Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenisis by the Numbers
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 206 (159771)
11-15-2004 2:19 PM


What about the information? If DNA is an instruction manual for cellular activity, wouldn't information theory apply here as well? Wouldn't we have to identify a sender of the information?

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Coragyps, posted 11-15-2004 2:27 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 129 by Loudmouth, posted 11-15-2004 2:30 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 206 (159802)
11-15-2004 3:22 PM


Loudmouth replied: "DNA is not an instruction manual, it is a chemical polymer. DNA does not give instructions, it reacts with other chemicals. Information derived from DNA is of human origin and interpretation, not an inherent property of DNA itself. "
From the Human Genome Website:
"DNA: Your Genetic Blueprint.
DNA is the carrier of genetic information in every cell of a living organism. ...the DNA molecule, where all the information needed to build and operate an organism is contained."

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Brad McFall, posted 11-15-2004 3:31 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 134 by Loudmouth, posted 11-15-2004 3:34 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 206 (159825)
11-15-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Loudmouth
11-15-2004 3:34 PM


Tree rings are not "instructing" the tree or me when I look at them to move, build, repair, etc. I think we just disagree on this "layer of abstraction". Clearly the cellular machinery is motivated to action, as opposed to a star spectrum which produces no such phenomena. The layer of abstraction may not be as thick or heavy as your use of the word "colloquial" perhaps, but the medium (the ink if you will) appears to produce definite actions in the receivers (the microbiological machinery in the cell).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Loudmouth, posted 11-15-2004 3:34 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Loudmouth, posted 11-15-2004 4:32 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 206 (159848)
11-15-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Loudmouth
11-15-2004 4:32 PM


Loudmouth's reply: "The same could be said for the chain reaction in nuclear devices, all chemical reactions, etc. There is nothing different at a chemical level in cell or in a reaction vial in chemistry class. If DNA carries a certain type of information, then that same information is carried by every single atom in the universe."
Yes, I agree at a chemical level. The problem, and this is where the abiogenisis tie in occurs, is that when H2 bonds with O we get nothing more extraordinary than water (which don't get me wrong I find fascinating in itself). But introduce DNA into a cell and suddenly that cell is replicating, combining with other cells to form organs, and doing such marvelous things as writing this reply to you. So in order for life to form spontaneously, I think we have to factor in this information, which some of us would contend contains a layer of abstraction beyond any information we could decode from any other set of atoms in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Loudmouth, posted 11-15-2004 4:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Brad McFall, posted 11-16-2004 9:21 AM dshortt has not replied
 Message 148 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 11:35 AM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 206 (160136)
11-16-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Loudmouth
11-16-2004 11:46 AM


Re: Calculations
First off, it is highly doubtful that there are a billion planets that could support life. Next, all you end up with is protein. This protein would have to be in close proximaty (highly unlikely), and then of course comes the leap from non-life to life which is the basis of this discussion.
It also occurs to me that, in accordance with an earlier post, there are a ton of "conditions" that must be met for this life synthesis to even be possible. Wouldn't it make sense to calculate the odds of finding those conditions in the first place before the odds of that first little creature forming could be calculated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 11:46 AM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 3:02 PM dshortt has replied
 Message 152 by Coragyps, posted 11-16-2004 3:02 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 206 (160143)
11-16-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Loudmouth
11-16-2004 11:35 AM


Yes, and the combustion of molecular hydrogen in the presence of molecular oxygen ALWAYS results in water, with a few exceptions. Loudmouth replied: "This repeatability is also seen in genetic systems, where certain codons ALWAYS result in a specific amino acid, where certain amino acid chains always fold into a specific enzyme, where certain bases are complimented with another base. The information for this repeatability is a characteristic of the atoms that make up larger molecules. The information needed to create a self replicating system is present in atoms, not in a nebulous metaphysical creation process."
You make this sound so inevitable that I have to wonder why self-replication has eluded the labs trying to produce up to now. I think you are describing the chemical process to produce the ink rather than realizing that a whole set of highly improbable processes are relying on the ink to get them started. And it may be that DNA is not the only home for this information, but there is clearly something going on here that is greater than the sum of the parts.
Loudmouth also said: "And where in this process is physics and chemistry not involved? Where in this process is any natural law broken? Nowhere. The same laws that govern the combustion of hydrogen govern the chemistry of life. Also, put water in a gas tank and what happens? Nothing. Specificity of reactions applies to non-life as well as life."
Interesting analogy. Put gas in the tank, but don't put a driver in the seat to turn the key and what happens: nothing again. No physical laws are broken in the manufacturing process of a car either, but here again the sum of the parts is not the same as blowing down a straightaway at 120 with the top down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 11:35 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 11-16-2004 3:28 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 206 (160152)
11-16-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Loudmouth
11-16-2004 3:02 PM


