Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:21 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, RAZD (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Is Abiogenesis a fact?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 303 (368546)
12-08-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 6:28 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
I'll call it "automatic process mode" set by a mind more brilliant than all scientists combined.

You take the deist view, then? Fine with me; it's not really fundamentally different than most forms of atheism.

Without one to solve the equation, the "X" will remain an "X".

But that's not how it works in reality. In reality, physical laws don't need to be observed in order to happen. Trees don't wait to fall down in the woods until someone is there to see. The laws of physics happen regardless of whether or not someone is in the room.

And I appreciate the fact that You, Crashfrog,Catholic Scientist, and Modulous were courteous. I just hope that you found me courteous too.

Indeed. I hope you stick around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:28 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 272 of 303 (368565)
12-08-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 6:44 PM


Re: but Life ONLY from Life is Not Reasonable
I can only agree that yes, what we are doing here is speculation. Bets are on per my post #269. Let's wait and see what they will come up next.

Another angle on it is to look at the minimum necessary result before life takes a hold.

Definition of Life has some interesting discussion in that regard. To my mind the definition of what we call life is really based on the point at which some random function like mutation acts together with some selection function like natural selection to increase the probability of better systems continuing to replicate versus decreased the probability of replication ...

... in essence defining the minimum life by the point at which evolution can take a hold.

And this point was certainly passed already by 3.5 billion years ago when the oldest life - cyanobacteria (and it was already bacteria yet) - found so far once lived.

This is coming at the picture from a different side, but still going in the same direction eh?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:44 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 303 (368866)
12-10-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by DrJones*
12-07-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
DJ writes:

So where did this living being god come from then? What life spawned him?

I keep saying I'm not doing science, but imo, this begs a response. Hopefully you evos will allow me to get controversial here for a spell with some radical alternative comment.

If Admin objects, I'll bug off so as to keep the peace administratively here in science.

PilotJudas is wrong Biblically that God made life from nothing.
As per LTD1 and the Biblical account, God is/has always been eternally energetic and as per LTD2 energy came from God to create life from dust. Thus God rested (likely to rejuvinate back some energy emitting from creation which he made throughout the universe), again as per LTD2.

Where did this living being god come from? As per LTD1 observation, I see it that something must be eternal, no matter what the science ideology/hypothesis. To the creationist, Jehovah god is the Biblical thermodynamically scientific answer. I know you people don't buy it and most of my creo brethren don't, but that's the buzsaw hypothesis as per my long ago great debate with Jar in which he ended up hard pressed for refutation.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix error which I missed in review


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by DrJones*, posted 12-07-2006 7:43 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by DrJones*, posted 12-10-2006 7:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1932
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 274 of 303 (368867)
12-10-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
12-10-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
So your answer is: Magic!!


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2006 6:56 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2006 7:18 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 303 (368873)
12-10-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by DrJones*
12-10-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
DJ writes:

So your answer is: Magic!!

Call it what you wish, but I see it as no less explicable than the mystical origin of that energetic submicroscopic bit of space from which everything existing allegedly emerged as per secularist viewpoint. I also see it as more compatible with LTD1. From what I read, it remains a mystery as to what energized the original energetic bit of space and what set it off to begin expansion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by DrJones*, posted 12-10-2006 7:00 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 276 of 303 (369031)
12-11-2006 2:10 PM


Digital Origins of Life?
Hello, this is my first post on these boards. I'm a retired biologist who is excessively bothered by this question: Why is life so difficult to explain? For all we know life was sneezed into the universe through the nostrils of God, because we simply do not know where it came from. And for that reason we do not know what life is. Most biologists seem to dwell on the material structures of life and blithely assume it originated here on Earth. I think differently, even to the extent that life may not have originated in this universe. Biologists love to see their universe organized as hierarchies, as do chemists and physicists, but I am suspicious that something non-hierarchical brought life into our universe—something parallel perhaps that allows pure information to exploit certain physical analogs of "our univere" for the sake of its own extra-universal immortality.

Magic and spirituality don't do much for me. But the mystery of life remains unsloved. Why? We ought to be making it from scratch by now in our labs.

So, regarding this origin-of-life problem, I would like to know if anyone here makes as much fuss as I do about the origin of the genetic code. The genes themselves are "pure digital information," according to Richard Dawkins, and they exist in nature ONLY as linear arrangements of a few kinds of nucleotides on long strings of ephemeral nucleic acids. Yet the gene itself is a very durable structure in nature—we carry around hox genes that are >500 miilion years old—even though it endures as "pure information" on short-lived molecules. This non-analogous requirement of genes for the emergence of life seems especially odd to me; it shifts our attention from the material analogs of life to its digital script.

Any thoughts?

—Hoot

Edited by Hoot, : common pypos


Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Matt P, posted 12-12-2006 2:08 PM Fosdick has responded
 Message 279 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-12-2006 2:56 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 303 (369071)
12-11-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
My scanty evidence is that up till now scientists have been grapling to produce protein--real protein--the basic building block of "life". They have not yet done so.

