Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,221 Year: 3,478/9,624 Month: 349/974 Week: 238/130 Day: 32/43 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 191 (533121)
10-28-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
10-28-2009 10:44 AM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Bluejay writes:
But, abiogeneticists don't think the earliest lifeforms had all of these complex, interacting parts that required such precision: they were just amalgams of associated chemicals that gradually grew in complexity until the result could be considered "alive" by our definition.
1. Interesting; Lifeforms having no life.
2. It would seem that the less complex a compound of chemicals is, the more subject to entropy it would be, having no ability to naturally select or randomly mutate successive stages into something more complex until life emerged, not to mention the likelihood, if life emerged to survive long enough to reverse entropy pressure for advancement into complexity sufficient to replicate or divide.
3. Are there any scientific models which would depict even a remote possibility of random abiogenesis as per your explanation?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 10-28-2009 10:44 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 10-28-2009 11:51 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2009 10:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 191 (533128)
10-29-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
10-28-2009 11:51 PM


Is There A Model?
Thank you, Meldinoor. Are you aware of any scientific models remotely depicting the random process which Bluejay explained?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 10-28-2009 11:51 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 191 (533132)
10-29-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
10-29-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Taz writes:
I'm sorry, but I have to ask you a question. Being a christian, do you enjoy lying outright like this? Random process? Do you enjoy being a liar?
Hi Taz. I'm not a liar. I do make mistakes and errors. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me, or is enlightenment not a virtue of tazmanian devils?
Online Dictionary: Number One Definition: Process: 1. A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result:

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Taz has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 191 (533135)
10-29-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:26 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Meldinoor writes:
That really depends what you are refering to. Are you refering to the development of these self-replicating molecules into living cells? If that's the case the theory of evolution provides an excellent model (itself).
1. Wouldn't that run counter to the claim that evolution and abiogenesis are different processes?
2. By the same token, I have been chastized for using fulfilled prophecy, historical data and archeological discoveries as supportive to the Genesis record in that both imply existence of a supernatural dimension of intelligence present in the universe, capable of effecting intelligently designed life origins.
3. You said, "....you are right in saying that the first life would probably not have had as sophisticated copying-error repair mechanisms as modern life forms do."
That would appear as problematic relative to a sufficient model.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:26 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 191 (533136)
10-29-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Randomness
Meldinoor writes:
While I agree that biological evolution and chemical evolution are not random processes, I don't think Buzsaw was trying to disparage these processes by using the word "random". You have to remember that to a person who holds a creationist belief in a purposeful creation, any non-purposeful, undirected natural process will appear "random". In any case, his post was not about the "randomness" of life's development, he was just asking for a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. We must remember to be sensitive to other people's worldviews and not pounce on semantics if we are to keep a civil debate.
Thanks very much, Meldinoor.
Did I mistakenly take the term "process" as Taz's problem? (ABE: Or perhaps his problem was the usage of random and process as cohesive terms.) Your statement above appears to imply that the process is not actually random (ABE: relative to the matter at hand). Is that correct?
Edited by Buzsaw, : ABE as noted in context.
Edited by Buzsaw, : change "coherant" to "cohesive"

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 191 (533141)
10-29-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 1:25 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Meldinoor writes:
Not really. The first self-replicating molecules could well be considered life already, so abiogenesis has already occurred at this point.
Mmm, but Bluejay's process, to which I meant to allude to included a stage of non-living chemicals compounding into something living. I failed to clarify that in my message.
Meldinoor writes:
On the other hand, scientific observations have shown how very basic life is able to thrive and evolve. I don't have the source handy right now, but I read about an experiment where a virus was put in a beaker with a solute that provided all the necessary amino acids for it to replicate. As it evolved inside the beaker, with no need to find cells to infect, and no need to defend itself from threats, it gradually began to lose these traits in favor of a genome that replicated faster. Eventually, after many generations (and several beakers) the viruses were essentially reduced to a replicating molecule, with little function besides that of speedy replication.
Again, my problem applies to a non-life to life model, i.e. origin of life, as per Bluejay's message.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:25 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 2:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 191 (533196)
10-29-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
10-29-2009 5:18 AM


Strawman?
Modulous writes:
I've never said that people can be brought back everytime.
Hi Modulous. I regard your point relative to dead people resuscitated as a strawman in that this resuscitation process is by intelligent work, not applicable to abiogenesis.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 5:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 11:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 64 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 191 (533225)
10-29-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-29-2009 6:09 AM


