|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AshsZ Member (Idle past 5399 days) Posts: 35 From: Edgewater, FL USA Joined: |
Quite exhilirating to read the info surrouding Ilva, dissipating systems, self-organization, etc etc.
I liken a lot of this to what I have personally labeled "complex chemistry"; a term I've used in a few conversations in the past with others - called such due to the fact that conventional chemical processes involve the direct physical interaction of matter whereas even using what we are doing right here as a perfect example, the chemistry occuring within the biology of my brain/body are affecting the chemistry occuring within your brain/body as well as any others who read what I am typing here. Chemical reactions "at a distance" where the conducting medium is seemingly abstract. This kind of chemistry exists at some level or another amongst just about all, if not all forms of life - consider it the element of "language", if you will.. This being the case, would it be acceptable to conclude that this kind of chemistry is what allows systems to seemingly deviate from the law of entropy/thermodynamic equilibrium, etc etc (i.e. all the "scientific" things that would otherwise prevent such a thing from occurring)? Maybe this kind of chemistry is the very thing I couldn't quite put my finger on previously when I said that "entropy" doesn't appear to be the whole story. Like the dipoles of a magnet, perhaps entropy and this complex chemistry are the "north" and "south" of the thing which regulates process. Mathematics is a wonderful tool but at a certain point, as can be seen in this "complex chemistry" above, the ability to quantify all the variables within a system is a lost context. This may very well be the reason we can't understand how we have become aware of our awareness, as you put it; to answer the question it is necessary to quantify some thing which simply cannot be quantified - at this point it can only be answered in terms of its qualities - "I am aware", and that's all the answer necessary, I presume, LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I tend to have the opinion indeed that a futher "quantification" is possible. I think we do not have it because of the mathematical difference in applied intutions of counting verses equation creation.
I do not think that is any longer possible to imagine that counting and independent insertion of parameters into expanded versions of Hardy-Weinberg equilibria equations is purely extant. Alfred J Lotka's book, "Elements of Physical Biology" later renamed
"Elements of Mathematical Biology" expressed a desire to adapt chemical and biological(populational) equilibria. quote: I think it is possible to go further than this WITHOUT necessiting constant dissipation of energy (in any relation of chemistry and biology, no matter the physics) as I suggest herehttp://aexion.org/monohierarchy.aspx There is certainly a place for "life" after matter but one needs to have a clear sense of the "direction" of the sequence. Evolutionary theory has tended to move away from popular notions of "progress" but this is not to say that the relation of chemsitry to biology has to be more than mere orbits made chaotic/dissipative. It could be quite a bit more organized. I fear we simply do not have the proper training of biologists on the maths. I am still one of those. The key is in the "spontenity"/irreversibility of rxns as opposed to changes in the rates merely. I think it will be very fruitful to consider new mutations, however counted or put into equations to offer increased entropy but this does not mean necessarily energy dissipation per say per change over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eial Junior Member (Idle past 5644 days) Posts: 6 From: Medford, Oregon US Joined: |
Great topic. Can anyone give me any evidence that living organisms can arise from inorganic material, such as claimed in the origin of life? And don't tell me that this happens all the time, you know what I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi eial, welcome to EVC,
you write,
Can anyone give me any evidence that living organisms can arise from inorganic material, such as claimed in the origin of life? That depends on how deep into that question you want to get. The example I would use to keep it simple would be that, through fossil records, we know that NO life exists 4.5 billion years ago but inorganic materials do exist. Then, 3.5 billion years ago the fossil records do show living organisms made up of those same inorganic materials that we find 4.5 billion years ago. The problem is not that inorganic materials formed life, we know that it did, the problem is how did it occur. And that problem is currently studied in the field of Abiogenesis. A quick google search on your part should give you more specifics about abiogenesis, or just search the threads here on EVCforum. I hope that helped. "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eial Junior Member (Idle past 5644 days) Posts: 6 From: Medford, Oregon US Joined: |
Onifre,
