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: 52
14
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


hey this may be off topic but even within the first 10 minutes some interesting things are talked about that made me think of the arguments in this thread and the arguments in similar past threads,,.,.





posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


The issue is: science is performing experimentation in the field of abiogenesis. I asked, when conversing about impetus toward formation and told about thermodynamics, about entropy.

In response, I received a bunch of replies and fluff, explaining why entropy is not a problem; however, the explanations were all based in post-life states and in steady state measurements.

The topic: Abiogenesis hypothesis:scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

The problem with entropy is this. And this alone. Accounting for entropy without resorting to statements about post-life conditions and utilizing steady-state measurements.

The reason this is a problem? 1) Because you cannot argue post-life conditions when discussing abiogenesis; and, 2) The Universe is not steady-state.

Now, I am not the one who needs to offer anything else in this discussion. Advocates of abiogenesis will need to address these issues when setting up their experiments in order to test the hypothesis. All I asked for was for someone, anyone, to give me an example of what form this would take.

Is that freaking clear enough? Rather than tell me to GTFO the discussion, I suggest you relearn how to freaking comprehend the fundamental issues, or you GTFO. That way, you will not need to put up with me eating your lunch in this forum.

ETA: I forgot I had stated in an earlier post that I was through with you, as you have done enough twisting to be considered nothing more than a laughable cousin of Chubby Checker. Please consider this my final reply to any of your posts.
edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Details with scientific backing, please.

hmmm, miniscule details with no scientific backing.


The problem with entropy is this. And this alone. Accounting for entropy without resorting to statements about post-life conditions and utilizing steady-state measurements.

The reason this is a problem? 1) Because you cannot argue post-life conditions when discussing abiogenesis; and, 2) The Universe is not steady-state.


You can't argue post life conditions? What do you mean? Conditions after all life has been extinguished? After life emerged? Reading about entropy I saw nothing of that sort. This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't even use the proper terminology. I asked you to explain the problem entropy plays in abiogenesis, and your response is that you cannot argue post-life conditions because you cannot argue post-life conditions. Your problem and reason are the same! How exactly in abiogenesis does entropy pose a problem? What do post life conditions have to do with pre life conditions? How does the universe not being steady state affect abiogenesis. Give me the exact details. Once again you make broad generalizations with no source links or anything. That's simply not good enough if you wish to prove something here. Are you saying entropy calculations are faulty? Are you saying entropy doesn't apply to amino acids? That the earth doesn't constantly get energy from the sun and matter and effects from other bodies in the solar system? You can't logically win any debate without details of your position. It's hilariously funny how little you have said in all of your responses. That last response had near 20 sentences, yet only two mattered, and it was one line repeated twice. You talk about fluff and filler. Sorry, evidence matters.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Okay, I will reply just this one more time, but just to ask you a simple question...The reason why we do not currently see new life arising from non-life is...?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Okay, I will reply just this one more time, but just to ask you a simple question...The reason why we do not currently see new life arising from non-life is...?


Does the earth look like primordial soup? But yeah, divert everything about entropy and keep responding with one liners instead of answering the questions and counterpoints as usual.


Yes, don't bother responding. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about and aren't interested in an actual discussion. You have been a figment of my amusement. Problem is it's no longer entertaining and just getting stale.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Okay, within Barc's answer, you find the reason for my issue with entropy.

The abiogenesis hypothesis clearly, at its core, states the ONLY reason we do not have life arising from non-life today is that life is here. This is an exact interpretation of Barc's reply. He knows this is a fundamental tenet of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

So, If I was to use the argument abiogenesis is not presently occurring, and therefore could not occur before, it fails in the minds of abiogenesis proponents because we now have a state where life exists and:

1) It was just a one time event and the process no longer needs to occur;
2) The exact conditions were unknown, but we are searching; and,
3) A reason this could occur is because the Universe is not steady-state.

Well, entropy is only known after life has occurred and is only measured in steady-state. So, accounting for it within any form of experimentation concerning abiogenesis will be difficult and will be a problem.


edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Okay, within Barc's answer, you find the reason for my issue with entropy.