Like I said, you should just read up on the subject. I think you will find that life from non-life is not all that unreasonable.

And, even if they produce that "most basic form of life" that would still NOT preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER.

I totally agree. But I'll point out that nothing can preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER. Even if we know every instant of the past and how everything came to be, it still doesn't mean that god isn't behind it all.

Just to build that "basic life form" took all the most brilliant minds to produce it. How much more for the "more complicated life form".?

But it also happened without any intellegence at all (although I realise you don't believe this).

Remember again the definition of a "Maker". One who has the resources and the necessary skills and knowledge to PROCESS INPUTS into desired OUTPUTS.

I think ID is a crock of shit, no offense. At least from a scientific point of view.

A lot of processes that seem to require intellegence turn out to require no intellegence at all. Its more amazing to me that they don't. I don't find it necessary to include a designer and I don't see science as challenging my faith whatsoever.

What Scientists are actually saying is this: 'we have discovered a horn, a horse, and a wing therefore there is a unicorn'.

I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. You've probably read some dishonest anti-science literature (perhaps AiG or something).

Take it from me, someone who is on your side and the other side, that science is no threat to faith. There's no apologetics needed when science discovers that life can come from non-life, or that man evolved from simpler primates. It doesn't take anything away from GOD. (although sometimes it does point out the fallacies in the Bible.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:07 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 278 of 303 (369309)
12-12-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Fosdick
12-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Hi Hoot Mon! Welcome to EvC!

Hoot Mon writes:

This non-analogous requirement of genes for the emergence of life seems especially odd to me; it shifts our attention from the material analogs of life to its digital script.

While I'm not quite clear on your question, I think that the focus on "digital information" is just a sign of the times. The origins of life research crowd is generally divided into two camps: replication-firsters and metabolism-firsters (there are a few other camps as well, like membrane-firsters, but in general that's around about it). Depending on who you talk to you will receive different perceptions of the origin of life- some propose it began with a replicator, others state it's a series of quasi-metabolic reactions. A large proportion of origins of life research is in fact focused with the replication-first paradigm in mind. Other research in the metabolism-first paradigm is sometimes viewed as "renegade" or even worse.

The field of origins of life research arose around about the same time as the Watson-Crick discovery of the structure of DNA, and was clearly affected by this discovery. Pre-DNA the origins field focused on the formation of amino acids, sugars, membranes, and other biological components of life. Post-DNA the origins field focused on nucleobases, ribose, and polymerization pathways. One sees a similar change of focus in the biological and biochemical studies.

In recent times, the origins of life field has gotten more messy, and it may soon abandon the metabolism-first vs. replication-first paradigms. It's hard to say where it's going, but we shall see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Fosdick, posted 12-11-2006 2:10 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Fosdick, posted 12-12-2006 3:28 PM Matt P has responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 279 of 303 (369326)
12-12-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Fosdick
12-11-2006 2:10 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Hi Hoot Mon,

You wrote:

But the mystery of life remains unsloved. Why? We ought to be making it from scratch by now in our labs.

I agree. You put it nicely, professor: 'life is mysterious, if not we ought to be making it now in our labs'. As I've said in my previous post: 'show me the worm from science's lab'.

Welcome to the question of the ages!
PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Fosdick, posted 12-11-2006 2:10 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 12-12-2006 3:06 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17297
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 280 of 303 (369332)
12-12-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by NOT JULIUS
12-12-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
pilate_judas writes:

Welcome to the question of the ages!

Actually, the question of the ages is: Where are my keys? The origin of life is much less compelling.

As I've said in my previous post: 'show me the worm from science's lab'.

First show me the need for more worms.

One of the reasons we haven't created life in the lab is that it is much easier to create it the old-fashioned way. Much of our lab work, in fact, is on how to destroy life.

Don't confuse "we haven't done it yet" with "it can't happen". They said the same thing about the flying machine.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-12-2006 2:56 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Chiroptera, posted 12-12-2006 3:12 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 282 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-12-2006 3:13 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 281 of 303 (369334)
12-12-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ringo
12-12-2006 3:06 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Besides, even if someone did create life in a lab, they would just say, "See? It takes a team of scientists using the lastest scientific methods and technology to create life. That proves it couldn't have happened by chance in the real world!"

A no win situation, actually.


Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 12-12-2006 3:06 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 282 of 303 (369337)
12-12-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ringo
12-12-2006 3:06 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Hi Ringgo,

you said:

One of the reasons we haven't created life in the lab is that it is much easier to create it the old-fashioned way. Much of our lab work, in fact, is on how to destroy life.

HA! HA! HA! HA! LOL! Can you pay me back the burger I dropped because of your post?

You mean? Like you get undressed, get into a funny position, perspire a lot, and after 9 months a squirming worm?

You made my day, thanks.You rock!
PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 12-12-2006 3:06 PM ringo has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 283 of 303 (369343)
12-12-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Matt P
12-12-2006 2:08 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Thanks for the greeting, Matt. You wrote:

While I'm not quite clear on your question, I think that the focus on "digital information" is just a sign of the times.

