|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with the first life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
That's extrapolation, not analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dandon83 Inactive Member |
______________________________________________________________________
If the universe was designed, that designer COULD do anything they liked. ______________________________________________________________________ COULD means ,if he want to ;he would do.Butif he don't want to; he would not do. But COULD will NEVER mean that if he did NOT DO ;then he is not the one who DO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
COULD means ,if he want to ;he would do.Butif he don't want to; he would not do. Exactly, so the ordered nature of the universe does not provide evidence for a designer one way or another.
But COULD will NEVER mean that if he did NOT DO ;then he is not the one who DO. I have no idea what you mean by this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nipok Inactive Member |
Take a moment to read my post in BigBang/Cosmo. If you are able to grasp my views then I submit that life is an infinite chain of evolution. There is no first life. At some point in the evolution of our planet there existed environments suitable to sustain living creatures so the conditions for evolution presented themselves. We have the scientific precision in our instruments to see what we consider the smallest self-contained units of life. I submit that smallest self-contained unit of life in fact every single smallest self-contained unit of life that we can see because we have the scientific precision to see it is the result of an infinite chain of evolution. Difficult to grasp I agree but if you are able to accept a truly infinite universe with no smallest particle of matter and no smallest unit of time then it follows reason that there can be no smallest unit of energy and no smallest unit of life. Somehow, I don't quite know how, but I believe in my heart it is true, that life is able to evolve from inside the atom into our known universe. If the universe is infinite and time is infinite then given the ability to provide for a habitable environment for an infinite length of time by being able to escape the inevitable destruction of our solar system and planet there is no reason to believe that the chain of evolution that brought our species (and all species) to the points they are at now would cease to continue. Who’s to say what evolution would bring us to a trillion years from now and that oxygen and carbon dioxide would be required parts of our survival.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mosseyz Inactive Member |
Its possible that the circumstances for Pre-life were in existence between 5bn — 3.5bn yrs ago. That gives about 1.5bn years to form the elements of life, create precellular elements, then create by 3.5bn yrs ago the first single celled life that is recorded in the rocks ie the Cyanobacteria family. Those bacteria are still around today and were responsible then for the creation of an oxygen atmosphere, and its my understanding they are still doing that today. I would be very interested in comparing the genome of one of those ancient bacteria with the genome of a modern Cyanobacteria to see if anything has changed. The genome of Cyanobacterium synechocystis sp. Strain PCC6803 has been mapped to about 3.6M bp!!! See http://dna-res.kazusa.or.jp/1/6/06/PDF/1_303.pdf Obviously a simple life as far as life on earth today is concerned ( infact its the simplest form of singled-celled life ,as I understand it ) but relative to the simple precellular life back then its incredibly complex. And the earth had as we say about 1.5bn years to form it and be recorded in some of the oldest rocks on earth. So I think the appearance of Cyanobacteria in the precambrian eon and complementary rocks that contain them must represent some higher first fossilized successful start of cell production.