This is not directed toward you, I am just simply flabbergasted and here is why. I have done some research on the topic of abiogenesis, and it seems to me there is virtually no evidence that this is even possible. Sure, I learned we have discovered some RNA that can self replicate-well sort of. When you say it that way it sounds like you simply throw in some RNA, a little nitrogen, some carbon, oxygen and a few other miscellaneous chemicals and bingo, you have a replicated RNA molecule. Well, this is not the case. The articles I have read indicate that the RNA molecules can replicate in the absence of protein catalysts and the RNA acts as its own catalyst. Well, how is this good news for the idea of abiogenesis? I would argue that RNA is a much more complex molecule and all the evidence indicates it does not just simply form on its own-and why would it? Many amino acids are much less complex than RNA and any decent chemist can make amino acids in a controlled environment. You still need a controlled environment (such as the cytoplasm), excess amino acids that just happen to be floating around, tRNA, and a reason to replicate (such as a genetic code). Why would we even think this could be possible? It goes against many of the scientific process we know, including the Law of Biogenesis and cell theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I have done some research on the topic of abiogenesis, and it seems to me there is virtually no evidence that this is even possible. I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your objection. If abiogenesis doesn't violate any known law of physics or chemistry, then it must be possible, yes? So the lack of evidence that abiogenesis violates the laws of physics is positive evidence that it is possible. Unless you are using a different meaning for "possible" than I am? Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
eial writes: This is not directed toward you, I am just simply flabbergasted and here is why. Thats cool, but maybe you just need a better understanding of the subject.
I have done some research on the topic of abiogenesis, and it seems to me there is virtually no evidence that this is even possible. I'll agree that it's not, or rather has not, been an established, observable fact yet, but 'not even possible'? I don't think that's a fair judgement on your part given what the alternative to a natural process of abiogenesis would be.
When you say it that way it sounds like you simply throw in some RNA, a little nitrogen, some carbon, oxygen and a few other miscellaneous chemicals and bingo, you have a replicated RNA molecule. It would only sound that way to someone not familiar with the field of abiogenesis, and/or chemistry.
Well, this is not the case. No scientist would ever make that the case.
I would argue that RNA is a much more complex molecule and all the evidence indicates it does not just simply form on its own-and why would it? Why would it? Simple answer: Because it is comprised of organic chemicals that react spontaneaously with one another.
Many amino acids are much less complex than RNA and any decent chemist can make amino acids in a controlled environment. Amino acids are less complex and as such it is thought to precede tRNA. And yes they have been created in a controlled environment.
You still need a controlled environment (such as the cytoplasm), excess amino acids that just happen to be floating around, tRNA, and a reason to replicate (such as a genetic code). You lost me here, can you clarify your point in this statement please?
Why would we even think this could be possible? You can't seriously be asking why we believe that organic chemicals can interact with each other to form complex structures? What other alternative to a natural chemical reaction would there be? The only possibility is that there is a natural processs and scientist continue to study the evidence, conduct experiments, and draw conclusions based off of observations. I don't see what you have issue with? Now, I can agree with you that the area of life origin is still very early in it's studies and it's to earlier to jump the gun on claiming anything as fact yet, but that doesn't give the alternative, (Intelligent Design), any more of a possibility to being true. All the work is still ahead of Intelligent Design to prove their theory. "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Eial.
Welcome to EvC! Can I suggest that you read this recently closed topic on the subject of abiogenesis/biogenesis? It is a long thread, and spends a fairly lengthy amount of time arguing definitions, but there is a great deal of good information in that thread about abiogenesis and the "law" of biogenesis. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
eial Junior Member (Idle past 5644 days) Posts: 6 From: Medford, Oregon US Joined: |
onifre,
You wrote
You can't seriously be asking why we believe that organic chemicals can interact with each other to form complex structures? What other alternative to a natural chemical reaction would there be? The only possibility is that there is a natural processs and scientist continue to study the evidence, conduct experiments, and draw conclusions based off of observations. I don't see what you have issue with?
What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis. It is not just a cute little idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is a law. It cannot be used at ones convenience. It is irrefutable. It is proven. Every single experiment that has been done and continues to be done will confirm it because it is a LAW. Interesting that this is not talked about much. So, unless you throw this law out, abiogenesis is not even worth mentioning. My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for well . forever! Or, just don’t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today.My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design. If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
eial writes: What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis. This is a common mistake, you see the word abiogenesis, remove the a and are left with biogenesis, there is a little problem...the 2 are not the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS:
quote: However Abiogenesis does not claim that life spontaneously arises. I suggest you brush up on the literature about Abiogenesis, read all of the different hypothesis, and understand that biogenesis has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. The wiki link provided under the Abiogenesis definition should provide good reading.
