Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mjs, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    Animals have a sense of morality and adapt good and band senses from the dream world where they can adapt to the same things humans adapt to in terms of a sense of spirituality and having a psychue and individuality and morality to evolve further on and have true evolution both physical and mental.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    Travel to the stars is a bit far-fetched at this moment. Technology needs to be much more advanced than it is now in order to make interstellar travel very safe and easy.

    Right now we can't even put people on Mars or even on Callisto so travel to distant solar systems is still a million (if not millions) of years into the future.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,526

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Probably thousands of years....maybe even one thousand years.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Oh the technology already exists

    You just have to read the books

    river
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    No.

    And be gullible enough to believe them...
     
  9. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Your argument is that what we call life began as a series of simple chemical reactions, which became increasingly complex.
    And that that this process never changed, but became more and more elaborate.
    The human body and brain is made up of an exceedingly complex series of reactions, chemical and electrical.
    We find that hard to see that because we are the end result of those reactions.
    Yes, that's a good argument I think.

    What implications does it have for medicine?
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Any objective explanation of life needs to include the impact of water within the discussion. The subjective explanations of life will always leave out the impact of water in bio-physical chemical discussion. As a simple experiment, let us start with series of beakers, each with life at all the levels. Some have enzymes, others DNA, others cells , others multicellular, etc. If we remove the water, nothing works properly in any of the beakers. Without the water there is no sign of life only inanimate organics.

    Next, let us substitute any other solvent known to man, in any go these beakers. We can do a slow exchange beginning with water and extractions so everything stays wet. In the end, nothing works properly and still there are no signs of life even though we have all the organics needed and a new solvent. Any objective person, not bound by subjective traditions, will infer that water is critical to life at all levels and cannot be rationally ignored. It can be subjectively ignored and substituted for with casino math to find jackpots.

    The importance of water is multi-fold. The primary impact is connected to the natural potential between organics and water; water and oil. Water is polar and all the organics have non-polar moieties. These opposites tend to separate, from nano-scale to macro levels depending on the chemical.

    The result is the water continuum (majority component of life) creates the dominant potential with all the organics needing to align, combine and change in ways that help lower the short and long term potential between the two phases. It is not coincidence that life ended up using hydrogen bonding. This was needed to lower the potential of water since water used hydrogen bonding first. It is not coincidence the DNA came late in the process because DNA is the most hydrated molecule within life. RNA is less hydrated and came before. Evolution was/is directional and based on the organics needing to conform to water. That conforming pays off with all things able to because active in the potential flux.

    Another important impact of water is the entropic force, which is a fifth force of nature, that is common to life. Life makes use of semipermeable membranes that restrict the free flow of materials into and out of the cell and other places within the cell. Transport proteins are used to allow specific organic materials to pass through these membranes, at particular spots.

    Water is different in that it has free access to move back and forth. The water will spontaneously move in the direction of higher entropy (highest concentration of materials and moieties). This direction of motion, based on entropy, results in more water randomization. Although random on the surface, will nevertheless create a that force connected to osmotic pressure; pressure equals to force/area, that is directional and ordered.

    This entropic force is created by random but itself is not random but directional. This is possible in liquid state physics. This unique entropic force has been called the life force, since it is used by life. This force can help push and pull to trigger specific activities. While the continuity of water, throughout the cell, allows the entropic force to be applied in spatial ways for integrated activity and change. This force also assists evolution and goes beyond the subjective of the random models that leave out water as a co-variable with as much impact as the organics.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,928
    Why do you insist on making such absurd statements. The importance of water is NEVER left out of the discussion of life.

    You sound like a broken record, repeating the same absurd claim over and over.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The importance
    The importance of water is mentioned, but as an "everyone knows that" footnote within the discussion of life. In objective science, water would be discussed in proportion to its contribution to the living state. This would place water in all discussions.

    Experiments have shown that nothing in life works properly without water and no other solvent can be substituted for water, except in science fiction. Yet the science fiction line is taken as gospel, to avoid discussing water in proportion to its impact.

