Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution in the VERY beginning
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 31 of 58 (247523)
09-30-2005 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by SirIan
09-30-2005 3:09 AM


Re: starting points
SirIan writes:
Given the reality of the improbability of the event...
Since I have a background in math, I know a thing a two about probabilities and whatnot. I would be much interested in your calculations and how you have come to your conclusion.
This message has been edited by Jacen, 09-30-2005 03:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by SirIan, posted 09-30-2005 3:09 AM SirIan has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 58 (247614)
09-30-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:36 PM


Re: abiogenesis debunked
Hello, Springer.
quote:
Evolutionists conveniently divorce themselves from explanations of abiogenesis because they have absolutely no explanation of how it is possible.
It's not that people are trying to dodge the questions about abiogenesis. We are simply trying to make it clear that any questions about abiogenesis have no bearing on the question of biological evolution. There is a great amount of evidence in favor of Darwin's theory of common descent in a multitude of different scientific disciplines. That evidence will not go away, whatever happens in the field of abiogenesis; abiogenesis and biological evolution are different disciplines involving very different subjects; they will each separately stand or fall on their own merits.
Now, once it is accepted that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then a discussion on abiogenesis can proceed, and it may be very interesting and fruitfull. There are a lot of unkowns, but also a lot of interesting research. Maybe it will be possible to show that abiogenesis could not have happend by completely naturalistic means -- go ahead and give it your best shot. But even if it can be shown that life had to be created by a conscious entity, it will not in any way invalidate the evidence that exists that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, and that life has had a very long history that is described very well by the theory of evolution.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:36 PM Springer has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 58 (247631)
09-30-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by SirIan
09-30-2005 3:09 AM


Forever unknown?
Abiogenesis is by definition the hypothetical starting point of life and will ever remain so if a process is not forthcoming. Given the reality of the improbability of the event, it will remain unanswered to the mind that is bounded by the 'Evolution' paradigm.
As others have said we know that we don't know how life got started. Even that we may never to able to pin it down to one particular method. However, the research mentioned in this and other threads suggests that we will develop a pretty good understanding of the origin of life over the next few decades.
I don't have a problem with "I don't know."
However, you should note the absurdity of making a statement like "Given the reality of the improbability of the event," for an event that you don't know (as you had just said) anything about.
You've been asked to support your statment about the probability of the event. In these discussion that means you either support your claim or you politely retract it. You can supply the numbers to Jacens(I think it was) who is one of the resident math geeks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by SirIan, posted 09-30-2005 3:09 AM SirIan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM NosyNed has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 34 of 58 (247653)
09-30-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by SirIan
09-30-2005 3:09 AM


Re: starting points
If you want to subsrcibe to the panspermia you just have to answer the first same question in another location and answer more questions regarding the seeding process.
That's a misunderstanding of why panspermia is proposed by some people.
One possibility for abiogenesis is that a chemical reaction spontaneously generated the first primitive life form. Such a chemical reaction is highly improbable, as I am sure you agree. But you have to multiply the tiny probability by the number of trials (possible circumstances where the reaction could have occurred). If the result of this multiplication is near 1 (or higher), then it is very likely that it happened at some time.
What the panspermia thesis would allow, is that we can consider not just the number of trials on earth, but the number of trials on all planets in the cosmos, and over a longer period of time than the earth has existed. It changes the computation of the probability.
In the extreme case, assume that the universe has existed for ever. Then it could be that life has existed for ever, and is spread from old dying planets to new young ones, as in panspermia. In that case we never have to explain how life started, because life always was. It's my impression that panspermia theories were first proposed at a time when a steady state cosmology was being seriously considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by SirIan, posted 09-30-2005 3:09 AM SirIan has not replied

  
SirIan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 58 (247912)
10-01-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
09-30-2005 10:11 AM


