|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
hopefaithlove  Inactive Junior Member |
It is best if you pay attention to how you live or move by your will... for example press against something... you have the will to press harder or softer...
let's look at cells they depend on nourishment too and I believe do have a will again look at your will to understand (press against something hard or soft) nourishment we need for our body... I would say that life is depending on God in our need of nourishment, will to accomplish a task which is not a chemical reaction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for supernatural intervention? I would like to concentrate on debating this without going off on a tangent. I think it is entirely possible by a number of different routes. See my RAZD - Building Blocks of Life, if you haven't already read it, for some of those routes. Which one was actually used is, and will be, a matter of speculation. We've seen a number of replication systems that have been developed and a number of ways to concentrate reactions. With those in sufficient quantity it would only be a matter of time. A billion years maybe eh? Maybe there were a couple of false starts too. Unfortunately the oldest rocks that we know of so far (3.5 billion years old) that can show signs of life already do so - the older rocks are too transformed by heat and pressure for evidence to have survived - so we don't know when it started or have any evidence of the process. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I just noticed while reading "Gould" today, that he DID NOT make a clear context for his own claims of relative frequency with the difference of the environment and some particular salamander.
While RAZD has responded in the afirmative I will, in the negative. I can agree with you that 'the fundamental' process need not come "from outside" (there is a difference between 'outside' and 'above') EXCEPT when it comes to pure standard Darwinism of individual selections dominating the interpretation of change. This exception however is no guarentor of a lack of supernaturalism it is only that some dynamics (that the chemical elements move WITHIN) is governed by differences in individual organisms. One can "dissect" these creatures into combinations of elements and their forces however and in this sense the "fundamental" process might not be OUTSIDE our current understanding. The problem comes in when one is trying to think if the kinematics underlaying the dynamics (now if you reject the Darwinian individual level then my response here after is not relevant for you...) are changing with the environment or against it and then what chemical properties this environment possess. Seeing that Gould rejected making it clear ABOVE the species level whether or not a guild of salamanders was involved or not indicates that he can think evolutionarily WITHOUT needing to descend to chemical combinations and yet he probably would not be against the idea of life from simple chemical combinations WITH THE ADDITION OF THE Darwinian algorithm. Now Gould was ALSO unable to decide how to discuss a reference to "metabolic energy" in this ENVIRONMENTAL content however. And THIS notion which may or may not enable one to decide if there is still some idea "above" us on this topic (whether transcendental or not) needs to be decided IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT if there is to be some real determination on/in this life"". Fundamental process as for instance understood by Freeman Dyson require a difference of metabolism and replication but this withinus need not energetically be reduced from the same macroperspetive of Gould necessarily, says me. I seem to think differently up the hierarchy than Gould does down it. So when you ask about "proper combinations and environment" in your next posting in this threaded series and responded to lately by RAZD it appeared literate to me that the tangential nature of responses in this thread is due to the latter word especially.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is another aspect here as well. Part of my personal belief is that the universe was created primed for life to occur - not just any life nor a specific end-product life (us???), but a most diversified kind: the universe was made to test the ability of life under as wide a variety of circumstances as possible, with the underlying credo "surprise me" as the final word.
In this way we see subatomic particles coming together to form non-arbitrary units that also come together to form non-arbitrary units, and these keep building in complexity. Atoms do not form arbitrary molecules with other atoms, but only form specific compounds in specific ways under specific conditions. The more complex the molecule the more the 'rules of the game' interact in the process (for shape has as much to do with interactions as valence bonds). If one accepts an ultimate design concept, then logically this non-arbitrary progression would continue to the formation of replicating molecules and then to life (and not just here and not just us or anything like us). If one does not accept an ultimate design concept, then logically this non-arbitrary clumping of particles into every increasing complexity makes for a mystery. The how is the same, the result is the same, but the why is different. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3374 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
If one does not accept an ultimate design concept, then logically this non-arbitrary clumping of particles into every increasing complexity makes for a mystery. The how is the same, the result is the same, but the why is different. As far as I can see, if the universe and the things in it have properties, as we see that they do, they will exhibit the behaviours that follow from their properties. If the properties had been different, the outcomes would have been too. How could it be otherwise? Why should anyone regard it as mysterious? The fact that something is complex is no excuse for thinking that it is magic. We can study the hows and the results. The question of the whys may indeed be meaningless. More a trap for the gullible than anything real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Mystery does not equate to magic, it just means we don't know.
