|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with the first life | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
life can not be created -ocationally- by chemical reactions -ONLY- I have no idea what 'ocationally' means. However taking just 'life can not be created by chemical reactions' this statement is demonstrated false every single time anything reproduces. There is nothing mystical about life; it's just chemistry in action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Would you care to present the mathematics that leads you to that conclusion? I'm curious to know since we don't have a definite path for the origin of life, I can't really see how you could possible calculate it's probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Yes, I do.
(Edit: although I would use the term 'originated' rather than 'created') This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 07-19-2004 05:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Imagine with me please. Imagination is all very well, but it is a poor guide indeed when it comes to the workings of science.
the earth is born having elements and some simple compounds.most of it is water . atoms are moving colliding with each other, combining ,forming a large molecule such as proteins (which will play a great role in life -later-)how long -do you think- such a procces will take? Amino acids we know can from by random chance - experiments such as the Stanley-Miller experiment show it, later experiments have shown that all 20 amino acids used in earthly life can form this way. RNA can be formed from chains of amino acids. Some RNA chains can replicate themselves. That's all we need to start with. From there, the mathematics of how it all comes together places it well within the bounds of probability given the time scales involved. I don't know how long it would take to form such RNA chains in the first place, but the earth is a very big place and given half a billion years. I doubt it falls beyond the realms of possibility.
what make a molecule rather than the others to be a membrane to protect the cell from outer conditions??!!! Many lipids will form cell-like structures spontaneously. I imagine early cells used these or similar molecules to form 'proto-cells'.
now this living cell found that it must do some procceses to keep living !!okey .reproducing! how could a mindless molecules know how to divide the cell into two similar cells??!how to know what essential components must exist in both to keep living??!!!! The first 'living' thing already had reproduction that's what makes it 'living'. Self-replicating RNA strands have been isolated in the lab. Again, it's just chemistry, it doesn't need to know anything.
do you want me to continue?? All you've provided so far is speculation and personal incredulity. I'd like to see something more solid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
This RNA is the important molecule that controls the cell procceses, so to have a life it must exist in all cells .and for good look it was found to be cabable to replicate it self .what a clever mindless life??!!!!!! No. No cell is needed. RNA is capable of replicating itself without the presence of a cell - it's just chemistry. Cells possibly originated from the lipid shells that Crash has been telling you about.
OR ..OHH!! let me guess .you want to say that life originated by true and false principle.that is somthing happens ,if it was good it lasts .but if it was not good the cell finishes and life-to be originated-will wait another long time .waiting something good to happen to keep it existing!!!!!!!!! I'm really not sure what you're saying here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
now we have the RNA which can replicates it self. why did it have the cabablity to control cellular activities. It didn't. It just replicated itself, and produced by-products.
why did not any other molecule -that can not replicate it self-have this property? I don't understand the relevance of your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Acceptable is what sense?
Darwin's theory has been developed on since it's conception, but broadly speaking - yes, it correctly describes the process that has led to the shaping of all life on earth, and yes it is more than capable of accounting for the variety that we observe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
then why are we all humans? Because 'we' is defined in such a way.
why there is not some creature that did not come into complete? Not sure what you mean. There are other primates.
why there is not some life has just been originated? The origin of life is not part of Darwin's theory. That aside, the answer to question is that any proto-life that appeared now would be instantly out-competed by the existing and highly evolved life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Gotcha.
First, you need disabusing of the notion that evolution is directed. It didn't set out to create us, it just did. So, why don't we still find earlier homonids around (note: we do find them in the fossil record)? For the same reasons we no longer find every other extinct animal around - either the environment changed in a way to which they could not adapt or they were outcompeted by another species (in this case, us - homo sapiens). Hominids evolved to fill a new environmental niche - big brained, bipedal savanna dwellers - to which we are better adapted. We outcompeted them and drove them to exitinction.
why we still humans?since the history begins,humans still humans .is not there a following stage? History began a very short time ago in evolutionary terms, we wouldn't expect to see significant changes in that time scale. Nowadays we've radically altered the selective pressures on our species so who knows how we'll turn out in a couple hundred thousand years.
And sorry again for my weak language!!! That's OK, you write much than I can in any foreign language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba (Single cell) evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell! Does the fact we cannot produce a complete path from an egg to a skin cell or brain cell imply that we are wrong that it does so? (Answer: no) Why then should the lack of a complete path imply that humans did not evolve from a single organism? Oh, and please use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the big reply button at the bottom. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If there is anything science teaches us it is that proof by analogy is very, very weak proof indeed.
You believe in a god without a maker, how is that any less absurd?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
have you looked before at force laws in physics? did you see that coloumb ,magnetic,gravitational forces all have similar laws? Yes, they're all root-squared laws - a fact that follows directly from conservation of energy.
If you look carefully,you will see a unity in the universe . what can you conclude? I , conclude that it whole is someone's work. I see no reason to conclude that at all. An undesigned universe has to be consistent; a designed one does not.
I do not know what does ANALOGY mean .but if its meaning is (SIMILARITY) ; then I can say that science it self uses similarity -some times- to explain or prove things that are hard to be done in a direct way. Scientists frequently uses analogy to explain things; science never uses analogy to prove things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
An undesigned universe has to be consistent; a designed one does not. If the universe has originated by natural processes, then those processes must be consistent to produce complexity. If the universe was designed, that designer could do anything they liked.
if you ordered your hair, you will give it a certain shape then each single hair will contribute to the whole shape. Bad analogy. Styling your hair is imposing order on an existing and unordered object.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
That's extrapolation, not analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
COULD means ,if he want to ;he would do.Butif he don't want to; he would not do. Exactly, so the ordered nature of the universe does not provide evidence for a designer one way or another.
But COULD will NEVER mean that if he did NOT DO ;then he is not the one who DO. I have no idea what you mean by this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024