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 not probable but inevitable, says physicist

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   


Then we are in agreement. When/if abiogenesis can be replicated consistently then it will become a theory on how life formed here and possibly elsewhere.
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 



Yes

and it will be called by its proper term

Creation.




posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

dusty1
Yes

and it will be called by its proper term

Creation.



By who?



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 






By who?



By the scientists or corporation that comes up with the formula that creates life, of course.


It will become some entities proprietary product, that will be protected through legal means, and sold for profit.

It will then also be regulated and taxed by government.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Setting up the conditions for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter is not the same as actively transforming inanimate matter into living things.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
Then it must be true.


Then we are in agreement. When/if abiogenesis can be replicated consistently then it will become a theory on how life formed here and possibly elsewhere.
Agreed. But until that's the case, I have the right to remain skeptical. But a lot of people on here don't like that. They are already pushing it as being already true, and that's what I have a problem with...

I come off stronger in my arguing than I actually feel about the stuff, but someone needs to play devil's advocate when there's beliefs being spread as facts. And that counts for ALL sides. People bash religious people for doing that, but, they themselves do it just as regularly, if not more often. But I get hated on for doing that ^_^ I'm used to it by now.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by dusty1
 


Setting up the conditions for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter is not the same as actively transforming inanimate matter into living things.
Actually... It kind of is. As soon as you set up conditions, it's not exactly spontaneously anymore.

Do we set up the conditions to spontaneously create gasoline, or do we actively transform crude into gasoline?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

dusty1
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 




By who?



By the scientists or corporation that comes up with the formula that creates life, of course.


It will become some entities proprietary product, that will be protected through legal means, and sold for profit.

It will then also be regulated and taxed by government.



Astyanax
reply to post by dusty1
 


Setting up the conditions for life to emerge spontaneously from inanimate matter is not the same as actively transforming inanimate matter into living things.


Yeah, not to mention extremely primitive forms of "life" that emerge from those conditions would be of basically no value to anyone. they won't be adapted at all to conditions on earth. Which may be why we have never found signs of a 2nd abiogenesis. The products of all subsequent abiogenesis after the first, were unable to compete against the product of the original abiogenesis. The original product has a massive advantage having had time to adapt to conditions.

EDIT

And I'll tell you what. If we take our abiogenesis experiments and scale them up to the size of a planet, and let the experiment run for a few hundred million years and if after waiting all that time we still have no results in the soup, I'll concede the non reality of abiogenesis.
edit on 31-3-2014 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

vasaga
Agreed. But until that's the case, I have the right to remain skeptical. But a lot of people on here don't like that.


I do not think anyone would/should fault someone for being skeptical of a hypothesis since it obviously has not moved to the repeatable testing phase. However I think a good portion of the concern is for people who discount evolution because they tie that theory to the abiogenesis hypothesis in an effort to link two unrelated topics.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 



I do not think anyone would/should fault someone for being skeptical of a hypothesis since it obviously has not moved to the repeatable testing phase.

Agreed, with reservations.

To be sceptical of something unproven, even in the face of highly convincing circumstantial evidence, is commendable — provided one is sceptical for the right reasons. If one's scepticism is based on unquestioning belief in a contradictory proposition for which there is even less evidence than that which is the object of scepticism, then what we are dealing with is not scepticism but its opposite: faith.

There is nothing wrong with faith, except when it masquerades as reason. This is the great evil of the 'intelligent design' movement, and make no mistake about it: it is evil. It is nothing less than an attempt to propagate what its proponents themselves must now know to be lies, however much they refuse to admit as much to the rest of us.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


That was the gist of my post. That faith-based proclamations of skepticism are being erroneously made and they have no place in any rational discussion. People can be skeptical of abiogenesis, it is still a hypothesis and needs to be fully vetted. However that skepticism needs to be grounded in reality, i.e. you cannot discount it because it is not in the Bible/Koran/Torah/etc., you would have to offer up testable evidence as to why it is not a viable hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Words
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I enjoy the theory and I think it might just have some application, but it should be noted that a mathematical formula can only explain other mathematical formulas. The attempt to reduce the history of life, its cause, and the entire process of organic existence to a mathematical formula is simply wishful thinking, one that relies on a pythagorean superstition of numbers and other axiomatic assumptions.


You have the Law of Thermodynamics that states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases, that all chemical mixtures gets more mixed up.

But there is also the Law of Gravity which causes various self ordering processes. On a planet or asteroid, this causes solids, liquids and gases to self separate. Fortunately, there is water which is the "universal solvent" and allows many solids to dissolve and encourage chemical reactions.

Then you have all sorts of reversible and irreversible chemical reactions. These can be modeled mathematically using reaction-diffusion equations using letters to represent chemicals, and arrows to represent before-and-after states ie. 2H + O -> H2O

Then changes from liquid to solid states will form crystals, and differences in surface tension/density will form droplets and other patterns, much like a lava lamp.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.