Yes, you could say that. Or maybe we see more than we used to. Does it not strike you as strange that computer viruses and biological viruses operate on very simpliar principles? Or it it just popular to think so? To clarify, my frustration is over this question: Why is biological life so difficult to explain? Biologists simply do not know what it is or where it came from. So, I'm ready to take an alternative path away from the analogs and toward the digits. Warm, soupy ponds filled with bio-friendly materials are not enough to explain (to me, at least) how life took hold. I also need to know how a digital genetic language took hold. Hence I am assuming for now that my analog-digital differentiation is not just "pop culture."

The origins of life research crowd is generally divided into two camps: replication-firsters and metabolism-firsters (there are a few other camps as well, like membrane-firsters, but in general that's around about it). Depending on who you talk to you will receive different perceptions of the origin of life- some propose it began with a replicator, others state it's a series of quasi-metabolic reactions. A large proportion of origins of life research is in fact focused with the replication-first paradigm in mind. Other research in the metabolism-first paradigm is sometimes viewed as "renegade" or even worse.

The way you frame is OK with me, and I may be regarded as a replication-first guy. But isn't it really more than that? Maybe what I'm after is a "replication-system-first" principle—the principle that makes a digitally "symbolic" language fall into place for biological use. I say "symbolic" because a gene configured on a DNA molecule is not stereochemical with the protein it is coded for. I would like to know how that original transmogrification took place.

The chemists continue to run with ball, but something more than chemistry is going on with life. Molecules and cells come and go in relatively short order, but genes endure with a tenacity that makes them seem immortal by comparison. I count that as something important.

—Hoot Mon


The most incomprehensible thing about nature is that it is comprehensible. —A. Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Matt P, posted 12-12-2006 2:08 PM Matt P has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Matt P, posted 12-12-2006 3:56 PM Fosdick has responded

    
Matt P
Member (Idle past 3034 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 284 of 303 (369344)
12-12-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Fosdick
12-12-2006 3:28 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
I think that you're pretty much on to it- it is difficult to really define the debate from the "replication-first" or "metabolism-first"; essentially these ideas define what chemicals a researcher tries to make by "prebiotic methods." Part of the debate centers around the definition of life, which itself is a pretty abstract concept. I've been to talks where the whole discussion gets hung up on the difficulty of "what is life?"

There are a number of recent books out that attempt to define life beyond chemistry- try "The Origins of Life" by Freeman Dyson to see an approach by a physicist. He's got an interesting model for the origin of life, and he also tends to use computer analogies. Although he gets a bit of the chemistry wrong, it's still a very interesting (and cheap!) read. There's also a book by Bob Hazen entitled "Genesis:" the Scientific Quest for the Origin of Life or something similar, which deals with the idea of emergence- tyhe origin of complexity from chemical systems.

Some have even gone so far as to propose that life may result from an unknown thermochemical law, though the research into that starts entering the philosophical and there haven't been many actual experiments. All in all, it's a quite complex question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Fosdick, posted 12-12-2006 3:28 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Fosdick, posted 12-13-2006 2:17 PM Matt P has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 285 of 303 (369549)
12-13-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Matt P
12-12-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Digital Origins of Life?
Matt, you wrote:

I think that you're pretty much on to it- it is difficult to really define the debate from the "replication-first" or "metabolism-first"; essentially these ideas define what chemicals a researcher tries to make by "prebiotic methods." Part of the debate centers around the definition of life, which itself is a pretty abstract concept. I've been to talks where the whole discussion gets hung up on the difficulty of "what is life?"

Every time I go back to Schrödinger's "What Is Life" I get the feeling that much more has been added to what he said about it in 1942.

There are a number of recent books out that attempt to define life beyond chemistry- try "The Origins of Life" by Freeman Dyson to see an approach by a physicist. He's got an interesting model for the origin of life, and he also tends to use computer analogies. Although he gets a bit of the chemistry wrong, it's still a very interesting (and cheap!) read. There's also a book by Bob Hazen entitled "Genesis:" the Scientific Quest for the Origin of Life or something similar, which deals with the idea of emergence- tyhe origin of complexity from chemical systems.

Some have even gone so far as to propose that life may result from an unknown thermochemical law, though the research into that starts entering the philosophical and there haven't been many actual experiments. All in all, it's a quite complex question.


I've read several of Dyson's books, but not yet any of Hazen's. So far, for me, the best tentative explanation comes from A. G. Cairns-Smith in his argument for "genetic takeover." This involve silicon crystals acting as sticky templates for nucleotide construction, and thus for building RNA. But he has nothing to say about the origin of the coded genetic language. Not many do. Yet it seems awfully important to me.

—Hoot Mon

Edited by Hoot Mon, : general corrections


The most incomprehensible thing about nature is that it is comprehensible. —A. Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Matt P, posted 12-12-2006 3:56 PM Matt P has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by ringo, posted 12-13-2006 2:41 PM Fosdick has 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