Since there is no cellular life in the fossil record prior to this I would suggest that the parts that would go to make up this incredibly complex first form of uni-cellular life somehow couldn’t get fossilized. Ie the parts had the properties such that they would quickly be desolved, changed, transformed. It would be interesting to examine the chemistry of the rocks around and prior to 3.5bn years ago to see if the chemical composition could give any clues as to the chemical composition of intermediate parts of uni-cellular life. I suggest that the intermediate parts degraded too quickly to ever be fossilized, and maybe the conditions of pre-cellular ‘life’ where akin to the circumstances and processes in the early universe, not long after the big bang. Where particles were being created and destroyed rapidly and it wasn’t until the universe expanded and cooled enough that the circumstances of rapid chaos settled down to allow certain stable products to appear. Maybe the same sort of thing happened in the first 1.5bn years of the earths existence? MOSSEYZ2004 Ian Moss |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Lama dama ding dong,
First, Thanks for the biogenesis model This gives use something to work with. {and, by the way, where did you get it} Now, I’m no scientist {I love science, but have no degrees} so let me try to put this in laymen’s terms, so I know I’m understanding what you’re saying. According to what I understand of what you’re saying, scientists have been able to show that: a) A, very basic, cell wall can form on it’s own.b) The simple building block of the genetic code can form, under the right condition, with out intervention. c) These, pre genetic code strands can copy them selves. Now, lets apply these to another scenario vary similar to yours. Let’s take the HP Laptop I’m writing this letter on. Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop. If we throw down a bunch of two-inch sticks, we can see that some letters form with out intervention. If we throw down enough ‘bunches of sticks’, we can see that some letters repeatedly show up. Each time I go to one of these discussion boards, any one who question’s evolution is called stupid, or worse, and ridiculed for having ‘faith’. And yet, you don’t expect me to believe that the ‘Windows’ operating system came into existence on it’s own. Do you? ‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not? You don’t expect me to believe my laptop evolved {I.E. with no intelligent design}. Do you. If my laptop, as simple as it is {compared to a single cell} could not have come into existence with out thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of man hours of intelligent designers, then why do you insist that a living cell can come in to existence with out intelligent design? You say, Ah, but wait, there is a difference between your laptop and a living cell Your right, but before that cell was alive it was just a collection of amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did. Sorry, That take more blind faith then I have. If, it is logical for me to look at a simple Laptop computer and say, Hay, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this then, would it not be just as logical to look at, the much more complex, cell and say, Gee, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-16-2004 02:23 PM John3: 16, 17
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
jrtjr1 writes:
I'm not an internet person. I got my info through the old fashioned way, sitting in college classes and take down notes.
and, by the way, where did you get it}
Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop.
You are using a false analogy fallacy. If we throw down a bunch of two-inch sticks, we can see that some letters form with out intervention... Nowhere in the theory of abiogenesis did it say that under the right condition will a T-rex come to be from the primordial soup. That's what your analogy implied, that windows can come into being from scraps of metal. The theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution (2 completely different disciplines in biology) only apply to organic matter and living things... and possibly to other things like memes.
You say, Ah, but wait, there is a difference between your laptop and a living cell
Your point is?
Your right, but before that cell was alive it was just a collection of amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules
So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did.
Um... no. A prokaryotic cell (which is believed to be the first living thing in the world) is not complex at all. I recommend a simple biology course at your local college.
Sorry, That take more blind faith then I have.
Um... you claimed before that you liked science, yet you don't really know how science works.
If, it is logical for me to look at a simple Laptop computer and say, Hay, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this then, would it not be just as logical to look at, the much more complex, cell and say, Gee, Someone must have put a lot of thought into designing this
False analogy, again. What you just demonstrated was not logic. You used common sense, which can't be trusted in some things. If you truly like science, you should have known to leave a blank spot in your book of knowledge if you don't know how something came to be rather than automatically have faith in an intelligent designer. By the way, it seems that you have a grossly oversimplified understanding of how science works. The Laminator We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I think, in general, we can all agree with this definition.
quote: HP laptops aren't a product of nature, nor do they reproduce. Secondly, it is not possible for an HP laptop to naturally form. However, it has been shown that the chemicals needed for life do spontaneously form without outside intervention. Also, some of these chemicals ARE capable of catalysing chemical reactions. Therefore, observations, not fantasy, have led science towards plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
quote: I try not to ridicule anyone, and especially not their faith. However, we do see quite a few basic misconceptions that most creationist or laymen make. For instance, this thread deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory within chemistry while evolution requires that life first be present and is found within biology. For evolution to work all you need is an imperfect replicator. It doesn't matter where it came from or how it got there, all that matters is that life was present. If the first life was bacteria planted by space aliens the theory of evolution would be unaffected. However, abiogenesis is a separate theory and makes statements about where life first came from and how it arose. It is best not to confuse the two since there are obvious differences between the two theories.
