Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:01 AM
24 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 271 of 305 (397283)
04-25-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Fosdick
04-25-2007 11:02 AM


Proving more than chemistry
but I can prove that life itself is more than just a collection of chemicals. (Clue: think genes—pure, digital information.)

Oh really? Prove it then. Genes are after all just chemicals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:02 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:49 AM NosyNed has responded
 Message 286 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 8:01 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3666 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 272 of 305 (397289)
04-25-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by NosyNed
04-25-2007 11:25 AM


Re: Proving more than chemistry
Nosy wrote:

Genes are after all just chemicals.

Are they? Rocks are all just chemicals. Dirt is all just chemicals. Planets are all just chemicals. The whole universe is all just chemicals. Why shouldn't life be all just chemicals? Chemists arrogantly like to ask those questions.

But life is more than just a bunch of chemicals. Because nowhere in this universe, so far as we, nothing but life that depends upon a digital code to facilitate its chemical survival and biological evolution. Take away it encoded messages and deciphering alphabet and whaddaya got? A lot amino acids floating around with nowhere to go and nothing to do...but, of course, they're all just a bunch of chemicals.

—HM

Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2007 11:25 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2007 1:20 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 273 of 305 (397307)
04-25-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Fosdick
04-25-2007 11:02 AM


Still with the non-answers.
I see you are still simply trying to avoid answering the question while moving goal posts and making unsupported assertions.

jar, don't bother me anymore with this question. I can have any old expectation I like without having to get your approval for it.

Of course. You can have any expectation you want. I just wondered if there was any reason for such an expectation, and based on your responses, the answer is that you have NO reason for holding such an expectation.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:02 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 1:02 PM jar has responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3666 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 274 of 305 (397310)
04-25-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by jar
04-25-2007 12:47 PM


Re: Still with the non-answers.
I see you are still simply trying to avoid answering the question while moving goal posts and making unsupported assertions.

Oh, and don't forget "palming the pea."

Of course. You can have any expectation you want. I just wondered if there was any reason for such an expectation, and based on your responses, the answer is that you have NO reason for holding such an expectation.

NO reason good enough for you, perhaps. Why do you cling to your chemicals when molecular biologists have already shown that there is more to life than molecular biology?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by jar, posted 04-25-2007 12:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 04-25-2007 1:09 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 275 of 305 (397312)
04-25-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Fosdick
04-25-2007 1:02 PM


Still making unsupported assertions and trying to move goalposts
NO reason good enough for you, perhaps. Why do you cling to your chemicals when molecular biologists have already shown that there is more to life than molecular biology?

Again, nowhere have I made such an assertion.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 1:02 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 276 of 305 (397317)
04-25-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Fosdick
04-25-2007 11:49 AM


Re: Proving more than chemistry
You said you would prove that it was more than just chemicals.

I'm waiting for that proof. The DNA is a chemical too HM. It changes and replicates with chemical reacations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:49 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4117
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 277 of 305 (397331)
04-25-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Fosdick
04-25-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Why?
Then, by your reasoning, abiogensis could never happen because life would simply eat itself to death. (After bug A eats bug B it starves to death, and the whole process has to start over.)

You’re almost right there, Hoot. After some millennia of replication and the development of a rudimentary genetic code by chemical trial and error some simple “bugs” would have been formed and would have eaten other replicators, scraps of partial replicators and other bugs just as they do today. It is a bug-eat-bug world out there. This is, after all, still a "Bacteria Planet."

I can't prove that it wasn't, but I can prove that life itself is more than just a collection of chemicals. (Clue: think genes—pure, digital information.)

So, Hoot, is it your contention that some simple rudimentary combination of molecules acting as a crude genetic code some 3.5 billion years ago could not have evolved into the elegant genes we know and love today? Would you share this proof you have that life is more than just a collection of chemicals?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 11:02 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 7:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 278 of 305 (397333)
04-25-2007 2:23 PM


Pure, Digital, Information
a phrase so loved by Hoot Mon to describe DNA.

Let's take a look at computer data. It's 1 and 0. Each byte is composed of 8 bits (which i think means a sequence of 8 of those 1s or 0s).

now then, 1s and 0s are just electronic signals. 1 is on (i believe), 0 is off (and if this is not the case, it's just vice versa).

That's what computer data is. Electricity. But wait, you say--it's digital information.

Yes and no. 1s and 0s are just electronic signals, just like DNA is just chemicals. The "information" part is not separate, like you seem to imply. It is, it would seem, an inherent part of the structure.

Anyhow, you're argument is bull. True, DNA holds information. But it is just chemicals, just like 1s and 0s are just electrical signals.

I think you're confusing the thing itself for the interpretation of that thing.

Edited by kuresu, : realized I never asked a question . . .so that sentence got axe'd


Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Woodsy, posted 04-25-2007 2:32 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 279 of 305 (397335)
04-25-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by kuresu
04-25-2007 2:23 PM


Re: Pure, Digital, Information
I wonder if Hoot Mon is trying to sneak souls in through the back door with this "more than chemistry" stuff.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kuresu, posted 04-25-2007 2:23 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2007 3:27 PM Woodsy has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 7:59 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 280 of 305 (397341)
04-25-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 7:53 PM


Rock spore eat my proto-life!
Yes, I know. It's a version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse. Only in this case it's "life ate my evidence."