And that is the logical conclusion based on the evidence. You make your choices after that based on what you feel or believe.
The question of the whys may indeed be meaningless. Or just unknowable, which comes to the same end. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Biologically speaking I can not say that the continuum of particle scaling properties applies. This is what distinguishes a thought of physics and one of biology for me. A physcist of the experience is free to scale from the absurdly small to the nair infinitely large but I do not accept that the forces of the smallest physical speculation apply in biology as I do not accept that there are Martins on Mars, unless it was shown so.
I know this is opinion. I am still trying to think through the different discrete particulate applications of heirarchical thermodynamics, which did apply to the subatomic according to Gladyshev and the macrothermodynamic that he tried to write amon ontogentic&phylogenetic differences. Earlier I was exposed to Kervran's ideas that weak forces are a part of form-making and translation in space. There is still no serious science of this. So, while there is no doubt that strong forces are responsible for "higher" units of combination that DO have causal influence in biology I do not find (via the 1st Law of thermo) that whatever fundamentally one is to make of the "aggregation" and said forces that this is 'the same' as a concept of 'replication.' I would sooner think that the periodic table of elements is actually infinite than that a physicists forces were conceptually equivalent to Dyson's differences. When thinking biologically one needs to think about "gravitation" vs. "e-m" more often than a crumb of particles themselves or the protoplasm that was left behind on the microscope slide. Design still resides for me at the lower limit where the USE of atomic forces gives way to the purely physical forces in trajectory with nuceli. This may be an artifact of my present level knowledge and understanding but I can only use that which I do do. I had noticed when DS Wilson was talking at Darwin Day that he considered organelles as "visually" integrated histories of different lineages within a modern cell. This he attributed to Margulis but there was no sense of biological history here, he simply accepted the visual picture as evidence of integration and expected the audinece to "see the same" way. I never have. There is a difference between level of organization and level of selection and so the notion of design has you presented it does not seem to keep these seperated. I do not say this acrimoniously. It seems to be THE common problem in theoretical biology. Gould did not do it either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is what distinguishes a thought of physics and one of biology for me. The problem I have is that between those two lies chemistry and the way molecules come together. The molecules are non-arbitrary. Water only forms in lumps of H2O that form pseudo-chains with weak bonds due to the slight angular position of the Oxygen atoms. Other molecules only form in certain shapes, and these affect how they interact as much as the valence bonds and ionizations. Looking at the World Community Grid Proteome Folding simulations shows that the folding of proteins impacts how they act in biological systems -- two molecules with identical atomic properties act differently due to shape. This did not come about after life began, but is part of the chemical world that existed before replication systems occurred. Some molecules are more stable than others, and I expect we will find that some folding patterns are more stable than others, while others will transform under other chemical stimulii to react and form new molecules. As new stable molecules are formed they will persist longer than those that are less stable. A form of selection?
I would sooner think that the periodic table of elements is actually infinite than that a physicists forces were conceptually equivalent to Dyson's differences. I am sure there are many isotopes of existing elements as well as atoms off our current table in existence in the universe. It is a matter of energy and pressure. Of course at the ultimate plasma end of the spectrum all atoms merge into one field - become one?
... as I do not accept that there are Martins on Mars, unless it was shown so. Nor do I, but I do not rule out the possibility either. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes, that is all very interesting.