Re: Ever to remain unknown
Ned,
Abiogenesis or any other of the same hypothetical ilk will always be in the unknown bin because they cannot be reproduced.
The realistic probability of a protein springing into existance from the required primordal soup has been calculated to be about 10 to the power of 8295 against. In his book 'Evolutionossible or Impossible' James F. Coppedge Ph.D. indicates how he arrived at this figure and the hurdles that need to be overcome for it to occur.
I see no plausible reason to disagree with his conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2005 10:11 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2005 12:10 PM SirIan has not replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2005 12:14 PM SirIan has not replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 10-01-2005 1:05 PM SirIan has not replied
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 10-01-2005 2:15 PM SirIan has not replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 10-01-2005 3:53 PM SirIan has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2005 5:20 PM SirIan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 58 (247914)
10-01-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Ever to remain unknown
The realistic probability of a protein springing into existance from the required primordal soup has been calculated to be about 10 to the power of 8295 against.
Of any one single protein, yes, that's probably true.
I'm not aware of any model of abiogenesis that relies on the chance occurance of one single, specific protein, however, so it's not clear to me why you think this calculation has any bearing on the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 58 (247915)
10-01-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Ever to remain unknown
Hello, Sirlan.
quote:
The realistic probability of a protein springing into existance from the required primordal soup has been calculated to be about 10 to the power of 8295 against. In his book 'Evolutionossible or Impossible' James F. Coppedge Ph.D.
Any mathematical calculation and model requires that the modeller knows and understands the environment and processes in the phenomenon that they wish to model. Since even the researchers who are working in the field of abiogenesis admit that they do not fully understand the processes in their entirety, I doubt that Dr. Coppedge really understands the processes. Therefore, there is no reason to accept the results of his model.
All his model shows is that abiogenesis is not possible under the particular processes that he envisioned. Researchers are investigating a wide range of different processes and scenarios, including different possibilities for the first replicators, and Dr. Coppedge's model simply discounts one possibility at best. At worst, Dr. Coppedge has discounted a possibility that isn't even under consideration by serious researchers; that is pretty common among creationists -- they build "straw man" arguments, ridiculous scenarios that no serious scientist actually proposes.
Finally, here is an essay on why we should doubt probability calculations that supposedly "disprove" abiogenesis.
It might be enlightening if you wish to provide details of Dr. Coppedge's work so that we can discuss them. My guess is that even the non-experts here will be able to spot the flaws in his argument, or the flaws in the use of his work by creationists.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 58 (247932)
10-01-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Ever to remain unknown
10 to the power of 8295 against
An interesting number. But does that take into account how much material is available from which it is to spawn, and does it take into account the amount of time needed for a chemical process to occur? Does it take into account the expansiveness of the Universe for that matter?
Let's see, how many seconds are there in a billion years?
How many individual proteins can we fit on the surface of the Earth?
How many potential Earths are out there?
Suddenly, 10 to the power of 8295 against doesn't seem like that big a number

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 58 (247944)
10-01-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


Probability calculations
The guidelines require you to support this number. Since I've seen a few of these calculations I'm pretty sure it will turn out (as other posters are hinting at) to have nothing meaningful to do with the origin of life. If the calculations are actually meaningful at all -- they usually are not.
After you show the details and they are dismantled you can appologive for being hasty and being fooled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 58 (247972)
10-01-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


Warning: Lottery analogy alert!
The realistic probability of a protein springing into existance from the required primordal soup has been calculated to be about 10 to the power of 8295 against
OK lets agree that this is the correct figure (I've heard other numbers, but they are all astronomical (indeed many (like this one) are beyond astronomical being bigger than the number of molecules in the universe)). We agree that proteins do not simply spring into existence from a uniform soup of amino acids or molecules or however he worked it out.
Let me demonstrate how this logic renders my winning the lottery nearly impossible.
In order for me to win the lottery, I need a ticket. The chances of a computer error resulting in my printer printing off a lottery ticket whilst the same week a computer error on the lottery system means that my lottery ticket is valid, and the numbers on the lottery ticket being that weeks winning ticket...are astronomically low. So low, it will probably never happen to anyone, let alone me. Therefore the chances of me winning the lottery are basically 0.
Hang on Mod, I hear you cry, you could just buy a ticket, or perhaps you could buy 13,985,816 tickets. That would increase your chances. Or you could mug someone who had just won the lottery but hadn't claimed their prize, or you could plan a daring inside job and fix the lottery.
Well, exactly, so one absurd manner in which I could win the lottery can be discounted, but there are others.
Not a single chemist I have ever seen says that protiens just spontaneously came together in the manner you suggest.
This is one hypothesis (put forwards by Sidney Fox:
1. Proteinoids are known to form abiotically
2. These proteinoids can form microspheres
3. These microspheres act in many ways like cells, with a basic version of replication taking place, taking energy on board, growing etc
This is an incomplete idea, but it looks considerably less like your protiens jumping into existence from nowhere hypothesis which we all agree was falsified almost before it was even suggested.
Interesting reading

