I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Jadebrain_Prime, Sep 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, i realize computers have the ability to modify their programs and always had the ability. the main reason it isn't employed is it makes debugging next to impossible.

    i was referring to the concept of "from the ground up", creating the chip and letting it program itself. this is something i've never seen.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    spidergoat made a statement, i wanted to see where he got the idea that chemicals could think.

    personally i find the concept beyond ridiculous.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you only provided the source for one compound.
    i believe there are 20 amino acids that needs the similar treatment.
    can they all be separated by circulatory polarized light?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,714
    Do you think silicon can play chess?
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It's a strawman hypothesis.

    Stating that thought is the result of chemical reactions does not imply that chemicals can think.

    The proof that thought is a result of chemical processes is pretty trivial actually, anti psychotic medication, anti depressive medication, and hallucinogens all change your thought processes by altering your brain chemistry.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now go back and re-read what I actually said.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    In the right arrangement they can. Or do you think that part of your brain isn't chemistry?
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    First off, it's circularly polarized light, circulatory polarized light is a meaningless term, and yes, it would affect all amino acids, that's one of the reasons it was proposed as a mechanism.

    We have other lines of evidence suggesting a nearby supernova very early in the earth's history, and a nearby supernova would affect all amino acids, and have the capability to 'process' the entire solar system at once.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no.
    and before you start, it's the program that plays the game.
    silicon has squat all to do with it.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    these are essentially hardware manifestations of tic tac toe playing software.
    most software can be implemented in hardware.
    the math coprocessor is one example of this.
    i believe this also proves my point that "silicon has squat all to do with it".

    i also believe my original assertion was something about giving subjective opinions.

    i assume you meant the link to the PDF you mentioned.
    came from NASA and has not been independently verified.
    it also didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body.
    it did mention a few though.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,714
    And the only physical instantiation of the running program are the states on a piece of silicon. Thus, the silicon, while the program is running, is the only physical embodiment of that program. Without the silicon, it does not exist.

    Very similar to us and chemical reactions.
     
  16. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    In a manner of speaking. . . I don't.

    I believe Abiogenesis is not only possible, but probable. Yet, you would be mistaken if you were to assume that I am. . . what do you call it, a "naturalist"? Someone who believes that all the mysteries of the universe can be explained in purely mechanistic terms by our current scientific understanding?

    I believe we should make a distinction between consciousness, and awareness. Do chemicals, matter, radiation, electricity, and their various interactions have awareness in our temporal reality? Nah. . . I'd say they don't. However, I am acutely aware, as many are, that they are conscious.

    IMO, it may be possible that the difference between our existence in the temporal plane, and existence in a transient, or ethereal plane, is simply awareness, not consciousness. Hence, all of the laws of science that we have come to know and regard as true would operate w/o fail in our reality. Yet, thought creates, according to those laws. Accordingly, everything manifests some sort of consciousness.

    Abiogenesis? Certainly. But, more mysteriously, how did the conditions become so perfect? How did the sun be just right size and temperature? And how was it that the Earth got to be where it is? And those organic compounds, how did they get to be in the right place at the right time?

    For those of you that want to claim, oh. . . it's just chance? Sure, if that makes you feel better, if that's the world view you wish to take, I don't fault you. I am sure it makes you feel more powerful, more in control of your little universe. The scientific manipulation of matter and energy is VERY powerful, with immediate and generally predictable results. However, in my world? I feel more empowered knowing that I can control my world simply by thinking and controlling my thoughts as well. I know that there are deep truths to what is happening going on beyond what my five senses can calculate.

    It's all one folks. We're all one. It's one grand conscious machine. We have become special because we are AWARE of it though, not just because we are merely conscious.
     
  17. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    And yet. . . if we're "aware," and the computer is "aware,"

    . . . . why not the Universe?

    Why not aware enough to create life?
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,511
    What's the difference in your view?

    Or it may be that this "transient ethereal plane" is hogwash.

    What? What do you mean "hence"?

    Does it?

    Does it?

    They didn't. It didn't. It didn't. They didn't. In that order.

    Yeah? How good are your thoughts at flying you across the Atlantic?

    Ah, there's part of your problem. The rest of us have 20 or so senses.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    well, hows that for an interesting analogy.
    i will have to cede the point i guess.
     
  20. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    Wow... This thread has really taken off... *ahem*

    Somewhere on Page 2, someone asked me if I was saying that there is proof without knowing of it. I wasn't trying to say that. I was asking for proof, and if there is none, I would have to be honest with myself by not denying that there is no proof. If there is proof, I would be interested in seeing it (along with an explanation in layman's terms - like I said, I'm a 19 year old college student who is majoring in something irrelevant to the theory of abiogenesis. (The rest of the parenthetical portion of this paragraph is unnecessary to read - read it if you want, I'm not stopping you - as it is emphasis on and explanation of why I'm not as educated as I want to be) Furthermore, as I haven't said already, yet some of the veterans of Sciforums might have been able to tell a few years ago, I have spent the formative years of my life almost completely insane (and with hardly any help for my condition), due mostly to disability but made much worse and near-incurable by my religious beliefs as a Christian. Once I stopped being a Christian, the process to sanity began, and eventually I became a Deist, then an Atheist. But while I've made great progress, I still have very little in executive functioning skills, and I have only been capable of learning so much in my few years of sanity.).

    Basically, the purpose of this thread was to learn so that I would be better able to debate my position in an honest and educated way, or at least learn enough that I would be able to honorably admit defeat.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    That's an interesting story, but if I could point out again, proof of abiogenesis is not required.
     
  22. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    I know that, but the christian in the debate seems to have different standards for his arguments vs. anyone else's (I know, right?). As in, God did it needs to be claimed to have happened by the Bible, and Abiogenesis needs to have been 100% confirmed to not only be possible, but to have been the case in the formation of life on Earth. I've tried telling him about the flaws in Scripture, I've tried arguing that anything possible within the universe (being as big as it is) would have to eventually happen somewhere in the universe, no matter how unlikely, but no luck.

    You could say that I just shouldn't try to fight for this lost cause, but I just can't do that. Perhaps I care to much for the world's ability to reason. Perhaps I'm too stubborn. Perhaps I feel that giving up here is a reflection of how much of a failure I am. I dunno.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,714
    Sure doesn't seem to be aware in any other way. But I guess it's possible. You'd need a lot of data to make that a plausible argument though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page