Modulous writes:
While there is nothing 'missing', the parts are not arranged in the same way. Agreed? The brain hasn't vanished - but the cells are no longer the same as a living brain - even after a mere few minutes. Agreed?
True, but it would seem that the body, moments after death, would be in a state far less impacted by the pressure of entropy than lifeless chemicals which allegedly once emerged into abiogenesis.
Of the billions of known deaths, aside from intelligent work, we know that life just doesn't regenerate. Perhaps this not only weakens the argument for abiogenesis but supports the argument for a living soul. Why? Because though the cohesion of elements for life exist, the body, apart from the invisible living soul remains dead.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 6:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 12:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 61 of 191 (533230)
10-29-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
10-29-2009 10:37 AM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Bluejay writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Interesting; Lifeforms having no life.
Still going for the rhetorical points, I see.
I didn't say that, although, admittedly, the syntax of my sentence made it a bit ambiguous.
Ambiguous?
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.
Online Dictionary: Life Forms: "The characteristic morphology of a mature organism"
Bluejay writes:
And yet, every winter, huge quantities of water (a three-atom molecule) freeze into an organized crystalline structure that we call "ice."
Seems that the thesis of your argument is entirely refuted by one of the most basic observations available in the natural world.
And this is suppose to model the abiogenesis of life, or am I miss-reading you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2009 10:37 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 66 of 191 (533267)
10-29-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
10-29-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Soul
Modulous writes:
My body remains alive without a soul. If bodies often spontaneously came back to life - that would be an argument for the soul.
Data relating to the alleged invisible soul is unfalsifiable. Therefore neither you or I can substantiate with evidence whether or not we have a soul.
By the same token, it would, however, not be necessary for frequent spontaneous regenerations/resurrections of dead bodies to argue for the existence of soul or the necessity of body + soul = life. What is observed is that death via natural means usually results from the pressures of cell entropy etc. How that relates to the soul remains debatable, so I'll leave off belaboring the point.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 12:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 6:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 191 (533288)
10-29-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
10-29-2009 6:41 PM


Re: Play nice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NosyNed writes:
Don't be so quick to presume sneaky tactics from Buz.
He has demonstrated a total lack of comprehension to any of the science invovled. I doubt very much that he is being so tricky.
He just uses words at random ( ) without having a clue about the nature of the discussion.
Hi Ned. I've not touted myself as being scientifically astute. Therefore I have limited my input to the extent of my knowledge. If you think my conduct here in this thread amounts to random goble-de-goop, it would be nice for you to participate in the topic discussion rather than posting blind asserted personal attack.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite evidence for your charges. Imo, that would be especially nice since you, as an admin would serve as an example relative to the board guidelines.
ABE: Ned, my message ratings presently average 4.3. Not bad, for random yada. No? Btw, I see yours are 3.3.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 75 of 191 (533289)
10-29-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
10-29-2009 6:34 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Taz writes:
Here is why I think he's a liar. While the post wasn't about the supposed randomness of chemical reactions that brought about abiogensis,
Taz, again, please enlighten me. Were the chemical reactions that bought about abiogenisis random processes or not? If not, why not?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 6:34 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-29-2009 9:05 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 77 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 9:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 78 of 191 (533295)
10-29-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 3:52 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Meldinoor writes:
No, it is in fact an example of a decrease in entropy, and an increase in order within an non-isolated system. The water molecules do not have to combat the second law of thermodynamics in order to turn into ordered ice crystals. I think Bluejay was responding to your question about the original life forms having to fight entropy.
The water to ice model pertains to chemical only process, as I understand it. Is that correct? Can a chemical only process adequately model chemical to life process? Isn't that a stretch?
Buzsaw writes:
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.
Meldinoor writes:
Life did not emerge from inorganic compounds. It may have been assisted by inorganic compounds, but nobody is arguing that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones.
1. Nor did I argure that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones. It allegedly took, perhaps as long as billions of years, unless I'm mistaken.
2. I see the #1 online dictionary defines organic as living matter. However the #7 chemical definition is as you say, i.e. carbon compounds. Therefore I concede that I used the wrong application to inorganic. (In the Wiki link you cited, the term inorganic was used relative to abiotic molecules, citing a Martin-Russell paper. )
Meldinoor writes:
Why does it matter whether we call these first replicators "living" or not?
Logically, and as I understood one of your earlier statements, entropy pressure would be greater relative to replicating abiotic chemicals than to replicating living organisms.
Citing exerpts from your Wiki link, it appears that abiogenesis is based on various non-imperical postulations:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.
===================================================================
While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor.[45]
=====================================================================
From organic molecules to protocells
The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both....

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 191 (533298)
10-29-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lyx2no
10-29-2009 9:05 PM


Re: Is it Random?
lyx2no writes:
Because random means not predictable, and chemical reactions are predictable. Na and Cl form salt every time.
Hey, Lyx2no, thanks. I see that would be correct relative to chemical reaction. (BTW, I appreciated your kind "goodby Buz" while my account was inactive.)
Now; would the process, involving a series of spontaneous chemical reactions relative to abiotic molecules constitute a random process during the pre-life amalgamation of abiotic chemicals which allegedly generated abiogenesis? (note that I said, spontaneous chemical reactions. I did not say spontaneous series...)
ABE: I see I got my last statement bass akwards. Make that: (I did not say spontaneous chemical reactions. I did say, a series of spontaneous chemical reactions.)
Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-29-2009 9:05 PM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 191 (533302)
10-29-2009 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Meldinoor writes:
As lyxno2 pointed out, chemical reactions are not random. As I pointed out in Message 25 the evolution of replicators by natural selection is not random either. The most successful replicators would have won out and evolved until we have what we call life. Given that we have replicating molecules that do not copy themselves with 100% accuracy, this is a fact. (If you doubt this, then check out the link I provided upthread)
So the answer to your question is a resounding "no".
1. I can understand that select, as in natural selection does not imply random, as in random mutation.
2. I can understand the logic behind living organisms effecting NS.
3. I cannot understand how abiotic chemical reactions could naturally select to effect abiogenesis, having no biotic pressure towards survival.
Thanks for the patient kind-spirited responses and links. Composing messages takes me a lot of time to think and do, since I'm a slow thinker, especially in the science fora, so I will leave off for now and return, God willing, when I get time.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 9:56 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 11:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024