It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 51
14
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
 




However, you may want to double check your understanding here


Theoretical Framework An open system exchanges matter and energy with its surroundings. Most systems are open systems; like a car, coffeemaker, or computer. A closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its environment; like Earth or the project Biosphere2 or 3. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its environment. A theoretical example of such system is the Universe.


As you can see, the system is either closed or at best considered isolated.


Which system is "at best considered isolated"???

For most practical purposes, the earth would seem a closed system. Though it does gain over 40 thousand tons of matter annually from space, while losing around 95 thousand tons. So it certainly does exchange both energy and matter with it's surroundings. When you also consider the possibility of panspermia.....

Though none of this explains why abiogenesis would break any laws of thermodynamics.

Obviously most scientists in the relevant field (at least most of the ones who don't think the old testament is a peer reviewed scientific paper) would seem to disagree with you.

While I can envision a "stay on topic" coming up, it won't be lost on many the immense scientific complications that could arise by throwing an imaginary eternal creator being into the mix. Until there is reason (apart from personal delusions) to consider a creator, natural processes appear the only option.

The word entropy can become vague itself. It is a quantitative thing pertaining to physics, able to be calculated (ie. not intuitive or based on some subjective perception of disorder etc). Could you define it your use of it?

It would be good if you could back up your other assertion. It seems Pasteur showed that if you remove and then seal a flask from external microbes/bacteria, the contents of the flask will then be unaffected by said bacteria. Makes sense. Dispelling myths that modern life forms simply appear in such circumstances (spontenious generation or spontaneous "creation").

Could you explain how this experiment rules out the possibility of abiogenesis? Please use as much direct comparison with this experiment and modern abiogenesis hypotheses and research as you like. So as to clarify the exact relevance and then, having established that, explain how it rules it out?

Thanks.


edit on 11-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 

Well it appears you have a disagreement with someone else. I did not write the source material. Please check with them to clarify what should be written there.
edit on 11-8-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Did the best I could with the experiment. As I stated earlier, although I do not see much difference between the current definition of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, it is obvious most people do. They need to. And that is okay. Whether it is a very simple one cell organism, a plant cell, or an animal cell, or a maggot, it does not much matter to me.

It is obvious others have a different understanding of the term than I. My understanding is:

Non-Life to Life.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by radix
The only truly isolated system is the universe itself.

Hypothetically yes, in practice I doubt anyone could even truly know that.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


I am simply waiting for an argument concerning entropy that does not frame the concept within terms relating to evolution. Is that possible?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Originally posted by totallackey
If the formation of the RNA required outside interference (in the form of scientists in this case), what form would the experiment need to take to finally prove abiogenesis?



Originally posted by Barcs
Now you are just nitpicking. They are trying to prove that life can form from non life. The fact that scientists run the experiments, doesn't mean outside influence is required. It shows that life can form under condition X. If condition X doesn't exist on earth anywhere right now, then it must be set up.


I will take this response as tacit avoidance and not intentional ignorance.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 





I am simply waiting for an argument concerning entropy that does not frame the concept within terms relating to evolution. Is that possible?


You're the one who brought entropy into the discussion as a problem for abiogenesis so it's up to you to explain why it would be a problem. So far, you're not even close. If you want to claim that decreased entropy caused by abiogenesis is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you need to show that the Earth is an isolated system - which it obviously isn't.

Your problem is actually worse than that. Any local decrease in entropy is perfectly possible as long as it's accompanied by a bigger increase in entropy somewhere else. In other words, you need to show that the particular environment where abiogenesis supposedly happened (be it ocean, pond or lake) is an isolated system that cannot receive energy from an outside source.

In addition to the sun, there were also terrestrial energy sources available like volcanic energy and radioactivity which both produce entropy that could offset any local decrease. In short, the "entropy problem" is a complete red herring.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


You brought thermodynamics into the discussion you're the 1 that needs to show why entropy is not a problem and you need to demonstrate how it is measured without bringing an evolutionary formative argument to the table.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



You brought thermodynamics into the discussion you're the 1 that needs to show why entropy is not a problem and you need to demonstrate how it is measured without bringing an evolutionary formative argument to the table.


