For the alternative theorists:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And we agreed that evolution could produce homochirality, so automatically then we agreed both chiral forms organisms were already assembled by abiogenesis, and were "fighting" for resources. Therefore, chirality is not a factor in abiogenesis, and is explained by evolution. It's only later you came up with this assumption that abiogenesis requires some special proportion of left and right handed amino acids to lift off. These two are contradicting theories, pick one. I say it's evolution and it's pretty sound theory, do you wish to disagree now after we have already agreed on it before?

You are talking about RNA and DNA, those are very refined products of millions of years of evolution. They shed off their resilience to bi-chirality in favor of other functions, but replicating molecules in organisms at the very beginnings of abiogenesis were far more robust or indifferent about it, naturally.

Sure, why not, indeed. That's much more sound than to assume abiogenesis couldn't have started without some special ratio, when we know both chiral forms are equally stable and reactive. They are just toxic to each other, so they did something about it. There was either "war" or "symbiosis", or perhaps more likely there was both, a little bit of making war, and then a little bit of making love, then war again, and so on, as usual.

But organisms grow, new proteins must come from somewhere. So why would it need to come already assembled from the environment, why couldn't have those organisms assemble their own amino acids from simple non-chiral molecules? -- By the way, what is counterpart for protein in plants? How far is grass DNA from human DNA?

Yes, but can you say those emergent properties are anything but a direct consequence of what is going on a smaller scale? Can those "collective" emergent properties do anything else but that which is defined by interaction between electrons and protons and whatever else is within atoms themselves? Can those emergent properties possibly function independently of the function of their parts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You haven't said anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have not read it.
I do not intend to read it.
Obviously an agenda is afoot.
I have read previous Creationists material. :shrug:

 

You are inventing an entire language now. Your use of the word molecule for describing all of the above might be useful in poetry, but it has nothing to do with science or even proper english.

The proper generic word for all those configurations is "systems". Molecules are systems, but a system is not a molecule, unless it is a very specific kind of system, which was not even included in your list!

But if you want to create a fundamental common denominator, then a molecule of universes could be called a universal molecule. And for a closing line, we would need to conclude that "God is a molecule". Do you see the conflict in the physical part of that condition?

 

It's the logic implicit in the semantics. I thought it was obvious what they all have in common is the relation between the parts and their collective self. Using the word "molecule" was supposed to illustrate invariance of the scale of magnification. The question is not only where "alive" begins on that scale, but also where it ends.

- atom is system of electrons and protons
- molecule is system of atoms
- cell is system of molecules [ALIVE]
- organism is system of cells [ALIVE]
- family is system of organisms
- society is system of families
- race is system of societies
- ecosystem is system of races
- planet is system of ecosystems
- solar system is system of planets
- galaxy is system of solar systems
- universe is system of galaxies

All these systems are consequence of the basic quantum particles interactions, and yet at some point there are few of these systems we call "alive". But where is the difference, really, can we honestly say these systems are not already alive on atomic level, or can we really say they stop being alive at the scale of families, ecosystems or planets?

 

I agree, but rather than calling everything as part of a "living" system, I prefer to use the word, "dynamic" system (which includes life).
Bohm calls it the "Holomovement"

 

??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The laws of the Universe came first.
They were probably, almost certainly established at the BB.
Free will evolved later.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In relation to my previous post...What if one day in the distant future, we were able to enter a Kerr metric BH via its polar regions. If we were to adjust our trajectory to pass midway through the ring singularity, would we pass into another Universe??...or a different time and space in this Universe. How would the law of physics and GR handle that scenario?
I guess in that particular situation, we can only speculate as yet.

 

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
These previous points are all evidence of macroevolution alone; the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations. This is why scientists call universal common descent the "fact of evolution". As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This point has an interesting parallel in physics. Newton's theory of universal gravitation describes a phenomenon of matter, just as macroevolution describes a phenomenon of life. The theory of universal gravitation is also independent of the specific explanatory mechanism for gravity, and in fact Newton never gave a mechanism for gravity. Why does the force between two masses follow the inverse square law and not another law (perhaps an inverse cube law)? It took nearly 300 years before any plausible mechanisms for gravity were proposed (by quantum field theorists). None of these proposed mechanisms currently have any experimental support. Additionally, theories of gravity are strictly dependent upon the concept of mass, and there currently is no empirically supported mechanism for giving mass to matter. Charles Darwin is considered such a great scientific mind because, unlike Newton and Einstein who proposed only descriptive theories, Darwin proposed both a descriptive theory and a plausible mechanism. That mechanism is, of course, heritable variation with natural selection.

 

do you or do you not dispute anything the site has to say about chirality.
i want to know because you gave me 2 infractions for that post.
and i want to know why.

 

In the context of your applied "logic(?)", the laws of physics have exactly two things to do with "free will" :
1.) - diddley
...and
2.) - squat

 

how was the post trolling trippy?
how was the post meaningless?

in other words you are refusing to address the following question:
do you or do you not dispute anything the site has to say about chirality.

refusing to acknowledge valid evidence is the mark of a coward.

 

Guess what?
We agree. :bravo:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!