My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for well . forever! The law of biogenesis still stands, and will always stand. Abiogenesis is a completely different hypothesis.
Or, just don’t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today.
By this point your arrogance on the subjects is evident, yet you have no idea what your talking about. Biogensis is NOT Abiogenesis.
My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design. You see it doesn't just work that way. If life can't happen rapidly all that tells us is that life can't happen rapidly. For you to suggest an intelligent designer would then require YOU to show proof for the designer, and not just that 'life can't happen rapidly'.
If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force. Thus we come back to the beginning of my argument. Since you have clearly misunderstood biogenesis, that is not an argument against Abiogenesis. And since you've presented no other position against Abiogenesis, you've proven nothing about any intelligence. "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2876 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
However Abiogenesis does not claim that life spontaneously arises. It absolutely does my friend...... I'm afraid that you like many others in this forum and the Biogenesis thread do not understand what a spontaneous natural process is.
wiki writes: Spontaneous means a self-generated event, typically requiring no outside influence or help. -Spontaneous- It is an outright fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous. It is also a fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Every single chemical reaction and self organizational step along the long and winding millions of years origin of life road is a step that must be spontaneously generated, and each step must obey the 2nd Law of themodynamics. Each step in the abiogenesis hypothesis must be a spontaneous process. Now I can certainly understand why you don't want the word "spontaneous" to be associated with abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was falsified 150 years ago or so, and so you and others now have to equivocate on terms to justify your position. But fallacies are fallacies, and I would think that you would not have any toleration for fallacies in science. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2876 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hello eial and welcome to EVC.
eial writes: What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis. It is not just a cute little idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is a law. It cannot be used at ones convenience. It is irrefutable. It is proven. Every single experiment that has been done and continues to be done will confirm it because it is a LAW. Interesting that this is not talked about much. So, unless you throw this law out, abiogenesis is not even worth mentioning. My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for well . forever! Or, just don’t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today.My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design. If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force. You will find out quickly that many in this forum do throw out the law of biogenesis. They don't like it, because it presents problems for their worldview. This is why no current papers or Biology books even make mention of the law of biogenesis. The Cell theory is also a problem, because it says that "the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things." That means that a cell is the smallest known living thing. People who believe in abiogenesis need "living things" that are much simpler than cells. That's why abiogenesis is a philosophical faith and not good science. IMO
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
It absolutely does my friend...... I'm afraid that you like many others in this forum and the Biogenesis thread do not understand what a spontaneous natural process is. So, of a billion years is spontaneous? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2876 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: So, of a billion years is spontaneous? Time has nothing to do with spontaneous chemical reactions and self organizing reactions. That's your category error. They could happen in an instant, or they could take millions of years for the right circumstances. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
AOKid writes: Every single chemical reaction and self organizational step along the long and winding millions of years origin of life road is a step that must be spontaneously generated, Yes, each chemical reaction towards one another is spontaneous, like I asked you before on another thread, are you saying there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions? Abiogenesis hypothesis:
This is what Abiogenesis claims. It is observed that chemicals DO spontaneously react to one another. It has been experimented for and observed to be capable of occuring under the proper conditions (you can argue that they are speculating the conditions if you like). It is NOT in any way claiming that a single reaction creates life. What you're suggesting is:
That my friend is what is suggested by you, and in the 'Law of Biogenesis', and it is NOT what is suggested within the hypothesis of Abiogenesis. I gave 2 clear definitions in the post you quoted, you made no reference to them nor to what they explained about the 2 different subjects. I also provided a quote about Pastuers' results on spontaneous generation, you made no reference to those either. If you are going to reject sound evidence towards the contrary of what you claim then you are just being bullheaded and arrogant. Any further attemt to debate you will simply be a waste of time.
But fallacies are fallacies, and I would think that you would not have any toleration for fallacies in science. Your right, I have no tolerance for fallacies in science, that is why most of what you say gets ignored. "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024