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 58 (247994)
10-01-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirIan
10-01-2005 12:01 PM


erroneous thinking, bad calculations, and ignorance.
I see no plausible reason to disagree with his conclusion.
Like the others here, I have seen a number of these bogus calculations that are nothing more than the argument from incredulity wrapped in math: there is no way they can properly model the probability without understanding the process to the point where it would be evident that we knew how life evolved.
Common error #1
Can you calculate the probability of throwing a "7" on a pair of dice when you don't know how many sides are on each di?
This is the primary fallacy of these "calculations" that they presume to know that which they do not know.
Common error #2
The secondary fallacy of these "calculations" is that they do not calculate the probabilities properly. I'll have to spend a little time and space on this to show the mathematical error involved in these calculations:
Let us assume a protein is formed with the pattern
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

51 bonds between 52 amino acids all in one particular order, where each letter represents one of 20 amino acids, and the resultant calculation by {creationist\IDist\etcist} is that the probability of this forming is
pm = (1/20)51 = 4.44E-67 or 1 in 2.25E+66

Your typical "creatortionista" number. But this only calculates one way this molecule can form: this ignores the fact that the bonds in the molecule can be formed in any order and still end up with the same final result.
The probability of the first bond forming is not (1/20), because any one of the 51 bonds can form first.
To calculate this mathematical probability properly, first we calculate the probability that not one of the bonds forms, and the mathematical probability of this bonding {not} occurring is:
p{NOT}51 = {1-(1/20}51 = 0.07310 or 1 in 13.7

And this means that the probability of the first bond forming is actually:
p51 = 1-p{NOT}51 = 1-{1-(1/20}51 = 0.92690 or 1 in 1.079

Almost a sure thing eh?
We do the same thing for the next bond, any one of the remaining 50 bonds has the mathematical probability of:
p50 = 1-p{NOT}50 = 1-{1-(1/20}50 = 0.92306 or 1 in 1.083

A little less sure, but still a pretty solid likelihood eh? Let's carry on ...
p49 = 1-p{NOT}49 = 1-{1-(1/20}49 = 0.9190 or 1 in 1.0881
p48 = 1-p{NOT}48 = 1-{1-(1/20}48 = 0.9147 or 1 in 1.0932
p47 = 1-p{NOT}47 = 1-{1-(1/20}47 = 0.9103 or 1 in 1.0986