quote: They are about equal in length, but Windows is much more complex. Also, you are equating DNA sequences that we see TODAY and extrapolating them back into the past. This is not accurate nor logical since the first life to use DNA may have been much simpler than anything we see today. Also, the first life may not even have used DNA. The first life may have used catalytic RNA, proteins, or a combination of the two. All you need is a chemical that makes more of itself and voila, you have started life.
quote: Of course not, because laptops don't make more of themselves. For evolution to work you need reproduction, therefore laptops are not analogous to life.
quote: Because of the natural algorithm of natural selections and mutation. This causative forces cause increases in complexity and information within reproducing populations. A fair analogy would be comparing a reproducing population to a reproducing population. You have yet to do this.
quote: It doesn't require faith. In fact, abiogenesis and evolution don't even require you to believe in it. It stands by itself on the strength of objective evidence. Whether or not you believe that men landed on the moon has nothing to do with the fact that the evidence supports the moon landings. We have never seen life intelligently designed. We have never seen a supernatural deity shuffle DNA. However, we have seen random configurations of atoms derived from earth like conditions cause self catalyzing reactions.
[quote]Sorry, That take[s] more blind faith then I have.[/quote] Good thing that science doesn't rely on faith. Also, what takes more faith, observations of natural phenomena that can result in self catalyzing reactions or faith in a supernatural deity that has never been evidenced? Would you be the type of person to credit Thor for producing thunder because you feel that swirling hailstones could not possible create the sound?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Percy writes:
That's why I tried to make it clear that the model I presented is only one of many models and that this is the one that is most generally accepted for now. 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. The simple truth is the theory of abiogenesis is still in its sketchy infancy compared to the theory of evolution. The Laminator We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
For anyone interested in the once-mentioned topic regarding the effects of radiation on abiogenesis, early life, and evolution:
Here's full text of a peer-reviewed journal article that models how UV radiation can act as a selective force to drive RNA evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
That's cool.
The Laminator We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Mr. Ding Dong, Mr. Mouth, and Percy,
My apologies, I apparently did not make my analogy clear. Before the first cell was alive it existed as a pre-life group of items amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules, ect. It is this pre-life cell I am comparing to my laptop, not T-rex. As for widows being more complex than DNA, I’d Like to hear what Mr. Ding Dong has to say about that. Percy says, 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. Of course, I could say that my laptop runs on simple, low voltage, electrical impulses. And since it’s far simpler than a single celled life form {which has machines in it that are built atom by atom, and that perform function on a microscopic scale} there’s no reason to assume that it was designed. After all, the fact that a pre-cell became complex enough to achieve life shows that non-living things can achieve high states of complexity. Right? As for me over simplifying things, here again, I must have not maid myself clear, and again, I apologize for this. My point, to all of this, is that, if anything, you’re over simplifying what it takes for life, any life, to come in to existence. Even the simplest single celled life form we know of today is, by far, to complex a system of machines to have come into existence with out an intellect behind it. I’m not disputing that some of the, vary simple, parts could be just part of the right condition. I am, however, disputing the notion that life comes from, is a product of, lifelessness; that a single celled life form can be produced with out an intellect producing it. I can say that an intellect produced my laptop, and, if I study its design long enough, tell you how it was created. Acknowledging that something is the product of an intellect {I.E. it was designed} has no bearing on whether or not you can find out how it was maid. However, learning how something was made can give great insight to the one who made it. The point here is that, if I see something that has both organization and complexity I look for an intelligent designer. A hurricane has organization, but is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is the product of natural circumstances. The universe has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer. The Grand Canyon has organization, but, again, is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is a product of natural circumstances. My cell phone has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer. Whether or not anything has both organization and complexity, it not the only criteria that I could use to decide whether or not something was made {I.E. created by an intelligent designer}, but it is one good measuring stick. For instance, a park bench has vary little complexity {I.E. it is a vary simple design.