chinglu's version of evolution and abiogenesis

An interesting read by Paul C, Davies . . . . . http://www.icpress.co.uk/etextbook/p581/p581_chap01.pdf

Ergo . . . . . . life from quantum processes . . . . ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ToE explains the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life.

If abiogenesis is false, then there could still have been other origins for the first life, which STILL must have evolved into all the life forms we see today and in the fossil record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

chinglu

Ahhh, and you were doing so well. Then you reset to this stupid claim again. The Miller experiment has no relevance to evolution at all. It does not support evolution, it does not disprove evolution because the Miller experiment was a chemistry experiment, evolution is not a study of chemistry.

You are sounding like a broken record or a robot that has been programmed but can learn nothing.

Sure I can, all of science agrees with me,too. Abiogenesis is the study of how chemistry became alive(building a car), evolution is the study of how life behaves after it is alive(driving a car after it is built). Mechanics(chemists) build cars, drivers(evolutionary scientists)drive them. And drivers(evolutionary scientists)need not know a single thing about how the car is built by mechanics(chemists)to drive the car(study evolution).

Funny, coming from someone who claims his invisible, all powerful sky daddy just said shazzam to produce life(and yes, I am mocking your charge of magic being involved).The TOE stands or falls on the evidence that life evolves, not how it began. It does not make any difference how life began, evolution is a fact and the TOE is science's best idea of the cause of the fact of evolution. It makes no claims about the chemistry that led to the first life as it is irrelevant to what happened once life began.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If abiogenesis is false, then life evolved by supernatural or magically conditions.

Otherwise, please indicate how this is false.

 

It's not me having a problem understanding this.

You need to make a decision and comer out of the closet. Is TOE base chemistry and physics yes or not.

Or, is TOE a religion. You just take a stand.

Now, once you take the correct stand that TOE is founded on chemistry and physics, then you must also explain how natural events evolved from chemistry and physics to chemistry and physics. See how that works?

It is pretty simple. Either TOE is based on the natural operations of chemistry and physics or it is not. If it is, then abiogenesis is part of TOE.

On the other hand, if TOE us not based completely on the natural operations of chemistry and physics, then it is a religion.

Take your pick.

 

Yes I see how that works, but not why you don´t continue with your logic and insist the formation a Earth from cosmic gasses is also part of ToE? That is surly also a preceding essential step for the conventional limits of ToE.

Fact is that understanding most things is advanced if one does limit the field by "cutting it at the natural boundaries." The boundary between Chemistry of living and not living things is about as clean a cut as there is.

Predictions of / within the conventionally limited field of ToE can be made (and tested in many cases) without knowing how the Planet earth formed (or how first simple life came to be). So ToE is a useful and well defined field of study without either of these earlier process being completely understood. See how that works?

 

Life could have been seeded here by other life forms. But, abiogenesis is the present default position. Since there are already a number of plausible explanations for abiogenesis, you would first have to disprove all of those before anyone could consider a supernatural explanation. And, I would argue, that a supernatural "explanation" doesn't really explain anything at all.

 

No it isn't. There is no boundary at all, which is why it freaks you out.

 

Quite simple:

(a) your statement is incorrectly worded. You meant to say: If abiogenesis is false, then life originated from non-living matter by supernatural or magical conditions.

(b) However, since there is no such thing as magic, we look instead where there is evidence that first cells originated from non-living matter, and we discover that it is indeed possible without violating the laws of nature.

Therefore, abiogenesis stands, as the most plausible explanation for the origin of life and ToE stands on its own legs as the most plausible explanation for the origin of species.

 

Living things use chemistry and/or physic to draw energy and materials from the environment to reproduce their form in separate, essentially identical, examples. Non-living things do not. That seem a clear line / subject boundary to me. Why not to you?

BTW - I´m not "freaked out" Why do you think I am?

 

My problem with your logic is I have no methodology to emerge life from chemicals. TOE needs a mathematical basis for its conclusions. Otherwise, it is crackpottery.

All we have is the Kleene recursion theorem and it specifically requires a base case to apply further modifications based on state n. TOE has no base case and therefore has no mathematical basis.

I would need this base case as required by mathematical logic to support TOE.

 

As I have posted elsewhere on occasion, one needs to look at how the 'replicative' molecules came about . . . . the rest is evolution of systems to ensure replication. My take? . . . . simple, non-living organic molecules (chemical matrices) were influenced (directed?) by quantum processes, not unlike the Casimir Effect. Emergent, repetitive energetic quantum patterns subtley generated original replicative molecules (living DNA, etc.) . . . and now . . . . here we (living entities) are! . . . . . to discuss and solve this enigma!

 

My point to you (which has gotten lost in other´s follow on comments) was that if (and I have offered how) life can be separately defined from non life, then one does not need to know how life began - that is not part of how life forms change (evolves) ToE is then properly limited to just the evolution of life forms. If however, one can not clearly separate life from non life then your POV is not unreasonable - just not commonly done. I.e. if there is no boundary definable between life and non life, then ToE could be extended backwards to ever simpler chemical processes (or even to how the Earth formed as that too is a necessary preceding step in your backward extended ToE.)

nonsense - Math is really a closed tautology - not necessarily about or proving anything really existing. Some math developments do have useful applications, however to real things and processes. For example imaginary numbers are very useful in the analysis of electric circuits which have reactive elements in them. None the less math applied to these circuits do not PROVE anything. The only things math can prove are relationships within the tautology. In fact there is nothing out side of that tautology that can be proven - best you can do is repeated test and confirm - never prove, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow.