Re: Calculations
Loudmouth replied: "A billion planets would be one per galaxy, since there are conservativley one billion galaxies. A billion planets may actually be a low estimate. If there are 100 planets per galaxy that could support life, then we jump to 100 billion planets."
Yes, but for the life-necessary conditions on earth to duplicated, we are talking about a much lower number. If there are say 150 criteria necessary to life and each one of these criteria has a 1 in 10 to the 10th power chances of showing up in a random planet, then the universe is not big enough to have produced even one life-supporting planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 3:02 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 3:43 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 206 (160166)
11-16-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by pink sasquatch
11-16-2004 3:43 PM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Pink Sasquatch replies: "I think there are underlying assumptions in the argument in this thread that we simply can't make. The common ID perspective is that conditions for the arisal of life are impossibly strict, and therefore were unlikely to occur on Earth. What evidence do we have to support that view?"
I wouldn't think it would be too hard to take a constant (examples abound; the force of gravity, nuclear forces, the axial tilt of the earth, etc) tweak it and see if life could survive under the new conditions. Granted we are talking present, but they couldn't have been too far from what they are now on the early earth.
Pink Sasquatch also said: "For all we know, huge portions of Earth may have been under absolutely ideal conditions for the assembly of nucleic-acid based life, and may have stayed that way for millions of years."
Now that would be a huge assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 3:43 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 11-16-2004 4:22 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 159 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 4:29 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 206 (160207)
11-16-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by pink sasquatch
11-16-2004 4:29 PM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Pink Sasquatch says: "We could, but we'd only be predicting if modern life, as we know it, could survive under the new conditions. That is another huge assumption - that the only way life can exist is in the form we know. Perhaps a gravity "tweak" that would kill life as we know would have simply changed selective forces, producing a different form life."
Maybe, but now we have compounded the problem because we must figure out abiogenisis for a life form we are not familiar with and then figure out how it transformed itself into modern life. It seems a fairly safe assumption that early life was carbon-based and required DNA or RNA. And these 150 plus criteria I spoke of are all required for carbon-based life to exist.
Pink Sasquatch also replied: "It is an assumption - since you call it "huge" do you have any evidence to counter it? Do you have any evidence supporting your assumption of it being an unlikely place for life to arise? If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it."
I don't assume the early earth was an unlikely place for life to arise. I assume that anyplace is an unlikely place for life to arise by purely natural means. If you seriously would like to see evidence however for how hostile the early earth environment is thought to have been for life to form or survive, I will be glad to supply.
And also: "You also didn't address my point that the formation of chemical replicators (life) is inevitable in a complex system, and that the system simply determines the kind of chemical replicator that forms."
Could you please define "complex system" for me. Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 4:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 6:19 PM dshortt has replied
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 11-16-2004 6:55 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 206 (160470)
11-17-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Brad McFall
11-17-2004 8:46 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Hey Brad, before you sign off on this thread, may offer the following from Dr. Hugh Ross:
Origin of Life Predictions Face Off, at reasons.org/resources
Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:27 AM
This message has been edited by dshortt, 11-17-2004 12:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2004 8:46 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2004 12:29 PM dshortt has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 206 (160471)
11-17-2004 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Brad McFall
11-17-2004 8:46 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
And also:
Recent discoveries continue to indicate that life appeared suddenly and early in Earth’s history. While substantiation for a rapid and early origin of life is fragmentary, the scientific community, by and large, views the evidence as convincing. Chemical residues of biological activity dated at greater than 3.8 billion years and fossilized bacteria recovered from rocks dated at around 3.5 billion years present primary indicators for early life.1 The incomplete nature of the evidence, the great antiquity of the rocks, and the geological processes operating on life’s remains obscure understanding of the first life on Earth, leaving many questions unanswered.
However, recent discoveries begin to address some of these questions. These new discoveries not only provide important additional support for an early origin of life, but also yield insight into the type of bacterial communities and metabolic processes at work.