The abiogenesis hypothesis clearly, at its core, states the ONLY reason we do not have life arising from non-life today is that life is here. This is an exact interpretation of Barc's reply. He knows this is a fundamental tenet of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

So, If I was to use the argument abiogenesis is not presently occurring, and therefore could not occur before, it fails in the minds of abiogenesis proponents because we now have a state where life exists and:

1) It was just a one time event and the process no longer needs to occur;
2) The exact conditions were unknown, but we are searching; and,
3) A reason this could occur is because the Universe is not steady-state.

Well, entropy is only known after life has occurred and is only measured in steady-state. So, accounting for it within any form of experimentation concerning abiogenesis will be difficult and will be a problem.


edit on 12-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)


I believe barcs and scientists,,, believe or know they have reason to believe that the process of life must have started after the creation of the earth and solar system,,, and in time, the beginning of abiogenesis must have taken place much much much much much closer to the creation of earth, then we now are in time close to the creation of earth,,, and that earthly conditions at that time must have been much much much different then they are today,, because in all that time that has passed,, earthly conditions have changed....



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


That is good. Glad you found an answer to your questions.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


That is good. Glad you found an answer to your questions.


its not about me,,, its just that what their observations and logic tell them might have happened ( to them its more of almost must have happened)

when they speak I not only try to understand what they are saying, but i usually do...

only after I understand can i make an argument against something that may not make sense to my knowledge, observation, and reason,,,

im not on any sides and if possible can only hope to ever know truth..
edit on 12-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Before an eyeball ever existed,,, what unintelligent forces over time could have crafted the eyeball, crafted the eyeball into its correct place, in the socket, with all the right wiring to the brain, with the brains ability to interpret the craftsmanship of the eye, and make sense out of this newly innovated sense of sight, and all the right guessing from the start to assume it would work?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It is about you... and me... and him/her.... It is about each of us. Life. As I said, I am happy you have found your answers.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Abiogenesis research is about finding plausible chemical pathways from basic organic compounds (which are believed to have been present on pre-biotic Earth) to a replicator. This is the part that is not known. Once a replicator is in place, the evolutionary processes of mutation and natural selection take over and we're on much more solid ground as these processes are much better understood.

The crucial steps that have to be demonstrated are:

1) synthesis of building blocks (nucleotides) in plausible pre-biotic conditions
2) polymerization of these building blocks into oligonucleotide chains without any enzymes (since no proteins would have been present)
3) self-replication of these oligonucleotides (again without any enzymes), i.e. synthesis of a complementary oligonucleotide chain using the first chain as a template followed by separation of the two strands so that the replication cycle can continue.

Sutherland et al. have proposed one possible solution to step 1 in this article in Nature:

Link 1

Note that the produced building blocks are so called activated nucleotides, i.e. they basically carry with them the energy needed to bond with other nucleotides to form an oligonucleotide. The synthesis of these activated nucleotides is driven by UV irradiation and heat.

As for step 2 and 3, there's obviously a lot left to do. I refer again to this article by Jack Szostak where he lists the challenges which have to be met and also suggests possible - and testable - solutions:

Link 2

The testing basically consists of setting up the conditions and watch what happens. If the outcome is that the proposed chemical reaction can be detected then that's obviously evidence that this reaction could have occurred under these specific conditions. Whether these exact conditions were present on pre-biotic Earth we can't be completely sure and may never know with absolute certainty.

The best that can be achieved is a plausible pathway based on our current knowledge. This is obviously a work in progress but nothing suggests that it's impossible. Furthermore, none of this testing requires any measuring of entropy. If a particular chemical reaction can be demonstrated to occur under the specified conditions, then it's obviously chemically possible.

Until anyone can demonstrate exactly why you would need to measure entropy in order to test the possibility of a chemical reaction, this "entropy issue" remains a red herring.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It is about you... and me... and him/her.... It is about each of us. Life. As I said, I am happy you have found your answers.


