Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 12 of 191 (533060)
10-28-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
10-28-2009 9:20 AM


Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
Evolutionist claim that life arose from dead matter once the required elements were all in place.
Actually, I'm an evolutionist, and I don't claim that (though I will say I don't know how life began). But in a way, what you're describing is undeniably true. Life is made of non-living matter, and however it started, even if God put it together himself, life was still made from non-living parts.
Evolution is not about how life began, only how it has changed and diversified. I suggest you create a new term, "abiogenesist", to describe proponents of abiogenesis without a supernatural component.
Cedre writes:
At least what can be derived from this is that carbon-compounds are not all that is required for life, perhaps some kind of life-sustaining force is also required, I will propose that this life-sustaining force is God, you are at liberty to propose your own, what is certain is nothing natural is known to cause life or to add years to it.
You're jumping to conclusions here. Before we continue this discussion, I'd like you to define "life". What does it mean to you that something is alive? There is a huge difference between a simple bacterium's and a complex human being's way of life. The bacterium is like a machine, wired to replicate and respond to external stimuli. It doesn't exhibit any subjective awareness, free choice, or intelligence. The human being is like a huge colony of specialized interdependent microorganisms. Each individual cell is as unaware as a bacterium, simply carrying out the tasks it is wired to do.
But when large numbers of cells are wired together in a complex pattern, they can begin to exhibit "emergent behaviour". To make an analogy, let's call a bacterium a simple mathematical function. You give it input (stimuli), it processes the input, and it produces an output (response to stimuli). Pretty simple behaviour once we understand the function.
But a human is like millions of little functions. When we give a human some input, the output may be highly unpredictable, because there are so many parameters, and so many processes that are as yet unknown. Each process (function) may be predictable and understandable at the basic level, but the whole system is not. This is how an organism takes on emergent behaviour.
Cedre writes:
what is certain is nothing natural is known to cause life or to add years to it. When it's time to die it's time to die.
Why is this certain? We know enough about what makes people tick today, that we can almost always tell why somebody has died. And so far it has never been "because his spirit left the body". If someone has a heart attack, it's not because someone waved a magic wand, but because a part of the heart is dying (usually blood flow to that part has been disrupted). There are many ways in which a person can die, and all that I know of can be explained through natural processes.
Do you know of any deaths that didn't involve natural processes?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 10-28-2009 9:20 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-28-2009 1:19 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 14 of 191 (533068)
10-28-2009 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-28-2009 1:19 PM


Re: What is Life & Death
Hi Jumped Up Chimpanzee,
That's a very good question. Life can be and has been defined in many ways. But the definition depends on the context of the discussion. If Cedre has a different definition of life than we do, we will not make any progess with this discussion. In order to discuss whether death precludes abiogenesis, we need a common definition of life and death to work with.
JUC writes:
Would you agree that life could be defined as "a functioning organic system" and that death could be defined as "an organic system completely ceasing to function"?
I would agree, provided that you define the function of the organic system. If we want to include all organisms commonly understood as living in our definition of life, we must choose a function that is common to all of them. Like replication. All organisms that are commonly understood to be alive utilize some mode of replication, whereby information in the replicator is copied into its replicates. Further, all of them do so using some kind of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). We could make this trait our definition of life, in which case any self-replicating molecule could be considered "alive" whether it be organic (carbon-based) or not.
This definition has some limitations however. Take an organism that becomes unable to reproduce. Is it no longer alive? Or take a brain-dead human, kept alive through artifical means. He can still "replicate". But is he alive? So you see it depends on context.
I'd consider a cell whose self-sustaining function became so disrupted that it could no longer prevent itself from breaking down into its components to be dead.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-28-2009 1:19 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 16 of 191 (533124)
10-28-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
10-28-2009 11:16 PM


