Transition from chemistry to biology

I'm not sure what you mean by this;

quote:

---

but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.

---

What exactly do you think abiogenesis should make them do? The conditions are different now, abiogenesis is probably impossible now (also see edited message above).

quote:

---

If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death???

---

That's another question and a complicated one, which I am not best equipped to help you with. Suffice to say that it poses no problem for the beginning of life.

quote:

---

and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????

---

That is exactly what abiogenesis researchers are trying to find out. You shouldn't write off their efforts so soon.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

How do you know this. How can one know what happens in a galaxy 5 billion light years away? There may be only one planet in the universe with life or there may be billions.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hang on a second. Let me get this straight. As a creationist, do you doubt that life derives its substance from chemical reactions? A professor of mine used to tell us that a discovery ain't a discovery if it answered more questions than it created new questions. That's what science is about. You criticize one of the strengths of science as if it's a weakness.

---

People Eating Tasty Animals

Hi, Peg. You're thinking about this all the wrong way.Nothing is keeping those chemicals reacting except the fact that all those chemicals are reacting in such a way as to promote one another’s actions. As long as the conditions are suitable for a reaction to take place, it will take place. And, our bodies contain vast networks of reactions that maintain suitable conditions for other reactions to take place. It’s all just a delicate balancing act.Life is simply the condition of relative stability among those chemical reactions. Death results when the stability is lost and cannot be regained.Did you ever watch I Love Lucy? Remember the famous episode where Lucy and Ethel had to work at a chocolate factory, wrapping chocolates while they passed by on a conveyor belt? Once one chocolate got by them, they were behind in their work, and, from then on, they had to struggle to regain control. Eventually, the chocolates began piling up, and the ladies lost control.What happened there? Everything they needed to get the chocolates wrapped was there---Lucy, Ethel, the chocolates, the wrappers, and the conveyor belt. All the necessary ingredients were present, but the system failed anyway.And, we see this kind of failure all the time in the real world. For example, my father’s company used to be highly competitive on the market, but became incapable of supporting the sales and shipping networks its competitors had, and was eventually bought out.If the intelligence and creativity of human beings is not sufficient to maintain a system indefinitely, why do you feel that molecules would be more proficient?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

One does not even have to look this far away. We are not even 100% sure that life does not exist in some locations in our own solar system i.e. the liquid oceans underneath the ice of Europa. the possible liquid methane on Titan or even remnants of life in the dry lake beds of Mars.We have no idea if life does or does not exist in the next solar system over much less the 2²¹ other potentially earth-like planets in the observable universe.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

quote:

---

and in all those billions of places and possibilities, only 1 spot produced life?

​

spontaneous generation/abiogenesis was demolished by Pasteur's experiments a long time ago. It certainly does not occur in our world today, and you would think that if anything, the probablility of it occuring in a world full of life and with all the right conditons, it would happen. They cant even replicate it in the lab under controlled conditions.

---

The right conditions dont happen today in nature. Some of the chemicals required for abiogenesis only occur in an oxygen free environment. Earth severely lacks that. And we can replicate it in lab conditions.Early replica | New Scientistand to further the point, they were able to replicate evolution also.Artificial molecule evolves in the lab | New ScientistFor more info read this threadhttp://EvC Forum: Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) -->EvC Forum: Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)

Pasteur's experiments are completely irrelevant to this discussion.Pasteur established that life does not develop from non-life in a few hours, days or weeks. If life developed on this planet as is currently theorized, the process took millions or billions of years. I trust you can now see why Pasteur's experiments have no bearing.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

yes your right, thats a good pick up.

quote:

---

I guess i used this example because the dead thing contains all the chemicals required for life...but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.

​

If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????

​

What kept them interacting throughout the creatures life?

​

It creates more questions then it answers.