The dog ate my homework is an excuse, most usually a lie. Life didn't eat our evidence, since we do not think that there is any evidence for life to eat. Prebiotic chemicals don't have the opportunity to chemically self organize and develop hereditary traits - since those chemicals will be being used for other things by existing and prevalent life.

Then, by your reasoning, abiogensis could never happen because life would simply eat itself to death. (After bug A eats bug B it starves to death, and the whole process has to start over.)

Abiogenesis would be very unlikely to occur on present day earth because present day life basically prohibits it. However, in early biotic times, life would not eat itself. Certainly Life A will eat Life B, but life B would reproduce and the offspring will eat more Life As. There would be a Darwinian struggle, you might say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 7:53 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2007 4:41 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 287 by Fosdick, posted 04-25-2007 8:10 PM Modulous has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 281 of 305 (397342)
04-25-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
04-24-2007 5:32 PM


cell formation
That's a bit further down the road than abiogenesis, isn't it?

It probably depends on your preferred model. In the Lipid World model, they talk about cell membrane like formations developing. Some models are more 'naked' than this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 04-24-2007 5:32 PM ringo has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4117
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 282 of 305 (397355)
04-25-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Woodsy
04-25-2007 2:32 PM


Re: Pure, Digital, Information
I wonder if Hoot Mon is trying to sneak souls in through the back door with this "more than chemistry" stuff.

He may be, but I don’t think so.

The Hooter will correct me if I am wrong here.

I get the impression that what Hoot is trying to convey is that our knowledge is so deficient to explain life (read: the complexity of a genetic code) yet our knowledge of chemistry is so vast that we must have missed something. I would not say he is looking toward some metaphysical poofery or “life force” or essence but more towards some grand universal organizing principle we just have not yet discovered, like some underlying imperative of an Information-based Universe. This is not to mean that there is some Intelligent Omniscient Being directing creation but more a meaning of a universe whose structure is not determined solely by some chart of particles and a few fundamental forces but rather by some basal information paradigm embedded in the fabric of the cosmos.

But, then again, I may be full of excremental dollops.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Oh, let's see...I added nothing actually. Subtracted nothing, either. Hopefully no one will notice any change so, on that hope, I'll not reveal my slight error and thus pretend there was none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Woodsy, posted 04-25-2007 2:32 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4117
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 283 of 305 (397365)
04-25-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Modulous
04-25-2007 2:58 PM


It's Alive! It's Alive! Or is it?
Most definitions of “Abiogenesis” evoke at least a primitive, cursory but functional cell in that it exhibits metabolism and replication. In this definition I agree that such a formation would be extremely rare on this planet today.

However, I do put forward the position that, shall we call them Replicator Events (?), still do happen on this planet; the serendipitous combination of chains of molecules that exhibit metabolism/replication where none was before.

I say this because this planet is a much richer “soup” than an abiotic planet with every nook and cranny now crammed full of the detritus of past life.

Take a drop of water from a pond, clear away all the plankton, flies toes, bug antenna, all that large stuff, and you will be left with small globs of cytoplasm, segments of cell membrane, scraps of nuclear membrane, husks of mitochondrial bodies, full proteins and chromosomes being rent by hydrostatic pressures flinging chains of aminos and fragments of helical nucleics everywhere. It is a bacterial smorgasbord to be sure. But, with all this biochemical stuff already half-formed and ready to go the probability of a replicator event is much greater now than on a pristine abiotic Earth. But, once spawned, having such a thing survive, progress and evolve in today’s world is dubious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2007 2:58 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Modulous, posted 04-26-2007 12:24 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3666 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 284 of 305 (397395)
04-25-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by AZPaul3
04-25-2007 2:18 PM


The chemical v. code test
AZPaul3 wrote:

Would you share this proof you have that life is more than just a collection of chemicals?

Sure, if you're into thought experimentation. Take two E. coli bacteria and put them in separate test tubes containing the same sterilized, healthy medium. Now, using your nanosurigical skills, take one bacterium and shuffle all of the nucleotides on its DNA, making sure you have all the very same nucleotides you started out with after the shuffling is complete. You won't change the chemical at all—it's still DNA with every one of its nucleotides present and accounted for (only in a different order). To the second bacterium you perform the same kind of nanosurgery, to neutralize surgical effects, but you will leave the order of nucleotides on its DNA alone. Make sure you put 'em all back in the right places, OK. Start the clock and let the experiment run for 24 hours. Return and examine your results.

I predict that one test tube will have lots of healthy microbes swimming around. And I predict one test tube will not have any at all. There is the proof you desire, because BOTH bacterial cells contained ALL the chemicals they allegedly require to get on with their bacterial affairs. But only one of them contained that pure, digital information we have come to know as genes. That bug did fine. But take those whispy codes away and whadaya get? A tiny lump of chemicals and nothing else.

Case closed.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by AZPaul3, posted 04-25-2007 2:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 04-25-2007 8:29 PM Fosdick has responded
 Message 289 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2007 8:40 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2007 11:27 AM Fosdick has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3666 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 285 of 305 (397396)
04-25-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Woodsy
04-25-2007 2:32 PM


Re: Pure, Digital, Information
Woodsy wondxers:

I wonder if Hoot Mon is trying to sneak souls in through the back door with this "more than chemistry" stuff.

Not souls. Codes.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Woodsy, posted 04-25-2007 2:32 PM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019