Hi Buzsaw,
Buzsaw writes:
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.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't oppose an increase of complexity within a non-isolated system. This is apparent in the development of any creature. A chick developing inside an egg is becoming more and more complex, yet is not violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Thus, the first replicating molecules did not have to break any natural laws in order to become more complex. However, 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. This would have led to increased mutation rates, which might not have been a bad thing at the time.
Buzsaw writes:
having no ability to naturally select or randomly mutate successive stages into something more complex until life emerged
Natural selection would have worked equally well on replicating molecules as it does on modern lifeforms. Any molecule that replicated faster than its competitors would soon be in abundance. Molecules that weren't as easily destroyed by forces of nature, or other molecules, would also do well.
Buzsaw writes:
complexity sufficient to replicate or divide.
Which may have been the first thing to appear. Without replication, there is no evolution, and so the simplest possible evolving lifeform would be one that was only capable of replicating itself. Self-replication does not necessitate much complexity. Some scientists (including Richard Dawkins) have proposed replication could have started off with inorganic compounds like clay.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2009 11:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 19 of 191 (533130)
10-29-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:16 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Hi Buzsaw,
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).
Or are you referring to the formation of self-replicating molecules? There are many suggestions as to how life's precursors might have formed. Nobody knows exactly how life originated, nor do I expect we will ever know to 100%. There are so many possible answers to that question.
I suggest you look at the wiki page on abiogenesis for a summary of several hypotheses: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:00 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(3)
Message 21 of 191 (533133)
10-29-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
10-29-2009 12:18 AM


Play nice
Hi Taz,
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.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:07 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 4:32 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 24 of 191 (533138)
10-29-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:00 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Hi Buzsaw,
Buzsaw writes:
1. Wouldn't that run counter to the claim that evolution and abiogenesis are different processes?
Not really. The first self-replicating molecules could well be considered life already, so abiogenesis has already occurred at this point.
Buzsaw writes:
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Prophecy, historical data, and archaeological discoveries all pertain to relatively recent data. You can't derive any direct evidence for the genesis account from these.
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.
While this is not a "proof" of any abiogenesis hypothesis, it does show how even the simplest life forms evolve through natural selection, and how little function is required to sustain life. I don't remember how small they got the genome in the end, but I will look it up and give an ABE unless someone else beats me to it.
Buzsaw writes:
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.
Not really. If you think about it, modern organisms are highly dependent on copying fidelity. This is because we have so many parts that can go wrong. Mutations can lead to any number of defects of the heart, or neural development etc. For a replicating molecule who's only function is to replicate, there really isn't much to lose. The only bad thing that can happen is if a mutation significantly altered the speed of replication or disabled it altogether. Copying-fidelity became a priority later on when life became more complex. Even today I think you'll find that bacteria have less sophisticated DNA repair than eukaryotes. Probably because they don't need it as much as we do.
Good questions nonetheless, although you may want to clarify #2
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
ABE: I found a source for the experiment I was thinking of. You can find it here: Evolution
The experiment deals with the evolution of the Qp virus. As I mentioned in the thread it was able to reduce its genome down to only 220 nucleotides (Really really tiny). Further, it evolved the ability to attract organic molecules for replication without requiring the enzymes provided by the lab
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:00 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 25 of 191 (533140)
10-29-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:07 AM