---

Not really, all these questions have already been answered by science. its called entropy. Over time, disorder increases in living beings. While they constantly are doing work to prevent this, in the entropy wins. As such, living beings have a special mechanism in place to continue their genes, reproduction.The ultimate force that got them together in the first place(although its not really a force in the physics sense) would be the energy from the sun. It provided the heat and as chemistry has shown us, the right molecules+heat=chemical reaction. The early earth was a sea of these right molecules constantly reacting with each other(about 10^33 or so molecules, an extremely massive number way beyond any human comprehension) and eventually the right molecules reacted to create the molecules i mentioned earlier. These molecules competed with each other and evolved to best get resources.

and maybe flying saucers are real

cutting off my sentence half way may make it seem like that is what i am saying...put it altogether and its saying something completely different though.

So we could probably say that a very rough estimate of potentially reactions of the right molecules to produce life on all the potentially life-condusive planets in the observable universe is something in the ballpark of 10³³ (reacting molecules) x 2²¹ = 20⁵⁴ give or take a couple of ^x. Now multiply that by 15 billion years and expand this out past the size of obervable universe than we are talking about a number probably larger than googleplex (10^google) and the realistic answer is LIFE IS NOT JUST POSSIBLE BUT INEVITABLE given a habitable planet w/ the nearly infinite supply of energy of a star.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

that article doesnt really say abiogenesis has been replicated does it? I've yet to hear of anyone creating life in a lab. Personally i think what scientists are slowly discovering is how God created life. Life is a complicated thing that obviously needs a lot of direction...it seems most unlikely that it would naturally.your 2nd link shows just how complex life is and the probability of it happening without direction seem ludicrous.
They created an artificial molecule that could copy itself but even they said "this is not the same as bringing it to life. It self-replicated to a point, but eventually clogged up in shapes that could no longer sew RNA pieces together. "It was a real dog," Joyce says.the conclusion of the article is:
"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.sounds like biologists have a long LONG way to go before they understand how life came to be.

hey bluejay,i get what you're saying and it does make sense. i believe they've been designed to continue indefinitely. For instance you can calculate whether man lives longer than other mammals. take the mouse the mouse for instance, its heart rate is about 550 beats per minute. Multiply the number of minutes per year (526,000) by the number of heartbeats per minute and then multiply that by the life expectancy of the mouse (a little over 3 years), we have some 950,000,000 heartbeats for the average mouse.Do the same for the largest mammal on earth, the elephant with a heartrate of 20 per minute, over a 70-year life-span comes to about 736,300,000 heartbeats.so think about it...in general, mammals get about 1billion or less heartbeats in a lifetime. But now do the same calculation for man. We have approx 72 heartbeats per minute and a life expectancy of 70 years, the number of heartbeats given to man is more then twice as much as other mammals 2,600,000,000. I dont know what this has got to do with the subject, but it shows that we have far more potential then other mammals. (besides this there is the biblical account of humans living for many hundreds of years pre flood)

Human beings also have access to medical care in areas where the life expectancy averages to 70+ years. Even in first-world nations with excellent healthcare, animals don't receive nearly the care humans do. And what of the humans who live to over 120 years, nearly twice the average life expectancy?It sounds like you're pulling nonsense from thin air, Peg.

Hi, Peg.You may not know it, but what you are presenting is one of the oldest theories of aging. It's called the "rate of living theory," and it has not been taken seriously for quite some time now. Bats live about three times as long as mice, but have similar metabolic rates. That puts bats above us. In fact, I think you'll find that humans aren't actually all that unusual on the metabolism-lifespan curve. Observations like this is why the rate-of-living hypothesis is no longer in favor with scientists.But, you're right: this has little to do with the topic of this thread.-----Really, the bottom line is that life continues only as long as the network of chemical reactions that comprise it feed each other efficiently and stably. Death is simply the point when certain vital chemical reactions fail. But, in truth, many less vital reactions fail long before death actually occurs.The accumulation of failing reactions is what causes life to end. If there was no failure, there would be no death.Of course, many chemical reactions can continue after death has occurred (such as the oxidation of hemoglobin), so it's obvious that these reactions do not require life in order to happen. All they require is the right conditions. When a large number of reactions can provide the right conditions for each other to happen and perpetuate, we call it "life."

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.