For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    ???????????
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Yes. It is called the theory of evolution. While it does not explain how life began, it does explain how single celled life evolved into living, thinking human beings.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi leopold.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sorry I have been very busy and not posted much at all lately. I am still very busy, so I will post this brief note only for your info (in the hope it will save you and others much unnecessary/misplaced argument therefore) rather than to join the discussion you are having re 'abiogenesis' process/likelihood etc given only the NATURAL physical/chemistry elements/reactions and structures present on planet Earth geophysical/geochemical 'environments' and atomic/molecular configurational possibilities etc. Please be aware that I have already identified and explained how the requisite natural 'whole/partial charge-shuttling' structures and processes arose from natural processes/products and how they operate to 'evolve' into the more complex forms of same we observe today. I have also explained how the 'cell-system' genesis came about from the abundantly available natural products/environments in Earth's earlier stages of chemistry/physical and energy-floes' conditions. The 'life' processes/systems we see today are mere evolutions from the earliest forms of crude and 'pre-life' types of the various 'building block' structures/processes I identified, and which arise quite naturally given the timeline and raw materials and processes/products 'permutations' which eventually give rise to the more stable configurations which go on to become self-sustaining and replicating via the evolution of more 'naturally selected' forms and combinations of the earliest crude structures/systems/processes that were the precursors of the natural evolution/complexity from the simplest 'non-life' elements/reactions all around us even now which still produce the crude elements/structures I identified which started 'life' on its inevitable emergence path to present complexity. If you doubt that I have identified and explained abiogenesis processes/structures from natural non-life states/elements, it may interest you to know that in occasional posts regarding these abiogenesis matters over the years across a few forums I have already given 'previews' of those things I spoke of in answer to some of the more 'blind bible faith' claims made by zealous religionist types, explaining to them how and why they are wrong in their 'bible beliefs' regarding life-genesis, and explaining how 'life process' arise naturally and inevitable from the common geophysical/geochemical history/processes of any planet containing/involving heat/light/mechanical energy and 'cold plasma' flows, carbon/hydrogen etc and 'environments', which together is the natural source and beginnings of any and all complex organic 'life systems/processes' we observe. I will therefore not go into any more detail here/now (especially as this 'abiogenesis' matter/explanation will form part of my complete and consistent reality-based maths/physics/life ToE publication). That's it, leopold. Bye for now. Good luck in your other discussions, everyone; I will be reading-only you all as I find the time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    an embryo comes from live.
    in the case of humans, sperm and ova.
    these in turn also come from life.

    abiogenesis is far from a simple matter.
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    They don't. A layered system does (see below).

    It's not an option, it's a system. An organism is a system. It isn't limited to the laws of physics and chemistry. It's an organism so now the principles of biology apply. A zygote develops into an embryo under a very strict set of procedures. But none of them are described strictly be by chemistry and physics. They are described by biology. I think all of your concerns are suitable for a unit in a Biology class.

    Your posts often mix apples and oranges. In the plain reading of your text you are laboring over general ideas about abiogenesis and certain principles of evolution (gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium). But when pressed to explain your motivation, you say you just can't imagine humans emerging from the primordial soup (without "X", which you are reluctant to define for us). And of course that's improperly posed, since that leaves out 1.5 billion years of evolutionary history (or so). They are two completely different issues, thus I say apples and oranges. That is, very primitive cells dominated the Earth during about 2/3 of the entire time life existed. So it would be more consistent to attack the abiogenesis of primitive cells directly rather than jumping the clock and skipping ahead to humans. I understand you want to digest the overall process. But I think it would be helpful if you split this into two tasks (1) abiogenesis and (2) human embryonic development.

    And of course the process of human embryonic development can be compared to that of a pig, a rat, or any other vertebrate you choose. The overall stages of the process are identical. I suspect embryonic development is what's really troubling you, and you don't seem to realize it. Indeed it's a complicated thing. But it works essentially the same way regardless of which taxon it's operating in. And while it depends on principles of chemistry and physics, they have nothing to do with, say, the development of the neural crest. That drags in Biology. You have to now regard the thing you might call "X" (creationists call it God) as a system. Let me say that again: Creationists mistake biological systems for "God". Your concerns parallel theirs, so your "X" can best be explained by doing analysis of the biological systems. Biology teaches how to arrive at those system descriptions. Once you have them in mind, there is no need for "X"/God. The thing that makes you want to say "I just can't believe a human came out of the primordial soup" now breaks down into block diagrams, flow charts, networks . . . that sort of thing. There are things we call feedback control systems in place, for example. They have their own systemic behavior (frequency response, delay, ringing, etc.) and some of this may seem almost like a personality to you, ("the personal God" to a Creationist) but actually the thing that makes you think "it's intelligent" / "it has a personality" really is just manifesting the characteristics of a feedback control system as well.

