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

reply to post by Barcs


Bull cookies. You called me a troll. Personal attack. And intentionally ignorant. Personal attack.

reply to post by Barcs


I have never claimed it is computer code. I have stated it is information. It is information, correct? That is a YES or NO question. Answer that question.

Those letters / code are assigned to them by us, humans.

Yes, that is correct; however, the only thing done by this is a labeling by humans. The fact remains the cell performs the interpreting. The moons and rings interact with Saturn because of gravity. Are you stating there is an information transfer taking place between the two? And to equate this with the process of information translation from DNA/RNA to cell nucleotides? I do not get it.

The process is called translation. That doesn't mean it is a computer program that encodes or translates a digital language. Clearly you are the one not understanding as you are citing sources and using the fallacy of equivocation when describing this.

Yes, the process is called translation. And it takes place whether we "convert," the information into something legible or not. There is no equivocation on my part. You are trying to equate the rings of Saturn to the process of DNA information transfer. They are nowhere near the same process. That is a fallacious equivocation. I merely provided a source supporting information theory has a rightful place in the arena of biology and life science. It is obvious communication is taking place. If you can demonstrate the rings of Saturn are communicating with the moons and the planet itself, then I will simply state information theory also has a place in the science of astronomy.

reply to post by Barcs


Absotively. Moving forward.

Entropy. Thermodynamics. Engage in a conversation.

reply to post by Barcs

FACT: Entropy has nothing to do with abiogenesis

Oh my goodness...you cannot possibly be serious. The laws of physics cease to apply?

Further, you need to share this with radix and MrXYZ...they seem to understand laws of physics are not suspended simply because...

reply to post by Barcs

Here's an article that references one of them. They were able to get ribonucleotides to spawn from the basic components. Again, I'm not saying this proves abiogenesis, it's just one step in what probably is a long and complicated process to go from primordial soup to RNA and eventually to modern day DNA.

Thanks for the article. Now, just a question...

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?

reply to post by totallackey

Absotively. Moving forward.

Entropy. Thermodynamics. Engage in a conversation.

You haven't demonstrated why entropy would be a problem for abiogenesis. One of your earlier posts indicated that you're aware that entropy is not a problem if there's an available energy source. Since such an energy source was obviously available at the time, it's not clear to me why you would think entropy is a problem.

reply to post by radix


Actually, there is nothing obvious. Only conjecture. I would state it is problem since:
1. Measurements are only available now, after life is here,
2. These are achieved via steady state, when the universe is not steady state?
This is a quandary. ;

reply to post by totallackey

Actually, there is nothing obvious. Only conjecture. I would state it is problem since:
1. Measurements are only available now, after life is here,
2. These are achieved via steady state, when the universe is not steady state?
This is a quandary. ;

So you're saying the sun wasn't around when abiogenesis supposedly happened (appr. 4 billion years ago)?

reply to post by radix


Please review the points. Is there anything I have written lending credence to your last question?

reply to post by totallackey

Please review the points. Is there anything I have written lending credence to your last question?

The only way entropy could be a problem for abiogenesis is if there was no energy source available. Since we seem to agree that there was one (i.e. the sun), I still don't see why entropy would be a problem.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs

 

Bull cookies. You called me a troll. Personal attack. And intentionally ignorant. Personal attack.

You were being intentionally ignorant. You said that abiogenesis had been conclusively ruled out. That was a lie. You tried to use Pasteur's experiment on spontaneous generation as proof when it has nothing to do with abiogenesis. This was wrong. You ignored many counterpoints and tried to shift burden of proof to others. You have been proven wrong in almost every instance. It's not like I'm attacking your beliefs or calling you names. I'm stating a fact. You are misleading people in this thread.

I have never claimed it is computer code. I have stated it is information. It is information, correct? That is a YES or NO question. Answer that question.

Well that's what happens when you quote mine me and take it out of context. The discussion that you took that quote from was talking precisely about computer code and it was posted before you even came to this thread.

No DNA is not information. It CONTAINS information. Big difference.

Yes, that is correct; however, the only thing done by this is a labeling by humans. The fact remains the cell performs the interpreting. The moons and rings interact with Saturn because of gravity. Are you stating there is an information transfer taking place between the two? And to equate this with the process of information translation from DNA/RNA to cell nucleotides? I do not get it.