The first of these new discoveries, made by an international team of scientists, uncovered fossilized bacterial remains in rocks from South Africa dated between 3.3 and 3.5 billion years in age.2 Spherical, sausage-shaped, and filamentous bacterial fossils in thin sections of the rock samples indicate the presence of a complex microbial ecology made up of different types of microorganisms. Additionally, the chemical make up of the bulk carbon isolated from the rock indicates that it resulted from biological processes-quite likely photosynthesis.
Researchers from Indiana University and Kanagawa University (Japan) sought to gain an understanding of early photosynthesis by employing a different approach from that of the scientists studying ancient rocks from South Africa. Working from an evolutionary perspective, these investigators compared genes from the various groups of photosynthetic bacteria that play a role in making a key molecule needed for photosynthesis.3 These scientists hoped to uncover the evolutionary origin and development of photosynthesis. Due to similarities and differences among the genes, they concluded that if evolution brought about photosynthesis, anoxygenic photosynthesis (that which occurs in the absence of oxygen) must have emerged before oxygenic (that which occurs in the presence of oxygen).
Researchers from Princeton University and the Russian Academy of Sciences, employing a chemical approach, reached a similar conclusion.4 Namely, to fit an evolutionary model, anoxygenic photosynthesis must have emerged prior to oxygenic. Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form.
These findings create problems for the evolutionary paradigm when examined in the context of the geological record. Fossil deposits clearly indicate the presence of a diverse collection of microbes capable of oxygenic photosynthesis on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.5 This means, from an evolutionary perspective, more complex anoxygenic photosynthesis must have been in operation well before 3.5 billion years ago. According to these results, evolutionary models for the origin of life must now account for the rapid and early appearance of photosynthesis.
The rapid and early appearance of life on Earth represents, perhaps, the most remarkable discovery in origin-of-life research. Yet this scenario does not fit within the various evolutionary portrayals of life’s origin. By emerging strictly through natural processes, life’s appearance on Earth should have taken place over a relatively long period. In contrast, the rapid and early beginning of life on Earth signifies the hallmark characteristics expected of life with a supernatural origin.
References:
Manfred Schidlowski, A 3,800-Million Year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks, Nature 333 (1988), 313-18; Manfred Schidlowski, Carbon Isotopes as Biogeochemical Recorders of Life Over 3.8 Ga of Earth History: Evolution of a Concept, Precambrian Research 106 (2001): 117-34; S. J. Mojzsis et al., Evidence for Life on Earth before 3,800 Million Years Ago, Nature 384 (1996), 55-59; J. William Schopf, Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life, Science 260 (1993), 640-46.
Frances Westall et al., Early Archean Fossil Bacteria and Biofilms in Hydrothermally Influenced Sediments from the Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa, Precambrian Research 106 (2001): 93-116.
Jin Xiong et al., Molecular Evidence for the Early Evolution of Photosynthesis, Science 289 (2000), 1724-30.
G. C. Dismukes et al., The Origin of Atmospheric Oxygen on Earth: The Innovation of Oxygenic Photosynthesis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98 (2001): 2170-75.
Schopf, 640-46.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2004 8:46 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 206 (160479)
11-17-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Brad McFall
11-17-2004 8:46 AM


Re: conditions and assumptions
And then one last thing:
See: Some Like It HotBut First Life Did Not
By Fazale R. Rana again at reasons.org/resources
Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:26 AM
This message has been edited by dshortt, 11-17-2004 12:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2004 8:46 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 206 (160481)
11-17-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
11-16-2004 6:55 PM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Please see messages 164, 165 and 166. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 11-16-2004 6:55 PM Percy has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 206 (160482)
11-17-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by pink sasquatch
11-16-2004 6:19 PM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Please see messages 164, 165 and 166. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 6:19 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 206 (160485)
11-17-2004 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by pink sasquatch
11-16-2004 6:19 PM


Re: conditions and assumptions
Also, see reasons.org/resources
Probability for a Life Support Body
by Hugh Ross
April, 2004
Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body
Remaining incredibly lengthy content of post deleted. Please provide a link. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-17-2004 11:26 AM
This message has been edited by dshortt, 11-17-2004 12:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-16-2004 6:19 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-17-2004 4:06 PM dshortt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024