    You may get no satisfaction by accepting my suggestion that your concerns boil down to mechanisms covered in systems analysis, but that seems to be where you would benefit the most. Biological systems are about as complicated as it gets. But that's where the complexity you are pondering actually lies. It's not in any external agency or entity. It's in the invisible top level layer of the program, not one that resides in the DNA purely as genes, but as collections of genes carrying out a multi-threaded program that has no apparent source code. But it's in there. You just need Biology to reverse-assemble it. You can't see it because it's been compiled (compressed in to the DNA). Going down that road might help. Also if you had some pretty good sense of what Darwin was thinking between the time he got back to England and the day he finally published.

    I don't know if that helps, but I keep thinking I'll wiggle a bolt loose somewhere which that seems to be restraining you.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    And eventually we get to a point where chemistry and its many reactionary states, sees life arising from non life.
    In light of no other scientific scenario, it is as certain as one can hope.
     
  10. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    You have no perspective. Evolution of an embryo to the stage of walking-talking human being is "billions of years" more complex. You keep forgetting we created abiogenesis in the lab, it's very simple. You just don't like it because it doesn't have DNA, and that's like expecting to find remains of a dinosaur next to his iPod. Don't worry about it, you're just being irrational.
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Both are opinions: the first is your opinion about your person philosophy of critical thinking.
    Now that is a matter of fact: by definition, the impossible does not happen.
    You didn't answer yes or no. You are still dodging the question, saying contradictory things that seem to imply no, but can still mean yes. So I'll ask again:

    Yes or no: Do you believe in creationism?
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The problem with that thread (and this one) is that the antagonists seem to have little or no interest in science. Here (currently) it's mostly the physical process like what Trippy just explained above. But the free will question is one of Biology. That's why I touched on the biological aspect.

    I was actually a little surprised you took this tack. But the kind of ideas Trippy is posting, coupled with some ideas from Biology, should address all of your -- and leopold's -- concerns. (with regard to getting from the Big Bang to abiogenesis to sentience to intelligence). And that kind of discussion is about as good as it gets.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    As awe inspiring and amazing as those facts are, they are also obviously the only logical conclusions to arrive at.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i'm sure you did.
    i'm also sure it wasn't a continuous process from elements to the alleged "life"
     
  15. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Why do you think molecules of water and amino acids would get driven out of the solar system more than any other molecules?


    So then, why there is no water on Mars?


    So it's the same material and not some crap from outside of the solar system? Thank you God! But I don't see why call them meteorites then, when it's just the same stuff the Earth was made of, and majority of it containing water and amino acids surely merged while the planet was still forming, and not only after.
     
  16. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    You are sure, but you haven't even looked at it, huh?! You are just as ignorant as Russty. At least see a video, or don't speak about it at all.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    There is.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, i visited the site you linked to.
    actually the documentation, and especially a computer simulation, will be good enough.
     
  19. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    "Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal appears well within reach."
    exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

    after miller-urey demonstrated amino acids from primordial conditions, scientists were confident we would solve the origin of life within 10 years.
    that was in 1953.

    sounds exciting though.
     
  21. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    I'm pretty sure they said somewhere they got them to replicate through several if not many generations. I didn't get impression anything was incomplete. Do you know what is it they are still missing?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225


    And we were also going to have controlled nuclear fusion within 20 years, 50 years ago.
    Some things are more difficult to achieve then others, that's all.
    And sometimes, scientists being human, are inclined to get excited and make claims before they should. It happens, :shrug: Just as it has with the BICEP2 experiment at Antarctica.
    The sorry, shameful part about it all, is how our Creationist/pseudoscience and Conspiracy pushers, quickly see the need to jump on the bandwagon and start to deride all of science.

    And of course the experiment you refer to does not in anyway invalidate the fact that Abiogenesis did occur.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Well jeeee, if we can't figure out 14 billion years of cosmic chemical evolution in 50 years, we may as well give up.:shrug:
     

Share This Page