p46 = 1-p{NOT}46 = 1-{1-(1/20}46 = 0.9055 or 1 in 1.1043
p45 = 1-p{NOT}45 = 1-{1-(1/20}45 = 0.9006 or 1 in 1.1104
p44 = 1-p{NOT}44 = 1-{1-(1/20}44 = 0.8953 or 1 in 1.1169
p43 = 1-p{NOT}43 = 1-{1-(1/20}43 = 0.8898 or 1 in 1.1238
p42 = 1-p{NOT}42 = 1-{1-(1/20}42 = 0.8840 or 1 in 1.1312
p41 = 1-p{NOT}41 = 1-{1-(1/20}41 = 0.8779 or 1 in 1.1391
p40 = 1-p{NOT}40 = 1-{1-(1/20}40 = 0.8715 or 1 in 1.1475
p39 = 1-p{NOT}39 = 1-{1-(1/20}39 = 0.8647 or 1 in 1.1564
p38 = 1-p{NOT}38 = 1-{1-(1/20}38 = 0.8576 or 1 in 1.1660
p37 = 1-p{NOT}37 = 1-{1-(1/20}37 = 0.8501 or 1 in 1.1763
p36 = 1-p{NOT}36 = 1-{1-(1/20}36 = 0.8422 or 1 in 1.1873
p35 = 1-p{NOT}35 = 1-{1-(1/20}35 = 0.8339 or 1 in 1.1992
p34 = 1-p{NOT}34 = 1-{1-(1/20}34 = 0.8252 or 1 in 1.2119
p33 = 1-p{NOT}33 = 1-{1-(1/20}33 = 0.8160 or 1 in 1.2255
p32 = 1-p{NOT}32 = 1-{1-(1/20}32 = 0.8063 or 1 in 1.2403
p31 = 1-p{NOT}31 = 1-{1-(1/20}31 = 0.7961 or 1 in 1.2561
p30 = 1-p{NOT}30 = 1-{1-(1/20}30 = 0.7854 or 1 in 1.2733
p29 = 1-p{NOT}29 = 1-{1-(1/20}29 = 0.7741 or 1 in 1.2919
p28 = 1-p{NOT}28 = 1-{1-(1/20}28 = 0.7622 or 1 in 1.3120
p27 = 1-p{NOT}27 = 1-{1-(1/20}27 = 0.7497 or 1 in 1.3339
p26 = 1-p{NOT}26 = 1-{1-(1/20}26 = 0.7365 or 1 in 1.3578
p25 = 1-p{NOT}25 = 1-{1-(1/20}25 = 0.7226 or 1 in 1.3839
p24 = 1-p{NOT}24 = 1-{1-(1/20}24 = 0.7080 or 1 in 1.4124
p23 = 1-p{NOT}23 = 1-{1-(1/20}23 = 0.6926 or 1 in 1.4437
p22 = 1-p{NOT}22 = 1-{1-(1/20}22 = 0.6765 or 1 in 1.4783
p21 = 1-p{NOT}21 = 1-{1-(1/20}21 = 0.6594 or 1 in 1.5164
p20 = 1-p{NOT}20 = 1-{1-(1/20}20 = 0.6415 or 1 in 1.5588
p19 = 1-p{NOT}19 = 1-{1-(1/20}19 = 0.6226 or 1 in 1.6060
p18 = 1-p{NOT}18 = 1-{1-(1/20}18 = 0.6028 or 1 in 1.6590
p17 = 1-p{NOT}17 = 1-{1-(1/20}17 = 0.5819 or 1 in 1.7186
p16 = 1-p{NOT}16 = 1-{1-(1/20}16 = 0.5599 or 1 in 1.7861
p15 = 1-p{NOT}15 = 1-{1-(1/20}15 = 0.5367 or 1 in 1.8632
p14 = 1-p{NOT}14 = 1-{1-(1/20}14 = 0.5123 or 1 in 1.9519
p13 = 1-p{NOT}13 = 1-{1-(1/20}13 = 0.4867 or 1 in 2.0548
p12 = 1-p{NOT}12 = 1-{1-(1/20}12 = 0.4596 or 1 in 2.1756
p11 = 1-p{NOT}11 = 1-{1-(1/20}11 = 0.4312 or 1 in 2.3191
p10 = 1-p{NOT}10 = 1-{1-(1/20}10 = 0.4013 or 1 in 2.4921
p9 = 1-p{NOT}9 = 1-{1-(1/20}9 = 0.3698 or 1 in 2.7045
p8 = 1-p{NOT}8 = 1-{1-(1/20}8 = 0.3366 or 1 in 2.9711
p7 = 1-p{NOT}7 = 1-{1-(1/20}7 = 0.3017 or 1 in 3.3150
p6 = 1-p{NOT}6 = 1-{1-(1/20}6 = 0.2649 or 1 in 3.7749
p5 = 1-p{NOT}5 = 1-{1-(1/20}5 = 0.2262 or 1 in 4.4205
p4 = 1-p{NOT}4 = 1-{1-(1/20}4 = 0.1855 or 1 in 5.3910
p3 = 1-p{NOT}3 = 1-{1-(1/20}3 = 0.1426 or 1 in 7.0114
p2 = 1-p{NOT}2 = 1-{1-(1/20}2 = 0.0975 or 1 in 10.2564
p1 = 1-p{NOT}1 = 1-{1-(1/20}1 = 0.0500 or 1 in 20.0000