BTW, at least half a dozen plausible ways that life could have arisen from non-life have been suggested - lots of postulated "methodologies" exist.

 

Re: My last post . . . .

Link: arxiv.org/pdf/1204.3770

Quantum Electrodynamics of Nanosystems

Excerpt: “Casimir force may be the accidently generated force that
may lead to the unexpected and unexplained behavior of the
protein folding and carbon Nanotubes. Not only that, dense
localities of these molecules like hydrophobic portion of
protein molecules may have high densities and chemical
potentials instantaneously to generate stronger than expected
Casimir force.”

 

Google abiogenesis. (Seek and ye shall find.)

It does. It is mathematically impossible for all the species to coexist at the same time.

No. Denouncing something without first learning what it says is the quintessential mark of a crackpot.

Can you apply Kleene to explain the speciation of the elements into the periodic table? How about all the species of products of any given set of reactants? Until you can do this, how do you expect to explain the "math" behind mutation, crossover, gene expression, transcription and signaling?

No, all you need is to read Darwin and explain how the finches got to Galapagos. You'll discover Kleene has no application to this problem.

 

A few quotes (and my comments) from your link:

“… It is believed that the QED effects are non-ignorable on nanoscales and the perturbative effects of QED can add up to sizeable corrections.”
By whom? I think only the author of this not pier-reviewed paper. (Anyone with university connection can post articles, even crap, at http://arxiv.org. –often posting there indicates the quality of the work is too low for publishing in a pier-reviewed journal.)

“…The mass of electron itself is modified in the highly dense background of organic molecules at nanoscales that is almost a local effect in that region. “
Not true. Mass of electron is a universal constant; however, the way it responds to an accelerating electric field can be as if the mass were different (usually more*) as it interacts with local charges of a crystal (or presumably of a molecule like inside a carbon nano tube.)
*So there are many references to “heavy electrons” in the literature – especially solid state physics literature.

(To accelerate “heavy electrons” in a crystal, more energy is require per unit path moved as they couple to the lattice and lose energy to it as they move thru the lattice, especially ionic lattices, like NaCl.)

“…high local density inside the large and complicated organic molecules will affect the vacuum polarization in the non-polar portion of molecules. The local values of electric permittivity ϵ and the magnetic permeability μ of certain regions ...”
I doubt there is much sense of the classical concepts of “density” “electric permittivity” and “magnetic permeability” on an atomic scale, but he claims to be doing QED, which I don´t /can´t.

“…difference between the longitudinal and the transverse polarization is a possible source of Casimir type force between two conducting plates. “
Perhaps “possible” but without conducting boundary surfaces, very much, very very much, weaker than even the very weak normal Casimir forces between real conducting plates. Also as only, very short wavelengrths (weak gamma rays) would be “shorted out” / excluded / from the tiny interiors it seems to me that too reduces any possible effect.

All of the above is only from his section 2 (following section 1, the introduction) I did not read more. I will persist in my belief that this an egotistical nonsense post, until some support is found in a pier-reviewed journal but I could be wrong as do not follow QED.

 

I know nothing of Kleene,* but the Pauli exclusion principle can explain easily the first half of the periodic table and the second with some energy considerations added (next permitted location an electron fills for lowest energy may be a higher principle quantum shell instead of completely filling the next lower principle quantum number shell. - Rare Earths are produced when the more inner shell fills as the outer shell stays constant with essentially identical chemical properties resulting.)

It is actually fun and easy to use the s, p, d, angular momentum quantum numbers and Pauli to build up first part of the periodic table as I have done.

* Only Kleene I know is Meliony Kline, (spelling?) the psychologist with strange views after her son killed himself; however, there must have been a Kline to invent the Kline bottle, but I know nothing of him.

 

BillyT: Thanks for your constructive comments. Very, very little credible research has been conducted regarding relative conductivity of organic structures and the potential for affective Casimir-like mechanisms. IMPO, 'quantum-level' effects are very weak and subtle, but persistent, in organic molecules and organic structures. Quantum effects are also attributed (by some credible researchers - want some links?) to the development of consciousness and operation of neural networks.

Regards,
wlminex

 

Fraggle Rocker

Yes, a viewpoint based on the only form of life we KNOW to exist, and probably the only form possible(or at least likely)given the chemistry of the Universe.

Again, we are not talking about life or it's evolution, we are talking about chemistry and paths that would lead to the formation of life. Your seven characteristics are arbitrary, replication is not. In fact replication is the only true non-arbitrary characteristic that ALL lifeforms(even the first simplest forms)share. If, BY ANY PROCESS, a molecule can replicate, it can be called alive, it sets the lower boundary between chemistry and life, it drives it's evolutionary changes(which begins the moment such molecules come into existence), it determines the winners and the losers in the struggle for resources and territory, it produces every trait that any lifeform has, including the six you listed that aren't replication. Every lifeform, regardless of other characteristics, replicates and any other trait is in support of replication, including the "dogness" of a dog, or the "humanness" of humans. We are all life support for the replication of our DNA, all else is gravy.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!