i made that comment back in Message 116.

But if you continually try to twist the analogy to it's nth degree it will strain to make it's original point....which is the emergent properties come from organisation of matter. That is indisputable - and what follows from that is that is is dangerous to imply a 'special life force' is needed on top of the physical works.....Occam's Razor and science says it doesn't.

your OP says 'does death pose a problem for abiogenesis?' and we are telling you - no - the science quite happily encompasses it.

But does death pose a problem for your 'life force?'....ah well that's an entirely different question altogether!

Edited by Drosophilla, : tpos's

Edited by Drosophilla, : missing bracket


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:40 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 5:12 AM Drosophilla has responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 177 of 191 (533822)
11-03-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Cedre
11-03-2009 12:57 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Cedre

I think this is going to be my last try! As Drosophilla says, I'm probably wasting my time.

You say: "It is not irrelevant seeing that car A itself had to be started by a driver, so there's no way of escaping the need for a driver or a "life-force"."

I made the point about you obtaining your "life-force", which I would replace with the word "energy", from your mother. And she from her mother, etc, etc, back through time. The Theory of Evolution is that as you follow your ancestors back through time you would get to simpler and simpler lifeforms, and the basic hypothesis of Abiogenesis is that the simplest life-forms emerged from a series of chemical reactions. Now, as a layman, I have no understanding of exactly how that might have happened, but I don't have a problem at all accepting that in principle it could happen.

Do you accept that chemical reactions occur all the time without any need for "a driver"? (This was why I used the analogy of stalactites earlier in the discussion, to show that things can be formed through chemical reactions, in a chance situation, without any human or other intelligent involvement, and that the processes that formed them are totally different to the processes required to repair or rebuild them.)

Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:57 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 178 of 191 (533826)
11-03-2009 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Drosophilla
11-03-2009 3:01 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
nonsense. How does a patch of oil, cloth, metal et al trundle off down a hill after a small tremor?

Lol, you make me laugh. Well I doubt that a small tremor would have any effect on the motion of a car as well, but who says the tremor has to be necessarily small, it could be a big tremor. And furthermore why does it have to be a patch of oil, it could be a jar of oil, and instead of an unfolded cloth it could be a ball of cloth, and metal parts can easily tumble down a hill, and basically anything else depending on the steepness of the hill. And as I said in a previous post the car would still go down the hill if it was turned on its head.

That is indisputable - and what follows from that is that is is dangerous to imply a 'special life force' is needed on top of the physical works.....Occam's Razor and science says it doesn't.

A car with all the parts in tact won't move unless it is driven, and the hill and tremor additions don't work for reasons I mention above and in my previous posts, so from your analogy at least you must conced that parts are not all that is required for life to be.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Drosophilla, posted 11-03-2009 3:01 AM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by caffeine, posted 11-03-2009 5:33 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 185 by Drosophilla, posted 11-03-2009 1:45 PM Cedre has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1281
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 179 of 191 (533828)
11-03-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Cedre
11-03-2009 5:12 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
You know, aside from missing the point, your repeated insistence that cars need drivers isn't even true. With modern computer technology we do have cars that drive all by themselves. Here's Junior, an autonomous Volkswagen Passat, getting ready to take part in the DARPA urban challenge a couple of years ago. The DARPA Urban Challenge is a race run entirely by driverless cars, instituted to encourage innovation in the design and construction of cars that drive themselves.

And there's an even better example of emergent properties for you. No magical or mysterious force is required for the arrangement of materials in a computer to accomplish astonishing feats - emergent properties that certainly aren't present in any of the components unless there are arranged in the correct way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 5:12 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 5:40 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 180 of 191 (533830)
11-03-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by caffeine
11-03-2009 5:33 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
I already dealt with the computer issue in one of my previous posts, all you've done is replace the human driver with a computer the car still needs a driver, in this case its a computer. As for the computer itself it has human makers and it utilises power, you can have a computer but without a source of power its but a collection of non functioning hardware.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by caffeine, posted 11-03-2009 5:33 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Huntard, posted 11-03-2009 7:27 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017