Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time factor in self assembly calculations?
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 66 (14130)
07-25-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
07-25-2002 12:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Singularity,
Ever sonicated (lysis through vibration) a culture of bacteria? How long will it take -- according to your scenario -- before a living bacterium will arise from this organic soup? Notably, all required biolecules are present in this soup.
Best wishes,
Peter

But that doesn't mean all the conditions are right for abiogenisis.
You are lacking in volume of soup. You are lacking a power supply. And you are lacking the right chemistry as well, as conditions today are much different that 4 billion years ago.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 07-25-2002 12:57 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:17 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 66 (14174)
07-25-2002 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Spoken like a true believer John!.
Not really a statement of belief.... just chemistry. You've got to have the right conditions for a reaction to occur. Not all reactions are reversable.... blah... blah ..... that sort of thing.
Unfortunately the data needed to duplicate those conditions doesn't exist, and might never exist; but I prefer uncertainty to false certainty.
If you can duplicate the appropriate conditions and the experiment still doesn't work, then talk to me about belief. Right now, the only belief I've got is that there is an answer somewhere.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:17 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:49 PM John has replied
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 07-25-2002 9:55 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 66 (14252)
07-26-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by peter borger
07-25-2002 9:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
There are dozens of answers to a question.
It is just a matter of choise.
You are free to choose.
Best Wishes
Peter

I don't get it.
Of course I'm free to choose, but that isn't why I debate here. I debate because it forces me to think and the learn.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 07-25-2002 9:55 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:51 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 66 (14422)
07-29-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by peter borger
07-29-2002 9:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
I think that you cannot interchange the words "observe" and "exist". Some things may not be observed but may be existing. For instance, consider organisms that aren't able to observe light. Does it say anything about the existence of light? No. It is just a matter of having the right receptors, or to tune in the right receptors.

I agree about interchanging the words 'observe' and 'exist'
The problem I see is that without observation there is no evidence, no common ground. Anything can be postulated as existing and no one can prove the postulate true or false, so long as it cannot be observed. It is a fundamental philosophical problem.
Belief in a very real sense boils down to evidence-- ie observable data-- or no evidence. Science deals with what we can know, not what we can't.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 9:05 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 66 (14428)
07-29-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by peter borger
07-29-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Yes. Science tries hard to explain things that have never been observed. In my opinion that is gratuitous. It should not be the realm of science.
Science cannot infer?
quote:
If I recall properly, the alleged isolated Malaysian stone age tribe without origin-mythology was a hoax.

It is hard to believe that a culture would have no origin myth. Anyone know the name of this tribe?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 9:17 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 66 (14965)
08-07-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by blitz77
08-07-2002 8:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Lets just start off with a small protein (100 amino acids). Probability in the right order is 1/20^100. Probability right chirality is 1/2^100. Probability = 1/1^160. Given 10^81 atoms in the universe, and 15 billion years for the age of the universe, and say that each atom undergoes a trillion reactions each producing a different molecule each second, probability becomes 1/1^160 * 1^81 * 1^12 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60. It still becomes 1/10^59.
You are also assuming pure chance, and such isn't the case. These reaction take place within a larger system. That system will skew the results. The chemical, gravitational, radioactive environment has to be taken into account or the probability calculations are worthless. This has been pointed out to you, by Percipient I think, in another thread just a day or two ago.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 8:22 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by singularity, posted 08-07-2002 8:24 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 66 (14996)
08-07-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by blitz77
08-07-2002 8:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
then there's the limiting amount of time on earth for it to happen (a hundred million years instead of the billions)
huh? You lost me here. Why do we have only a hundred million years?
[/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 8:44 PM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 9:15 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 66 (15002)
08-07-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
07-25-2002 9:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
. . . somewhere but not God - right? At least not a God who is at least as conscious as us? Why not?
Somewhere verifiable....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-25-2002 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 66 (15005)
08-07-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by blitz77
08-07-2002 9:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Time since surface water became available and the first supposed bacteria. Unless you are supposing it didn't happen in water?
Aren't you taking the latest possible date for the appearance of surface water and the earliest date for the arrival of bacteria?
Nature - Not Found
Even if the organisms questioned in the cited article turn out to be organism, at worst there is a few hundred million years not 100 million.
Haven't we been over this before?
Secondly, some of the molecules involved need not have been formed on Earth at all-- certain amino acids for ex.
Thirdly, your probability calculations assume complete randomness and chemistry isn't completely random. It follows rules.
Fourthly, are you calculating the chance of that one series of reactions will produce a protein (I believe you were talking about proteins) or do you realize that there would have been hundreds of millions or billion of simultaneous reactions going on?
Gene posted some applicable links :
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Thermodynamics
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 9:15 PM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-08-2002 4:31 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 66 (15041)
08-08-2002 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-08-2002 4:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Thirdly, your probability calculations assume complete randomness and chemistry isn't completely random. It follows rules.
So what rules are you talking about-thermodynamics, increase in entropy, etc?

No, nothing that complicated. Chemicals react in different ways to different chemicals under different circumstances. It isn't a directed process but it isn't random either. It seems like this need to be taken into account. Forgive me if I miss some points you are trying to make. Admittedly, my chemistry could be better.
[/b][/quote]
I did cover that-look at my numbers-I assumed that 10^93 different reactions were going on at the same time every second, each one producing an protein of 100 amino acids even without counting how many 100 amino acids could be produced at the same time (divide the 10^81 by
the number of atoms in a 100 amino acid chain.)[/B][/QUOTE]
Ok. Gotcha.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-08-2002 4:31 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 66 (15045)
08-08-2002 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-08-2002 4:31 AM


Oh... and does this mean that you are accepting points one and two as valid criticisms?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-08-2002 4:31 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 66 (15051)
08-08-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by gene90
08-08-2002 9:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
For another, dust infall is also a factor. Finally, we don't know how many AA's are needed.
Isn't dust infall somewhere in the range of 200 tons per year currently?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by gene90, posted 08-08-2002 9:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 12:37 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 66 (15089)
08-09-2002 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by gene90
08-09-2002 12:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
40,000 tons per year, according to Science. (Science, News Notes, Irion, Robert, 04/28/2000, Vol. 288 Issue 5466, p603)
oh wow... I'm going to have to start bathing more often.... thanks.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by gene90, posted 08-09-2002 12:37 AM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 66 (15201)
08-11-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by blitz77
08-11-2002 9:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
At 40 000 tons per year, that calculates out to over a ton of dust per square meter on the earth (assuming that the rate was the same in the past) using 4.5 billion years as the age of the earth.
Neat. If I can't get into space, at least space can come to me
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 9:12 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024