What a feeble attempt to switch the burden of proof. You claim that entropy is a problem for abiogenesis, you prove it. I've already explained to you why you can't but feel free to try.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


I merely want the record set straight. You are the one who first brought thermodynamics into this discussion. You will be the one who needs to propose how an experiment will be formulated and takes into account all the applicable laws of physics prior the formation of life. I want to understand how this experiment would be conducted.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
 


The point of the op is that abiogenesis is "just a silly idea". As such, it seems up to those in the affirmative camp to back their argument and show why science is wrong to consider it. You have made claims, that is all. Shifting the burden of proof won't work, it is sidetracking the thread. No one owes you an explanation about thermodynamics unless you can demonstrate why it would preclude abiogenesis as a possibility. You haven't. Please provide something substantial and back it up.

To borrow a phrase "please stay on topic" and explain why abiogenesis is "a silly idea"?


edit on 11-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 




I merely want the record set straight. You are the one who first brought thermodynamics into this discussion.


No, sir - you did. You specifically asked for "takers on the entropy issue" and I responded. Are you now going to claim that entropy is not a thermodynamical term?



You will be the one who needs to propose how an experiment will be formulated and takes into account all the applicable laws of physics prior the formation of life. I want to understand how this experiment would be conducted.


An experiment to show what? That Earth is not an isolated system? Easy, just step outside on a sunny day and feel that warmth on your face. That's energy being injected into our system from an outside source. Proof positive that Earth is not an isolated system and consequently entropy is not a problem.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Welp, thanks Lackey. You have officially proved yourself a troll who is doing nothing but playing word games. You don't even know what a fallacy is. You know nothing about abiogenesis, entropy, evolution, and pretty much science in general. The fact the you took my single response and separated it into 3-4 different posts, several hours apart, proves that you have no genuine interest in the topic or even a fair discussion. You are only trying to be argumentative, but when somebody proves you wrong, you pretend it didn't happen and move to the next topic. You have been proven a liar and a fraud. You have denied that the earth receives energy from the sun. You have denied evolution and modern biology. You have denied all rational science. You have used numerous logical fallacies and respond to entire paragraphs or scientific links with 1 or 2 lines, make a hasty generalization about it and claim you proved a point. You are making blanket statements and telling others to prove you wrong. You need to prove yourself correct. That's how it works. You cannot prove DNA was designed or that abiogenesis was ruled out. If entropy ruled out abiogenesis, then why are scientists still running experiments? For the fun of it? C'mon man. You gotta do better than that. I'm not wasting anymore time on troll that doesn't want to engage in an honest conversation, and only looks to sway people's opinions on god and ID using word games and still won't provide any citations of experiments' conclusions to prove anything he's said in this entire thread. I mean you cite "system" on wiki as your best argument here. Stop the games. Address the science, not language semantics.


Science has CONCLUSIVELY eliminated abiogenesis. finished, kaput, bupkus, nada, (i.e., THAT DOG DOES NOT HUNT!!! STICK A FORK IN IT!!!)


Just saying.
edit on 11-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


No you started the discussion of thermodynamics with me. here

I have reviewed my participation in this thread. Nowhere have I prior to this post broached the subject of thermodynamics. You did with edmc, but I never mentioned it.

You do realize your current argument and example is one based on current observable conditions, something you cannot pick up and apply to past conditions without wishful thinking. The universe is not steady state. The Earth is defined as a closed system. Have you worked that out with the publishers link?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You are a liar. I never stated the Earth did not receive energy from the Sun. The topic is abiogenesis and I have attempted to keep it on topic, even though you continue to bring evolution and related concepts into the argument.
You are pitiful. I retract my earlier apology and simply dismiss you. You deserve no further consideration.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 





No you started the discussion of thermodynamics with me. here

I have reviewed my participation in this thread. Nowhere have I prior to this post broached the subject of thermodynamics. You did with edmc, but I never mentioned it.


Boy, you're really getting desperate now. This discussion is about entropy and you started it. Entropy is, by definition, thermodynamics so your little word games aren't really fooling anyone.