    For example, the active DNA molecule is not just a double helix of organics, but active DNA also contains a double helix of water within the major and minor grooves of the organic helix. This water is rarely mentioned or taught, even though the DNA will not work without it. What is taught is subjective and not objective.

    If you leave out a key variable like water, the model remain subjective and will need a system of fudge to conpensate; statistics. For example, proteins fold into exact folds. Random and statistical arguments do not apply to protein folding, like the existing random theory predicted for decades. The lack of random is due to the impact of water.

    One would think that the entire random approach would come into question seeing how water can overcome the bias of decades. But the subjective system continues to ignore the obvious, because water is just a footnote in the subjective science of life.

    Explain to us, rather than distract with insults, why water is ignored in all discussions when it can be shown that nothing will work without water?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2014
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    BINGO!

    But no liberals in this post, sadly.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,477
    It's taken for granted that biochemistry takes place in an aqueous environment. We don't need to harp on constantly about water when we aqueous chemistry. It's not ignored: it's just implicitly factored into everything we do.
     
  15. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    There's no way that Interstellar travel will be possible in only another 1000 years.

    For all we know manned interstellar travel may turn out to be impossible for humans. There are just too many technical difficulties which need to be overcome.

    Some things which could make manned interstellar travel impossible are:

    1. The Interstellar distance which need to be covered are enormous.

    2. The required amount of energy: A significant factor contributing to the difficulty is the energy that must be supplied to obtain a reasonable travel time, including the energy it will take to accelerate the spacecraft as well as slowing it down upon arrival.

    3. The Interstellar medium: A major issue with traveling at extremely high speeds is that interstellar dust and gas may cause considerable damage to the craft, due to the high relative speeds and large kinetic energies involved. Various shielding methods to mitigate this problem have been proposed.[2] Larger objects (such as macroscopic dust grains) are far less common, but would be much more destructive. The risks of impacting such objects, and methods of mitigating these risks, have been discussed in the literature, but many unknowns remain.

    4. Travel time: An interstellar ship would face manifold hazards found in interplanetary travel, including vacuum, radiation, weightlessness, and micrometeoroids. Even the minimum multi-year travel times to the nearest stars are beyond current manned space mission design experience.

    5. Another problem is keeping the crew mentally sane and healthy and avoiding conflict between crew members.

    Spending such a long time in a spaceship could make the people on the ship turn insane and maybe even violent toward each other. So unless the crew is not awake during the trip (like in a state of suspended animation), the large amount of time spent on the ship could make the crew members turn mentally unstable and there will be conflicts.

    6. Effect of prolonged spaceflight on the human body: The human body is not designed to spend such a long time in space.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2014
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,526

    That's quite a pessimistic approach, and I could quote many similar quotes and statements about what was said in the past about what oe what may not eventuate.
    If we are unable to reach reasonable percentages of light speed, interstellar travel will certainly be different. But I do believe given time [ within a 1000 years] the cryogenics, suspended animation, and Generation type ships will be the go.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The reason I harp on it is, I believe that biology could advance if we treated water explicitly, instead of lumping water into statistical models that only look at the organics and assume the water is invisible and inert. If we take away the water and add an inert solvent, nothing works. Inert is not a realistic assumption even if it give results.

    For example, liquid water hydrogen bonds to itself and can form four hydrogen bond with other water. This is loosely analogous to the four covalent bonds of carbon. The binding is water to water is weaker than carbon to carbon, but it still causes structure to appear in water.

    For the DNA to unpack, for example, it has to displace water that is under pressure, bonded together with hydrogen bonding. It is like trying to do the waltz, within a packed crowd near the stage of a rock concert, where the crowd is holding hand, tightly pushing against each other, so there is no room to move.

    It will take a lot of energy to open up the crowd to give you enough room to do the dance. Where does this energy come from since it may need to break 1000 hydrogen bonds, yet a molecule of ATP has the energy for 1-3 bonds?

    The current theory ignores the huge energy requirement in favor of a vacuum where organics move in open space. The approximation may be useful, but it is out of touch with reality.
     

Share This Page