Crick simply assumed that Eigen hypercycles change WAS selection but I had in mind that to which population genetics is the pricipal suspect. The difficulty is to sustain a thought about a "population" of organisms and "population"/aggregate of particles as a "whole" I come closest to this thought when trying to unify my own reading of Gladyshev. Being accepted in the Chemistry Major at Cornell I had hoped for a day to discuss protein folding with H. ScheragaPage not found | Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology but that day never came. I tend to think that the shapes that matter are the result of non-worked out symmetry relations encoded between DNA and Proteins which may have extra-expressive targets. But these thoughts verge on fiction. Protein denaturation always seemed an issue to me too. And yes they would have existed sans life but as long as the likes of Crick have no problem confounding the before and after of chemical force since DNA with impunity and there are not biophysicists who try to show how supramolecular chemistry is downward causal onto what bonding patterns were or may have been around before life as we know it was is, I will continue to work out mathematical ideas rather than conceptual ones at this juncture. If some stability of the molecule is the guide to the notion of selection rather than the effect of this-whatever- ON the population of individuals that plurifact (Gould's term)(quote: quote:& quote:)then I tend to fear this is just an example of over eager molecular biology since Crick's force became reality. As a teenager I had the wild idea that gravitational waves might interact with proteins as they come off ribosomes such that collective masses of biological activity of the same clade but in a different geographic region might affect shape(two shapes for one protein) via an "out of body" 'experience.' Gladyshev's phenomenological thermodynamics has disabused me of this youthful speculation that appears at worst to be a niave synthetic apriori as best I can recollect. As for my physics ideas well, they probably just seem fanciful. They are not as intricate as my biological ones. Edited by Brad McFall, : was is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lovefaithhope Junior Member (Idle past 6249 days) Posts: 12 From: richmond, bc, canada Joined: |
Protons neutrons electrons and the rest of the quarks and others seem all to be ordered in elements and are made from the same substance having different forms... words of life chemistry... one is carbon and why he seems black is because the light changes color when talking to each other! Light is substance and we see this with our eyes... I wonder why it took them so long to say it is substance? I figure God has the ability to change colors with his words as in the ability to believe that you are the color of the ocean and in your faith which is how you speak or talk the color you desire to speak then your words hit the ocean and come back to you along with your belief in being that color and ta da you turn blue!!!
The elements of this universe are all the breath of God!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lovefaithhope Junior Member (Idle past 6249 days) Posts: 12 From: richmond, bc, canada Joined: |
Love speaking color? Closing my eyes and I know what I've seen and him being happy and creating the color inside. Blue would be like the water and I am invisible so I desire for them to see each other as I see them so then I believe in the rainbow. My invisible eyes sees their colors which passes right through me LOVE understanding the message in invisibility...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I'm suspending you for longer this time.
You broke the rules by registering again for one thing. But the biggy is this post. It is just a jumble of nonsense. If you want to post in the science threads you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. I'm not inclined to let thread become any more cluttered with garbage than they are. You have yet to contribute anything at all here. Spend more time reading and less time typing random letters and maybe in 3 days you can get started again and do better. Edited by AdminNosy, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The elements of this universe are all the breath of God! If you truly believe this then all science is just the proper study of the "breath of God" and the better a job science does of that -- unhindered by any dogmatic interference or preconception -- the closer it comes to finding that breath of truth that is the real creation. A better place to discuss this is NOT on this thread (where it is off-topic) but at Perceptions of Reality ... when your suspension ends. See Message 158. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AshsZ Member (Idle past 5400 days) Posts: 35 From: Edgewater, FL USA Joined: |
Is the discussion a question of belief in whether or not life was "divine creation" or is this a discussion on potential chemical mechanisms that led to the chemical composition of matter we call life?
I guess a question would be "how difficult is it to understand that over billions of years of time matter has continually increased in structural complexity, an easily understood illustration of this being seen in the transformations matter undergoes within a star through its lifetime, that this same trend will lead to the structures we call life?" Is the concept of entropy an exception when it comes to the matter we call life or is the origin of life simply the next step in the planet's stride towards maximum entropy? I guess a good question would be whether or not there is a fundamental nature to matter that gave rise to life - like along the lines of entropy for example....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well, if you were asking what I was writing on-about, I started in 2004 to speak of orthogensis and I continued this past year with posts. I could direct my comments directly back to the OP again if that is desired but A-Z you could approach "divine creation" if you were able to say what the difference of the combination and enviroment is.
I doubt we can get here on this thread. Chemical combinations would be a larger material realm than potential past biological environments but distinguishing comprehnsibly to any material combinations the difference of abiotic and biotic contributions to the continued process represented by evolution is enumerably even larger. There would be a need to specify the geometry of such a continuum. Accepting that Darwin did away with seperate creation then there still can be an issue within the original interval that spelled the first word in the op, "transition". Idont see entropy as an exception here but part of the transdimensional solution. That does not in itself open up the supernatural per say.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024