You do realize your current argument and example is one based on current observable conditions, something you cannot pick up and apply to past conditions without wishful thinking. The universe is not steady state.


Yes, it's based on the current observation that there's a sun in the sky that provides energy to the Earth, thus nullifying your claim that entropy is a problem for abiogenesis. What past conditions are you suggesting where this was not the case?


The Earth is defined as a closed system. Have you worked that out with the publishers link?


Yes, it's a closed system - not an isolated one. Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you know, the one about entropy) is only applicable to isolated systems it simply proves my point that entropy is not a problem for abiogenesis. You already knew this, of course - you're just not honest enough to admit that you don't have an argument.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


You claimed I started the discussion of thermodynamics. I did not. You did. I asked about entropy. You stated it was not a problem and as proof you offered an assertion of current facts. This is fallacious argumentation. You cannot utilize an argument of current state in a prior state.

That is what I am stating. Plain, pure, and simple. Now, if you want to keep claiming I have stated it is a problem for abiogenesis, then you are also a liar, and will be dismissed. I have asked you to address entropy in terms that do not account for current states or measurements as those conditions are not being discussed.

You guys are really, really freaking dense.

Plus, you were arguing earlier the Earth was an open system and entropy no longer applied. You cannot even admit that failing. I had to show you that. Plus, you laid claim in your last post that entropy only applies to isolated systems. You are a very, very pitiful person, and a liar.


In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system.

edit on 11-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 





You claimed I started the discussion of thermodynamics. I did not. You did. I asked about entropy. You stated it was not a problem and as proof you offered an assertion of current facts. This is fallacious argumentation. You cannot utilize an argument of current state in a prior state.

That is what I am stating. Plain, pure, and simple. Now, if you want to keep claiming I have stated it is a problem for abiogenesis, then you are also a liar, and will be dismissed. I have asked you to address entropy in terms that do not account for current states or measurements as those conditions are not being discussed.

You guys are really, really freaking dense.

Plus, you were arguing earlier the Earth was an open system and entropy no longer applied. You cannot even admit that failing. I had to show you that. Plus, you laid claim in your last post that entropy only applies to isolated systems. You are a very, very pitiful person, and a liar.

In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system.


And there you have it. It took a while but I believe totallackey has finally been stripped of the last pretense that he's here for an honest discussion. This is a declaration of total intellectual bankruptcy and it ain't pretty. Funny how someone who apparently doesn't have an honest bone in his body is so quick to call people liars. Projection?

I guess we're done here.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


The record is there. You claimed I brought thermodynamics into the discussion. You claimed I stated entropy was a problem for thermodynamics. Neither occurred.

What did occur is that you brought up thermodynamics. I asked about entropy. You stated it was not a problem. In order to prove that, you brought an example to the table that utilizes current measurements and is based on post-life scenarios.

Abiogenesis is, once again, NON-LIFE to LIFE.

Explain entropy in a state of non-life. Still waiting. You are a dishonest liar and have been demonstrated as such in both written word and deed. Begone.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


You are a liar. I never stated the Earth did not receive energy from the Sun. The topic is abiogenesis and I have attempted to keep it on topic, even though you continue to bring evolution and related concepts into the argument.
You are pitiful. I retract my earlier apology and simply dismiss you. You deserve no further consideration.


Sorry. You still haven't backed anything up or even explained why entropy eliminates abiogenesis, with the earth getting energy from the sun. Please explain this or GTFO. You don't address points, you avoid them. Stop asking people to prove the opposite of your ridiculous claims. Prove your claims or you have nothing. Burden of proof is square on you right now. How does entropy make abiogenesis impossible, SPECIFICALLY? If you don't answer this you'll prove everything I said in my earlier post.

wiki.answers.com...

Earth is BOTH an open AND closed system. It is closed in most respects, except for the fact that it gets energy from the sun. Energy is being introduced to the earth, from the sun, so how is there a problem? Are you claiming entropy doesn't affect non life? I don't understand your point because you aren't explaining it. You are broadly generalizing it.


Explain entropy in a state of non-life.
You brought it up. You explain it. Details with scientific backing, please.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join