Which is the very reason I believe there is a Creator.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

LucidWarrior
reply to post by Astyanax
 




There are very few phenomena in the world that cannot be described and explained by mathematical formulae.

Which is the very reason I believe there is a Creator.


Ah yes, Horus the ultimate Egyptian god of mathematics, but what about Thoth and Sesheta. Do you give them equal importance?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 





If we take our abiogenesis experiments and scale them up to the size of a planet,

and let the experiment run for a few hundred million years

and if after waiting all that time we still have no results in the soup,

I'll concede the non reality of abiogenesis.


Congratulations.

And I thought I had faith.........



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 





However I think a good portion of the concern is for people who discount evolution

because they tie that theory to the abiogenesis hypothesis in an effort

to link two unrelated topics.



There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life.
Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and John Haldane (in 1925),

who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.

[25] According to them,

the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution,

and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order




The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution



Chemical Evolution?


Apparently the abiogenesis models draw on the idea that molecular or chemical evolution took place.


But I thought you said evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

dusty1
Chemical Evolution?


Apparently the abiogenesis models draw on the idea that molecular or chemical evolution took place.


But I thought you said evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated.


Stop being disingenuous, molecular evolution operates on the premise that DNA/RNA already exists.

From the same source:


John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis in 1949 to refer to the origin of life,[26] and suggested that it occurred in three "stages": 1) the origin of biological monomers; 2) the origin of biological polymers; and 3) the evolution from molecules to cells. He suggested that evolution commenced between stage 1 and 2.


Notice the monomers already needed to be present? Chemical and biological evolution are two separate topics. It may be proved at some point that they operate in a similar fashion but at that present they are distinct subjects.







edit on 2-4-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I'd say this goes back to the idea that everything in existence is either alive, dead, or contains an animating force.

I'd say abiogenesis sounds like a sophisticated version of the old "spontaneous generation" theory and is along the lines of an "everything is alive" philosophy.

The ancient Greek philosophers thought that everything must be filled with gods. However, no "ghost in the machine" here, but more like living machines with different ranges of animation due to their state of excitement caused by temperature. Existence is life more or less.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 



If we take our abiogenesis experiments and scale them up to the size of a planet, and let the experiment run for a few hundred million years and if after waiting all that time we still have no results in the soup, I'll concede the non reality of abiogenesis.

Nicely put, and it points up an interesting aspect of the subject that nobody has really bothered to address yet. England's hypothesis is not, I think, experimentally falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted on anything less than a planetary scale and over a period that can only be descrbed as epochal. And even then we could never be certain.

As a theoretical exercise, however, it is perfectly valid, and may be judged as such.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 





tie that theory to the abiogenesis hypothesis in an effort to link two unrelated topics.




Chemical and biological evolution are two separate topics


Interesting.

However your statement directly contradicts the OP and it's source material.


'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you shine a light on random clumps of atoms long enough, you'll get a plant.

That sounds connected to me.


I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.' - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Sounds like a connection.


The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.


An underlying connection between the origin of life and evolution is the whole point of the OP source material.



Of course there is a connection,

Human philosophy.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   


England's hypothesis is not, I think, experimentally falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted on anything less than a planetary scale and over a period that can only be descrbed as epochal. And even then we could never be certain.
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Astyanax!

I agree.




As a theoretical exercise, however, it is perfectly valid, and may be judged as such.


It is valid thought exercise.

I really do enjoy some of your topics and comments.

To argue for or against something, makes a person really have to think about their position. That is one reason I am drawn to ATS.

As a child I was taught evolution was a foregone conclusion. Textbooks, teachers, documentaries all told me how the human species got here. At the same time I was also taught what the bible said.


All human knowledge and expertise is relative and specialized. Experts will lead you to believe, with supreme confidence, that they are 100% correct in their professional opinion. That is unless, as a lay person, you know the right questions to ask. Then you find out what they really know and how much they don't know.

It is my observation that many highly intelligent people take mental refuge in their own intelligence or the collective wisdom of experts.

I have grown to middle age, and became a business person, the whole time watching peoples behavior. I have seen a Christian profess the Christ, and hypocritically act in an animalistic manner. I have seen an Atheist who professes survival of the fittest, but acts with selfless compassion and loving kindness in defense of the weak. People can say alot of things, but their actions show what they really believe, and what they really are.


Believe it or not, I view my religious beliefs and those who share them, with the same critical eye that I view these philosophical science discussions.

In my life, I have tried to look out for people, at times it's appreciated, sometimes not. I've created things only to have someone else take the credit. They acted like what was created "just happened", when the reality, it was my thought, design and hard work. Then they argue that they somehow, "would have", or "could have". In the end, it was what they could not, or did not do, and there is, what I created. I have lost large sums of money because of this. But what hurts the most is trying to create things for the benefit of many, but because of pride and greed, they spit in my face.

Perhaps that is why I identify with a Creator.

Thoughtful design and creation, just makes sense to me.......



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join