Notice that the last bond formed is the only one that has the mathematical probability of (1/20). Now to calculate the probability of all 52 amino acids lining up in the above formation with the bonds formed in any order we multiply the probabilities of each of the bonding stages, and we get:
pm = (0.9269)x(0.9231)x(0.9190)x(0.9147)x(0.9103)x(0.9055)
x(0.9006)x(0.8953)x(0.8898)x(0.8840)x(0.8779)x(0.8715)x(0.8647)
x(0.8576)x(0.8501)x(0.8422)x(0.8339)x(0.8252)x(0.8160)x(0.8063)
x(0.7961)x(0.7854)x(0.7741)x(0.7622)x(0.7497)x(0.7365)x(0.7226)
x(0.7080)x(0.6926)x(0.6765)x(0.6594)x(0.6415)x(0.6226)x(0.6028)
x(0.5819)x(0.5599)x(0.5367)x(0.5123)x(0.4867)x(0.4596)x(0.4312)
x(0.4013)x(0.3698)x(0.3366)x(0.3017)x(0.2649)x(0.2262)x(0.1855)
x(0.1426)x(0.0975)x(0.0500) = 5.39E-13
or 1 in 1.85E+12

Which, while still large is significantly "more likely" than 1 in 2.25E+66.
And the longer you take these kinds of calculations out the disparity between the "creatortionista" calculation and the real mathematical calculation grows.
And this still does not adequately model all the possible ways the molecule could form.
For starters, there are only 20 amino acids so those 52 positions have to have some repeats: the likelihood of a certain amino acid forming a "wrong" bond for one location does not mean that it is not "right" for another location, and the more often a certain amino acid is repeated in the whole protein the more this becomes a factor. To properly model this you need to apply it to specific examples.
For further possibilities, there are any number of larger molecules that could be formed with "mistake" sections in them, where one or more amino acids are injected into the above sequence during formation, but which are then knocked out (cosmic ray bombardment, copy error, etc) leaving the proper formed molecule. This is not included in the "creatortionista" calculations, it is not even addressed.
Common error #3
The third common error in these calculations is the assumption that only one molecule will do the job. There are several forms of the hemoglobin molecule that are all capable of doing the job, as one example of the fallacy of this assumption.
This is usually compounded by using a large modern molecule form without any analysis of just how much of it is needed to do the job: perhaps the example above only needs
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

and the other half is a repeat sequence that does the same thing (doubling the effectiveness of the full molecule). This means that the probability of forming the necessary molecule is only
pm = (0.7226)x(0.7080)x(0.6926)x(0.6765)x(0.6594)x(0.6415)
x(0.6226)x(0.6028)x(0.5819)x(0.5599)x(0.5367)x(0.5123)x(0.4867)
x(0.4596)x(0.4312)x(0.4013)x(0.3698)x(0.3366)x(0.3017)x(0.2649)
x(0.2262)x(0.1855)x(0.1426)x(0.0975)x(0.0500) = 3.83E-11
or 1 in 2.61E+10

or 71 times more likely to occur, and this kind of repeated sequencing is common on all modern proteins, meaning that ignoring it is making the model intentionally invalid. Typically there is no mention of other possible solutions to say nothing of any analysis to eliminate them as possibilities.
Common error #4
The difference between improbable and impossible is vast, no matter what the number calculated actually turns out to be. Life could indeed be a highly unlikely event on the grand cosmic scale. That does not prevent it from happening, and more to the point: once it has happened the probability is irrelevant. You could flip 50 heads in a row the first time: probability does not say when in the course of events the improbable happens. To argue from the existence of life that the "improbability" of it is evidence of miraculous intervention is just a post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy.
Math is not evidence for reality. If you have a mathematical model that says something cannot happen when you have evidence around you that it has, the probability is high that the mathematical model is erroneous.
Now let me repeat your comment quoted above:
I see no plausible reason to disagree with his conclusion.
And ask if you still stand by it?
Personally I see no reason to give it any tidbit of credence at all, there are just too many unknowns involved, and too many conceptual (mathematical and logical) errors in this kind of thinking, for it to hold any validity as any kind of model of reality.
Enjoy.
{abe
ps -- I would like to thank Jacinto for his inspiration on the probability calculation
http://EvC Forum: IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!
{/abe}
also took out unnecessary line spaces in the calcs section
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*02*2005 09:33 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirIan, posted 10-01-2005 12:01 PM SirIan has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 58 (248194)
10-02-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
09-29-2005 12:22 AM


"living" is difficult to define
NosyNed writes:
(Note: 'living' is a bit tricky mind you....
This is a bit late, but I would like to toss in a complicating side note. As I understand this, a virus is not a living entity. It it reproduces by hijacking the mechanisms of living cells, but it does not carry on the process of metabolism.
A virus is not killed, but it can be made inactive.
Now if we throw the concept of what a virus is and how it works into the mix of how life originated, we may have a bit of a clue as to the transition between non life and life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 09-29-2005 12:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 1:49 PM bkelly has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 58 (248196)
10-02-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bkelly
10-02-2005 1:24 PM


Re: "living" is difficult to define
quote:
As I understand this, a virus is not a living entity.
That, of course, depends on how one defines "living". Many microbiologists do not count viruses as living, but I am a little unsure why "reproduction without hijacking the mechanisms of living cells" should count as a criterion between living and non-living.
Viruses make replicas of themselves using the materials they find their environment. True, one of the materials that needs to be present in their environment are the fully functioning DNA replication proteins found in a living cell, but I don't see that as fundamentally different from the fact that if vitamin C were not present in the environment then human beings would not be able to carry out their replication.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 1:24 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AdminNosy, posted 10-02-2005 1:57 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 46 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:17 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 44 of 58 (248199)
10-02-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chiroptera
10-02-2005 1:49 PM


Topic?
I'm thinking that the definition of "living" is a good topic for another thread. It will overwhelm this topic if we try to get into it here.
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 1:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:15 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 2:35 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 58 (248207)
10-02-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AdminNosy
10-02-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Topic?
Yes, this is such an open and debatable point, it may well overwhelm the topic of the op.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AdminNosy, posted 10-02-2005 1:57 PM AdminNosy 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