} but, we’re not going to mistake six peaces of lumber bolted to a metal frame for a natural occurrence. Thus, not all designed things are complex, but all ‘relatively’ complex things are designed; the more complex the item, the more intelligent the designer must be. {I.E. someone with an I.Q. of, say, fifty would not be able to design and build a laptop computer} Although, there are things out there that are on the fence, sort-a-speak; most things can easily be recognized as either natural formations or designed by an intelligent designer. I once heard of a rock formation off some coast somewhere. If I remember correctly it runs for a few miles, and seems to be queried stone. Some archeologists are saying that it is an ancient road that was once part of a long gone civilization. On the other hand, there are other archeologists that say this stone, because of its type, density, and where it is, formed naturally. This would be an example of a boarder-line item. Now, Mr. Mouth say, This {‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?} is not accurate nor logical since the first life to use DNA may have been much simpler than anything we see today. Also, the first life may not even have used DNA. The first life may have used catalytic RNA, proteins, or a combination of the two. All you need is a chemical that makes more of itself and voila, you have started life. I’m not too sure I understand what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that my analogy is not correct because the first cells may have been much simpler? or, are you trying to say that, if it turns out that the first cell were much simpler than the ones we see today; then my analogy may not fit.? Mr. Ding Dong states, We know for a fact that organic molecules form naturally rather easily under certain condition. That is true, unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, different molecules require different conditions. Mr. Ding Dong goes on to say that, This was demonstrated by the Miller experiment in the early 50's. He basically created an enclosed apparatus and he put inside water, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and a whole bunch of other non-organic molecules that thought to have existed in early earth environment. He then zapped the apparatus with electricity for about 3-4 days. He then took the apparatus apart and found amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules. Fuz Rana, Ph.D. says that, most origin-of-life researchers now consider Miller’s experiments irrelevant. The consensus view of atmospheric constituents has changed since the 1950s. Then they were thought to be hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.1 Now, scientists believe early Earth’s atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not yield organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments (hence, no primordial soup)a devastating blow for the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario.2 {Taken from Carbon Monoxide Kills Hopes for Primordial Soup Home - Reasons to Believe} 1) Stanley L. Miller, A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Science 117 (1953), 528-29; Stanley L. Miller, Production of Some Organic Compounds Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Journal of American Chemical Society 77 (1955): 2351-66. 2) Franois Raulin, Atmospheric Prebiotic Synthesis, presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Conference on the Origin of Life, San Diego, CA 1999; Stanley L. Miller, The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds, The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle, ed. Andr Brack (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 59-85. This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-21-2004 11:59 PM John3: 16, 17
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mihkel4397 Inactive Member |
The question of ozone layers at the very beginning is unnecessary. Obviously life survived, wether because of the protection of the atmosphere itself (not only ozone interacts with UVB and UVC) or the water wherin the life occurred. It survived. The amazing thing which science accepts but wishes to ignore is that life emerged the moment there was water. And it contained the fantastically complex genome which has been the basis of all further evolution.
This is what science's holy rule that all is a result of random events cannot allow. Mihkel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: What does this mean? That life emerged one second after water appeared on the earth? After one day? After one year? Or that the oceans existed for several tens of millions of years before life emerged? All of these would count, in geology, as "the moment there was water". But tens of millions of years is a pretty long time for an ocean sized chemical laboratory to perform its experiments, yes? And, in regards to the title of the post, there was no "first life form". There was likely a very primitive replicating system, say, for one possibility, crystal defects in the surfaces of clay minerals, that no one would actually call life, and in the end, perhaps several millions of years later, something that we would definitely call a living cell; but in between there would have been a continuum of replicating chemical systems without a sharp boundary between what we would call non-living and living. The last sentence has been edited for clarity. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-15-2005 17:07 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024