Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is everything made of the same material?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 23 of 45 (409762)
07-11-2007 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
05-18-2007 1:36 AM


quote:
Let’s start at the beginning of life, with an organism called “X”. Theoretically, you can take the genetic material of X and mutate it, eventually forming a redwood tree, or a dog. This would take billions of years, and it would involve artificial selection instead of natural selection. It would also be improbable due to human constraints, but it's possible.
My question may sound stupid, but here it is: If you start out with X, and you end with a redwood tree, where did all that material come from? How can you go from X to bark and leaves and branches, etc.? Surely trees and bacteria aren’t made of the same material?
Good question, and one which impacts many premises. Yes, IMHO, all life was made from earthly material, and this can be accounted for by a reductionism: calcium and other minerals are earthly components. However, there must also be another factor involved, because the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of light years. We have similar conditions on the moon. I see it as an external triggering factor being required to interact with earthly material to activate life - else nothing happens.
The premise life begins in and from inanimate matter of and by itself is unsustained, and never seen here or in other planets. The premise that earth contains a special mix to condone life is also not sustained, including that water is not seen elsewhere. Pineapples are also not seen elsewhere. Life requires a complete and vast array of structures, with each structure intergrated to all others in a critical design, and one which contradicts the chance premise, even an accumulated series of chance occurences, which compound the odss at every treshold - thereby only increasing the odds for life by itself. Vegetation and other food products constitute only one of 100s of 1000s of other intergrated structures required to support life.
The premise that earth is the exact critical distance from the sun, for example, to produce vegetation, is unsustainable: we have vegetation in the deepest recesses of the oceans, where light won't reach it - this affirms that a criticl light is not the factor, and that life could have evolved in different distances from the sun. The principle of life requiring critical conditions, even if correct, does not mean only critical conditions of earth - it means 'critical conditions' - period! IOW, if life could emerge here in prevailing over one million adverse conditions - it aught to prevail over 2 million adverse conditions elsewhere.
The premise life requires water but cannot evolved without it, is as naive and simplistic as saying water creates life. In fact, we can pick out any of a million factors which would negate life if it were not prevailent.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 05-18-2007 1:36 AM taylor_31 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2007 11:57 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 2:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 24 of 45 (409764)
07-11-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Doddy
05-20-2007 8:38 PM


quote:
doddy
As far as your guess goes, you are exactly right. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts replicate seperately to the host cell, and when the cell divides, half (roughly) of the mitochondria/chloroplasts go to each cell.
This is important to note for sexually reproducing organism, as sperm/pollen cells do not give their mitochondria to the egg cell (they only give their nucleus). Therefore, while you may have your mother's or your father's genes, you can only have your mother's mitochondria!
Mitochondria is tself a derivitive of an already exiting life form, namely bacteria. IOW, life already existed before this product emerged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Doddy, posted 05-20-2007 8:38 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2007 8:04 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 26 of 45 (409782)
07-11-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2007 8:04 AM


quote:
gross error
Is an error gross or is gross an error?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2007 8:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2007 8:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 30 of 45 (409872)
07-11-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
07-11-2007 2:15 PM


quote:
This statement is nonsensical. Light years are a measurement unit of distance, not time.
These are inter-changeable, relative to its context.
quote:
This is your same old argument, as nonsensical as ever. Life requires Earthlike conditions to evolve and survive. That life has no evolved under conditions that are not Earth-like hardly contradicts this premise; indeed, it supports it.
Conditions to survive, and activation, are two different paradigms. The life seen in a swamp, for example, did not initiate solely because of earth-like conditions, is my point. Further, to survive, conditions have to be intergrated and designed in a way the subject is receptive. A mother can support an off-spring, but the emerging life is condusive - signifying a hovering program which incorporates both. Life is involuntary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 2:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 9:58 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 45 (409873)
07-11-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
07-11-2007 8:37 AM


quote:
dr
Is an error gross or is gross an error?
And yet you assure me that English is your native language.
Catch up on your native language, if you think that statement is not grammatically fine. Find out if your error was gross, and know how gross your error is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2007 8:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 33 of 45 (409881)
07-11-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
07-11-2007 9:58 PM


quote:
No, they're not in any way interchangeable. It's as much nonsense to say "eons of light-years" as it is to say "a month of miles."
A month of miles is not the same. The cluster of Virgo is not merely so many miles away, but expressed in the time it takes that light to reach earth. That is why it is termed light YEARS.
quote:
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Can you restate?
Life is not intiated only by earthly matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 9:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 11:16 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 4:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 45 (409893)
07-12-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
07-11-2007 11:16 PM


quote:
equal to 5.87910^12 miles
Derived by secs, mins, day, months of a year. A light year distance = 1 year light travel.
quote:
Why is it that you can't seem to marshal any evidence for that?
There's no evidence of its antithesis either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 11:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2007 2:56 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2007 10:45 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 38 of 45 (409899)
07-12-2007 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
07-12-2007 4:22 AM


quote:
It is difficult to tell whether the problem is garbled syntax or garbled comprehension, but a light year is a measure of distance, and is equal to the distance light travels in a year. Since a light year is equal to 5.87x1012 miles, saying something like "eons of light-years" is the same as saying "eons of many miles," and makes as little sense.
So when you said back in Message 23 that "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of light years," that's equivalent to saying, "the dust of earth's matter does not result in life by itself, even given eons of many miles."
Is that really what you meant to say?
The dif is that unlike light years, 'many miles' is not a quotient of years. My usage may be novel, but not nonsensical. Everyone understood. English is a pliable language, not a wooden one - get with it, folks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 4:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 5:29 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 11:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 42 of 45 (410041)
07-12-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2007 11:07 AM


quote:
CS
I can ride a bicycle a certain distance in a week. We can call that distance bike-weeks.
Would it make sense to talk about my age in bike-weeks?
No, you cannot align a generic association here, because that is not a constant, as with distance and light years. The distance of a star gives an equivalent period of time: these are interactive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 43 of 45 (410042)
07-12-2007 11:03 PM


WHAT MATTERS ABOUT MATTER.
Re Is everything made of the same matter.
This requires a preamble:
1. TIME, MATHS, ENERGY, & MATTER, are *THIS* side of the universe - meaning they did not create the universe, nor did they exist before the universe, but are post universe components. Matter does not exist without energy; time does not exist without matter. And vice versa, can energy exist without matter? The same applies with time.
2. Nothing is 'superfluous' in the universe.
3. All the components of the universe are 'intergrated'. Time is not an independent component: just as energy and matter are receptive to one another, time is reflective of both of them. Eg: pi, radius-circumference ratios, right angles of a triangle, the limits of numbers in a space - are reflective, 'Mathematical' indexes of energy and matter. The same applies with the 'Time' of a pregnancy; the period of a pineapple from a seed; the variant period limits of a human life span and a quark; the planetary rotations and Gravity are reflective indexs of matter and energy.
3. 'Intergration' means: Nothing happens without the interaction of minimum two components ('duality) and nothing happens with one component ('singularity'): One (Singularity) does not exist in the universe. That a single cell amoeaba acitivates itself without a duality is an error: the cell has numerous components; even the impacting force (heat, energt, time etc) which interacts here serves as a duality counterpart.
Conclusion: None of these components apply outside a universe scenario. These would be superfluous pre-universe, violating the 'Interaction' premise. Would a car wheel apply on Jupiter?

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PeterMc, posted 07-17-2007 4:58 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 07-17-2007 8:20 AM IamJoseph 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