I understand your sour,,, but,,, why couldn't abiogenesis have happened? why couldn't god have created the universe, and eventually life through abiogenesis....Why is it easier to believe the ignorant words used to describe creation written thousands of years ago ( abiogenesis cant be true because life existed on the 5th day of the universe) over the words written today and tomorrow by your smart and able brethren?

what exactly makes you so against the idea of abiogenesis? what do you think is more likely to have happened?
(real answers please, id truly like to know what you think)
edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Don't forget that the earth is young when compared to the rest of the known universe. The earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, while the universe itself goes back 13 billion or so. There's even a very good chance that this wasn't even the first solar system in this star system. We used to be a binary system with 2 stars, just like most of the stars we see in the sky, but it's believed one of them supernovaed then was absorbed by the other star (our current sun) and the rest of the debris formed our current solar system. Evidence of this lies with the presence of heavy metals like gold that can only be formed in something as hot as a supernova.

You can suggest that entropy didn't exist until after life started, but that poses even more questions. In this universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. Entropy is more like things wearing out over time. They can get more disorganized in appearance. This makes sense because the universe, as it is, will eventually run out of live energy. It is believed everything will simply just cool down. I still don't see a reason you'd need to factor entropy into a chemical reaction based on amino acids forming ribonucleotides. If it can happen, it can happen, entropy notwithstanding. They are trying to find out how it can happen, but when buzz words like "life from non life" are used exclusively it only shows that the research has not be done, as it's way more complicated than that, plus many folks argue where the cut off between life and non life should be. I don't think abiogenesis will ever be proven without a doubt 100%, but it will be likely because of experiments that will further show how it CAN happen. Not how it definitely did. This is part of the reason its a hypothesis and not a theory. With evolution, it's a theory because we can measure and observe the process. The problem with opponents of abiogenesis is that it is often over simplified and taken to mean spontaneous generation from nothing, which is, well, silly. This error has already been made by Mr Lackey. No modern day abiogenesis hypothesis suggests that life can just spawn from food sources.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Before an eyeball ever existed,,, what unintelligent forces over time could have crafted the eyeball, crafted the eyeball into its correct place, in the socket, with all the right wiring to the brain, with the brains ability to interpret the craftsmanship of the eye, and make sense out of this newly innovated sense of sight, and all the right guessing from the start to assume it would work?


I saw a very good breakdown of this in a video a few months back. The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today. It's still far from perfect as there are many parts of the light spectrum we cannot see. Many animals in nature have better eyes than humans do. Some creatures can't even see but still survive fine, for example really deep sea creatures and bats. They rely on other senses to survive.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Before an eyeball ever existed,,, what unintelligent forces over time could have crafted the eyeball, crafted the eyeball into its correct place, in the socket, with all the right wiring to the brain, with the brains ability to interpret the craftsmanship of the eye, and make sense out of this newly innovated sense of sight, and all the right guessing from the start to assume it would work?


I saw a very good breakdown of this in a video a few months back. The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today. It's still far from perfect as there are many parts of the light spectrum we cannot see. Many animals in nature have better eyes than humans do. Some creatures can't even see but still survive fine, for example really deep sea creatures and bats. They rely on other senses to survive.


ok but im trying to get at how unintelligent material can perform such an intelligent task.,.,.,.,., i can compare what you just stated .,,..,"The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today." ..... to any and every human technology....... see what im saying?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Before an eyeball ever existed,,, what unintelligent forces over time could have crafted the eyeball, crafted the eyeball into its correct place, in the socket, with all the right wiring to the brain, with the brains ability to interpret the craftsmanship of the eye, and make sense out of this newly innovated sense of sight, and all the right guessing from the start to assume it would work?


I saw a very good breakdown of this in a video a few months back. The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today. It's still far from perfect as there are many parts of the light spectrum we cannot see. Many animals in nature have better eyes than humans do. Some creatures can't even see but still survive fine, for example really deep sea creatures and bats. They rely on other senses to survive.


ok but im trying to get at how unintelligent material can perform such an intelligent task.,.,.,.,., i can compare what you just stated .,,..,"The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today." ..... to any and every human technology....... see what im saying?