Re: Randomness
Hi Buzsaw,
You're welcome There are few things I dislike more than rude one-liners in a debate. Especially if they are irrelevant to the question at hand.
Buzsaw writes:
Your statement above appears to imply that the process is not actually random (ABE: relative to the matter at hand). Is that correct?
The reason why you have to be careful when using the word "random" when discussing the mechanics of evolution is two-fold. First off, many of the classic creationist descriptions of evolution lampoon its alleged randomness. You might be familiar with the tornado in the junkyard that randomly builds a functioning jumbo jet as an analogy for evolution. This is a common misunderstanding, as evolution does not predict that complex life-forms will come together randomly. A lot of people get tired of hearing these misrepresentations and will become annoyed if they think that's the point you're trying to make.
Secondly, evolution isn't really an random process. There are two parts to evolution. One is mutation, and mutation is very random. The second is natural selection. Natural selection is not random in that it can always be predicted to bolster the survival of the genes that best help support their reproduction.
As such, the adaptation of life to adverse (within limit) conditions, and indeed, to new opportunities, is inevitable. To say that the eye formed by chance is not consistent with evolution by natural selection. We expect life-forms to develop light-sensitive organs on planets where this is useful.
Granted, it is always impossible to give the details of exactly how life will adapt to a problem. An observer at the time of the first replicators would not have been able to predict the evolution of humans. There were many other paths life could have taken. So on a certain level evolution is unpredictable and random, but only insofar as we do not know "how" life will adapt. We know that it will.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 27 of 191 (533144)
10-29-2009 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Buzsaw writes:
Again, my problem applies to a non-life to life model, i.e. origin of life, as per Bluejay's message.
The problem with wanting a discrete definition of life vs non-life is that it can get very blurry at the level we're talking about. My definition of life would include replicating molecules, as life would then descend from those molecules without any change to the mechanism of the process (evolution by natural selection).
Some definitions of life don't even include viruses! (Probably because they don't really fit into our system of taxonomy) Yet viruses are more complex than the simple replicating molecules that would have been the precursors of life. (Although this link shows how simple life can get while still being functional: Evolution : Also have a look at my ABE upthread)
Once you get down to such a low level of complexity, it really isn't that difficult to provide valid hypotheses for the formation of self-replicating molecules. We still can't know for certain what the first self-replicators looked like, but the possibility of their being really simple little things makes their spontaneous appearance rather more probable.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 29 of 191 (533148)
10-29-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cedre
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
even a bacterium (simple cell)despite having all the essential requirements for it to live, does die
Yes. But how does it die? Many bacteria will survive until they replicate, their "halfs" will then go on and continue to replicate and produce more bacteria. The bacteria doesn't "die of age" but essentially lives on in its offspring. As such, each bacterium has the potential to live forever.
When a bacteria does die it is usually because of predation, adverse environment etc. that kills it by bursting it or disabling it in some way or another.
Cedre writes:
The conclusion is obvious having all the requirements in place is not all that is needed for life.
Quite true. But once you have all the parts connected correctly to each other you have life. That's like a heap of metal and plastic doesn't make a car. But if I put the metal together such that it formed an engine, chassi etc I would have a fully functioning car. Once the parts are all in place, I don't need to breathe a soul into the car to make it work. It's the same with life. All you need are the parts correctly assembled and it will work.
When an animal dies it is usually because some trauma disrupts the "life-support systems" in its body. A lion breaking the neck of a gazelle will paralyze it by severing its spinal cord, and the cells of the animal will die from lack of oxygen and vital nutrients as the animal bleeds to death. As you can see, when the cells aren't getting any blood they no longer have all the ingredients required for them to sustain life, and they die.
Complex animals, like humans, have bodies that are highly dependent on specific circumstances in order to survive. Oxygen, for example, is not necessary for life to exist, but for humans it is vital to our survival. Just like maintaining a heart beat is vital to our survival. When a human dies it is not because the ingredients for life are gone, it's because the circumstances necessary for the human organism to survive have ceased to be.
Furthermore, once a human has been dead for some time you can't restore him back to life for the simple reason that dead tissue breaks down pretty much right away. Even before it is noticeable to the eye, cells will already have reached a point of decay where they won't be able to start up again. This is because human cells are very complex constructs that require more than just the ingredients for life. They require that all the parts are in the right order and properly connected.
In light of this, I'm curious, what aspect of life do you think requires a soul to be explained?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 3:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 64 of 191 (533264)
10-29-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Strawman?
Hi Buzsaw,
The problem here is that we all agree that we should really be discussing more primitive organisms, except for Cedre. Ideally, we should be discussing the requirements that the first life had. Did the first replicating molecules need a soul in order to replicate? Do bacteria need souls in order to function?
Cedre is the one that finds relevance in discussing the complex factors involved in sustaining a larger living organism. Because he only looks at organisms at the macroscopic level, he doesn't realize that dead organisms are in fact physically distinct from living ones. He has been given several examples of this.
It isn't really fair to label Modulous' rebuttal a strawman, when the very argument he is rebutting is the strawman that started this whole charade in the first place.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 191 (533266)
10-29-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:27 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Buzsaw writes:
And this is suppose to model the abiogenesis of life, or am I miss-reading you?
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.
Buzsaw writes:
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.
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.
You're mistake here is that you are assuming "organic" to mean living and "inorganic" means dead. Organic means carbon-based. As such, even a small molecule like methane is organic.
Why does it matter whether we call these first replicators "living" or not?
PS. Did you read the excerpt I linked you to about the experiment with the virus. Wouldn't you agree that the fact that life can thrive at a genome complexity of a mere 220 nucleotides is a fairly convincing example of how simple these first life forms could have been? (And they were probably even less complex than that)
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 10:04 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 67 of 191 (533268)
10-29-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cedre
10-29-2009 3:48 AM


Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
No what you have is a lifeless organism a body not life.
Thank you for sharing your religious beliefs with us. Now, let's address the facts.
Cedre writes:
but dead organisms defy that notion. And although deterioration may begin shortly after death it doesn't happen extremely fast as you claim otherwise resuscitation would always fail. I have read of a man who had been dead for three days but was able to be resuscitated. Also according to Wikipedia it actually takes a long time for tissue to deteriorate "The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years" Not Found
I'm not referring to decomposition on a larger scale. A cell that is starved of oxygen will quickly be damaged by certain chain reactions and it will die.
However, research into techniques of suspended animation have shown that if oxygen in an animal is quickly replaced by something else, such that the animal goes from "sufficient oxygen" to "no oxygen" without spending much time in the damaging zone that is "low oxygen", he will not suffer as much internal damage to the cells. Another method of improving the survival of a patient with no pulse or breathing, is by lowering the temperature, reducing the damaging processes that take place inside cells with little access to oxygen.
Think of it. A person put into suspended animation would be dead for all practical purposes, but the parts inside his cells will still be connected properly, such that he can be resuscitated even after great lengths of time. While a person who is simply strangled to death, without any of these steps taken, will be far more difficult to revive. Why is this?
You have to remember, just because the heart, brain, arteries etc. are still in place, life is what takes place on a cellular level. If the cells are damaged, the parts of the organism are no longer properly connected, and you will not be able to revive it. It doesn't matter what it all looks like on a macroscopic level.
Cedre writes:
Exactly All that's needed are not just parts correctly assembled but my point is other factors are come into play, dead organism especially freshly dead organisms also have parts correctly assembled, humans still have a heart and arteries and etc everything is still in place
They don't necessarily have all the parts in place. If the cells are too damaged, the organism will not resuscitate.
Try to think of life on a cellular level.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 3:48 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 3:00 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 69 of 191 (533275)
10-29-2009 5:13 PM


Evidence please
Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
I will propose that this life-sustaining force is God, you are at liberty to propose your own, what is certain is nothing natural is known to cause life or to add years to it. When it's time to die it's time to die.
Before you continue to assert this, perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of "unnatural deaths". That is, deaths without a natural cause that can only be explained supernaturally.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why a person who chokes to death can be resuscitated, while a person who is heavily irradiated (cell damage) can not.
From your point of view it would seem that medicine is irrelevant in resuscitating the dead, since life is supernatural anyway.
Unless you can respond to these questions, I don't see how your concept of what it takes to be living has any foundation in the real world.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 3:31 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 70 of 191 (533276)
10-29-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
10-29-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Play nice
Hi Taz,
Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I agree that random was not the right word to use. But Buzsaw wasn't discussing the randomness of evolution or abiogenesis, his post had nothing do with it. As such, while he may have used an unfortunate choice of words, you are still attacking his semantics rather than his post.
Whatever Buzsaw's knowledge on the topic, he is still entitled to ask questions and recieve answers to those questions.
It's a good thing you point this out. But rather than just saying "You're a liar!!", try to point out why and how he is lying. You'll notice that I had to explain to Buzsaw why you were upset, as it wasn't apparent in your post.
I'm pretty sure I'll be as tired of these creo misconceptions as you are once I've been active in the debate for 3+ years
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 4:32 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 6:34 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4823 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 77 of 191 (533294)
10-29-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 8:03 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Hi Buzsaw,
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".
I had intended to use a well known analogy by Richard Dawkins, but upon hunting for a source I came across this. An essay from "simplychristians.eu", written by an "Architect" who is critiquing the ideas set forth by "theoretical scientists" (evolutionary biologists). I found it very funny, and sad, to see the ignorance demonstrated in the article.
The Confused Architect writes:
Sometimes, theoreticians offer the formation of snowflakes, ice crystals and other mineral crystals as examples of order and design spontaneously arising from chaos. What those "theoretical scientists" overlook is that a true scientist confronted with phenomena such as these would not assume that they occur by chance.
A research scientist would assume that if they had all the factors at their finger tips they would understand the reason why these crystals form as they do. They certainly would not write it of as order arising spontaneously by "fortuitous chance" from chaos.* Scientists involved in research, work on the basis that there is reason for everything they observe and they look for explanations based on reason not on chance. They do not write-off what they do not understand as being fortuitous chance operating on chaos. They look for answers, not cop-outs. They expect to find design - not just "the appearance of design" - to find reason, not just the appearance of reason.
[* Some scientists reason that the regular arrangement of snowflakes and crystals is determined by the directional forces in the atoms as arranged in the molecules, being influenced by the environment in which the crystal grows.]
Basically what they're admitting is that you can get pretty and complex designs in snowflakes through truly natural processes. But since evolution and abiogenesis is "random" and "fortuitous chance" (Dawkins is repeatedly quoted out of context in the article) they can't apply the same rules to life as to snowflakes.
Now I'm gonna read the rest of the article and see if I can't get myself a few more laughs at the expense of some architect who thinks he's a biologist.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 8:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:01 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024