Transition from chemistry to biology

quote:

---

Posts: 396
From: Wisconsin
Registered: 05-15-2003

​

Message 295 of 296 07-01-2009 04:25 PM
I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

​

That's the wrong way to look at it. You've got 14 billion years, billions of planets, blillions of points on each planet, and billions of molecules interacting at each point. That's billions upon billions upon billions of chances for a self-replicating reaction to take place.

---

Actually the numbers you have are way too low. Consider that one mole of a substance has a number of molecules equal to 6.02X10^23. And moles of the substance would probably be at most in the hundreds of grams, so you are talking about absolutely massive amounts of molecules all combining and recombining for billions of years.

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)

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.

Peg, scientific theores changes to meet new data. I don't think you understand the point of the Pasteur experiment. Pasteur was showing that fruit flies will not evolve from meat. This was certainly a correct hypothesis. Pasteur did not show that simple singled celled organisms(which he did not do any tests for in his experiment)could not arise in the conditions found on a young earth. Nobody is denying the validity of Pasteurs findings that fruit flies won't simply spring out of meat, just your attempt to apply this to the current theories of abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with Pasteur.

Scientists have not had to work hard to create life. They had to work hard to discover and recreate the conditions of the early earth, but once they did that life started on its own.

1. Nobody has ever disproved Pasteurs experiments. People still believe that flies don't spontantiously grow out of meat. However, Pasteurs experiments had absolutely nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis.2. The earth being the center of the universe and being flat are both not scientific theories. They were both created by religion(Christianity). The earth not being flat has been known since the times of BC when the Greeks proved it was round. You see, the Christians refused to listen to the scientific data because it contradicted there interpretation of the Bible despite the considerable evidence against them. Hm, now why does that sound familiar? WHKMLA : Era of Discovery, Flat Earth versus Round Globe And I would like you to please source me a scientific study stating that worms cause warts. Myths and old wives tales=/=science3. If you would like to discuss evolutionary frauds RAZD made an excellent topic for you to list them. I am sure of course that you have done extensive study on the issue instead of just making stuff up, so you will provide a major help to the creatists side for this debate. currently they are vastly outnumbering the "evolutionists" in hoaxes. If you are going to claim evolution science is "at the top" in number of frauds, you are going to have to provide more frauds than are currently listed on the evolution side. But of course with your extensive research in the subject I am sure that won't be a problem at all.http://EvC Forum: Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes -->EvC Forum: Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

This leads me to believe that you don't correctly understand what Pasteurs experiments are. Can you please tell me in your own words what you think Pasteur did?Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

I agree. And how many scientists have suggested that the first life formed in sterilized water?

Well, Perdition, not entirely true. we can reasonably say there is no life intelligent enough to find the EM spectrum in any of the planets we have tested, but simply life. No, we have no of commenting on that yet.