You're making the mistake of assigning human concepts to what you don't understand. Calling it "human technology" is just an analogy.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Before an eyeball ever existed,,, what unintelligent forces over time could have crafted the eyeball, crafted the eyeball into its correct place, in the socket, with all the right wiring to the brain, with the brains ability to interpret the craftsmanship of the eye, and make sense out of this newly innovated sense of sight, and all the right guessing from the start to assume it would work?


I saw a very good breakdown of this in a video a few months back. The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today. It's still far from perfect as there are many parts of the light spectrum we cannot see. Many animals in nature have better eyes than humans do. Some creatures can't even see but still survive fine, for example really deep sea creatures and bats. They rely on other senses to survive.


ok but im trying to get at how unintelligent material can perform such an intelligent task.,.,.,.,., i can compare what you just stated .,,..,"The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today." ..... to any and every human technology....... see what im saying?


You're making the mistake of assigning human concepts to what you don't understand. Calling it "human technology" is just an analogy.


when i used "human technology" above... i was referring to specifically human technology,,,,human technologies are only possible by borrowing concepts, forms, maths, and laws which already exist in nature, or are allowable to exist by nature,,, i suppose nature itself works in the same way,,, what i mean by that is nature is the originator of technology,, nature is the originator of all things in nature,, nature has come up with the ideas we borrow and improve upon and innovate long before we were here,,, nature is a scientist, a chemist, a biologist, mad ones at that...

also please dont tell me im making a mistake without even showing me how or where exactly im doing so.... unless you want me to tell you your making the mistake of being an idiot....
edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok but im trying to get at how unintelligent material can perform such an intelligent task.

I can see what you're saying (I think), but it seems the counter argument would go that it only "appears" to us to need direction, or intelligent purpose, yet is explainable so far via processes of nature that are largely (though not completely) understood. At least science hasn't reached the point of needing to consider the forces of nature as being anything other than basically blind forces/principles as yet, to understand how things came about. Who knows, perhaps one day they will?

I can also see at least the possibility (likelihood IMO) that there could be an intelligence "of sorts" within nature. Somehow, nothing hints at this possibility more (IMO) than the fact that inanimate matter can not only become animate, but capable of becoming cognizant and self aware, capable of subjective conscious experience. So I have some sympathy with certain views expressed in this thread. Though I realise this is just an opinion and differ as to what it might ultimately imply, or that it has to be, or that somehow it would discredit science.

This is a worthwhile subject IMO and although the concept might not be based on genuine science (as yet), there are still possibilities worth exploring. I only wonder when people claim as definite facts that things have to be a certain way or that processes such as abiogenesis could not have happened (which implies a great knowledge) without really backing this up with anything other than opinion. Or that science should stop looking if it conflicts with the belief they have been indoctrinated into. Which often seems to be the motivation behind threads such as this. The storybook god of primitive mythology is already deader than a Dodo IMO.

As to an "intelligence" of some type, or at least the concept of spirituality, I don't see why the possibility of abiogenesis or science in general would have to conflict. Who really knows?


edit on 14-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok but im trying to get at how unintelligent material can perform such an intelligent task.,.,.,.,., i can compare what you just stated .,,..,"The eye started out as a very simple light detector. Piece by piece it slowly improved over time into what we have today." ..... to any and every human technology....... see what im saying?


I was simplifying it, but technology today does not build itself or have genetic mutations that adapt to the environment, so it's not the same thing. Nature can appear to be a designer, but it is pretty much all one giant game of survival. 3 billion years is a darn long time. I can't even imagine 1000, let alone a million years. If a certain creature has a trait that makes it more suitable to survive in any given environment the creature thrives and its population grows while others die out. Everything changes over time. This is no secret in the universe.

Things always seem to appear designed, until we learn more about how they work. It's been like this since the dark ages. It started out with people not understanding lightning and rain, so it was attributed to a designer. As science learns more and more the idea of a god or creator becomes less and less necessary. Right now we don't fully understand DNA and how it originated. If I were a betting man, It would be a safe gamble to say we will one day. I just don't like making assumptions based on lack of knowledge on a subject. Essentially that's what ID is. They take metaphors for processes within the cell literally, and use the code complexity as an argument for it. If science is working on the answer, I'm going to let them finish, not fight them over it.

edit on 14-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join