Where did I say that DNA = saturn's rings? I never said that they transfer information. I said they contain information just like DNA. Cells do not INTERPRET. Look up the word.

Yes, the process is called translation. And it takes place whether we "convert," the information into something legible or not. There is no equivocation on my part.

When you say that cells actually translate information, then yes you are equivocating the process of cell translation with human translation of language. They are very different.

Oh my goodness...you cannot possibly be serious. The laws of physics cease to apply?

Further, you need to share this with radix and MrXYZ...they seem to understand laws of physics are not suspended simply because...

Why make 5 separate responses for this? Did I EVER say the laws of physics don't apply. You haven't even explained your position of how entropy goes against abiogenesis. You listed 2 sentences. TWO SENTENCES that once again show clear lack of understanding. Show me the science that shows entropy makes abiogenesis impossible. The earth is not a closed system.

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?

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.

Radix already addressed and debunked your entropy argument and again it shows that you haven't really done any research. You are just regurgitating what creationist websites and others are telling you. Do the research yourself. Thinking you can sum up a complicated concept like thermodynamics and entropy in 2 sentences and actually think that you proved something, shows clear ignorance on your part. By all means, don't spare us the details

reply to post by Barcs


Scientists say cells are translating information. That is the language they use. It is information. It is translating information. Researchers are utilizing this approach whether we think it belongs or not. Moot point. Argue the approach with researchers and scientists.

Entropy is still an issue because it can only be measured steadystate it can only be measured after life
There is no way to determine rates. The universe is not steady state.

reply to post by totallackey

Entropy is still an issue because it can only be measured steadystate it can only be measured after life
There is no way to determine rates. The universe is not steady state.

I see you're back to the gibberish. Look, this is really simple. Entropy is only going to be a problem in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system as it's constantly receiving energy from the sun. Ergo, entropy is not a problem for abiogenesis.

reply to post by radix


You do understand this argument is presently formed correct?

This means all of the Earth, including current non-living matter, is receiving energy.

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.

reply to post by radix


Further, the argumentation is based on life-existent principles. You cannot bring an evolutionary conceptualizing of entropy into a discussion of abiogenesis. They are, as so often pointed out, two very distinct issues.

Please remain on topic.

reply to post by Barcs

Where did I say that DNA = saturn's rings? I never said that they transfer information. I said they contain information just like DNA. Cells do not INTERPRET. Look up the word.

You offered an equivocation (or equivalency) of Saturn's rings to DNA. Your basis for this comparative example (and you were utilizing it as a comparative example whether you care to admit this or not) was they both contain information. Fine. They both contain information; however, the information in DNA is translated by a cell. And it is interpreted. I suggest you look here in this title Now, as clearly stated in my earlier refutation of your analysis, if you can offer an example where the rings of Saturn transfer their information to the planet, moons, or each other, then I will cede the argument and allow that information theory is a necessary consideration in the science of astronomy.

When you say that cells actually translate information, then yes you are equivocating the process of cell translation with human translation of language. They are very different.

The scientists state the cells are translating the information. And they are! There is a code and the cell must translate the code. What is so hard to understand? Blame this website. They utilize the word translate. If the word translate is good enough for the scientists performing the research, then I suppose it is good enough for me. On the other hand, I do not see scientists pulling the rings of Saturn out of their hat. Or their ass.

reply to post by Barcs

By "objective" evidence, I'm talking about physic tangible evidence; not that it has an objective to complete. Information theory applies to MAN MADE INFORMATION. I'm not saying that it isn't legit. I'm saying it doesn't apply to physical matter like DNA. Yes it can be helpful in organizing the code, but there’s no reason to assume that DNA is non physical.

Yeah, I knew what you were driving at before and I still know what you are trying to say; however, your position is bankrupt. Information theory and its application is solely objective. Subjectivity (i.e., INDIVIDUAL INTERPETATION) is removed. The information is analyzed on its own merit.

reply to post by totallackey

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

Incorrect. Since you've already admitted that Earth receives energy from the sun, your statement that it can be "at best considered isolated" is obviously false. The only truly isolated system is the universe itself. I would question the classification of Earth as a closed system by this definition as it clearly exchanges matter with its surroundings (e.g. through asteroid impacts and loss of hydrogen from the atmosphere) but this is a moot point as the famed 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to an isolated system.

Conclusion: you still don't have a thermodynamical leg to stand on.