Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the first life
Percy
Member
Posts: 22502
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 21 of 138 (124739)
07-15-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by tubi417
07-15-2004 2:52 PM


tubi417 writes:
pink sasquatch, you and crashfrog have different arguments
They are two different, though related, arguments. One points out that because the radiation doesn't penetrate deeply through water, increasing depth provides increasing protection from it.
The other points out that the greater the radiation, the greater the mutation rate, potentially accelerating evolution.
You can combine these two arguments to conclude that the deeper an organism resides in the ocean, the slower its rate of mutation due to radiation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tubi417, posted 07-15-2004 2:52 PM tubi417 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22502
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 99 of 138 (134416)
08-16-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by JRTjr
08-16-2004 3:16 PM


Re: I’m no scientist so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms
jrtjr1 writes:
‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?
Gee, I don't know. I understand your point, but Windows must be millions of lines of code and is far more complicated than a single DNA strand. I wouldn't argue that it's a better work of engineering, though.
I haven't read Lam's reply yet and so don't know what he's arguing, but I would urge you to be skepical of any claims that we have any satisfactory answers to the puzzle of the origin of life. There's plenty of well informed speculation, but at present we really do not know how life first began. We may never know.
I think two of your key issues, namely a) environmental isolation (cell wall) and c) replication, are fine, but b) the building block of the genetic code forming is already known not to be a problem. Nucleotides are not all that complex, and some nucleotides can even form spontaneously in outer space, and we find them in meteorites that fall to earth. Nucleotides can no longer form spontaneously here on earth, because since life is already present, any complex organic molecules that formed would be immediately consumed as food by bacteria and other microscopic life.
There is hardly any available evidence to help us figure out how the first life came about, and scientists accept a natural origin of life primarily because of a simple logical progression. When we look inside a cell we see nothing but chemistry. Complicated organic chemistry, to be sure, but just chemistry nonetheless, and certainly no evidence of the divine. Even reproduction is just chemistry. So if all life is just complicated chemistry, then as you trace life back to its beginnings you should still find nothing but chemistry.
Hutton gave us the phrase, "The present is the key to the past." In thinking about life's origins scientists assume that the same array of forces and influences for which we have evidence have been present throughout all time. All that is necessary to add a divine force to the list is to discover evidence for it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by JRTjr, posted 08-16-2004 3:16 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by coffee_addict, posted 08-16-2004 6:55 PM Percy 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