Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mountain_Fire77, Oct 11, 2006.
Do you imagine that the existence of God will forever remain scientifically unknown?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
people that believe in a creator may argue that their belief does not come from not understanding.
your generalize statement of "people" is confusing. Which people say this? Though my experience is limited, I have never heard the argument " you know, the big bang isn't working for me, there must be a creator." The Bible, for instance, states that in the beginning God created the heavens and Earth.
I didn't mention evolution in the post you are quoting, but thank you for the sage advice.
I can't believe anyone watched that video, after seeing that first post.
About the strength of the abiotic synthesis idea, could someone refresh my memory?
Can't we have spontaneously forming proteins from a reaction of sand? I forget the initial spontaneous reaction cause. And haven't laboratory experiments led to these being formed by automatically forming bilayers which actually reproduce and have metabolism?
i can invision myself the king of england, president of the US, or the worlds richest man.
i can also invision the pathways to take me there.
that by no means proves either of the above has or will happen.
then why pray tell do you find it necessary to explain the difference to the vast majority of high schoolers?
Leopold, you need to learn the difference between evidence and proof. The potential pathways, which observation and experiment can confirm to be probable (unlike the possibility of you metamorphosing into Vincent, or some other Queen of England), are evidence for abiogenesis. They are not proof, nor did I at anytime suggest they were.
I can imagine it, I do not, however, have any opinion on the matter.
On reflection, that is not exactly true. One version of reality I consider possible is that God may be an emergent property of the Universe in general, and specifically of consciousness and whatever further complex properties emerge thereafter. In such an instance God would not only become known to science, but would come into existence, in part, because of science.
No. Sand is generally fairly inert, since most of it is silica. You may be thinking of the work of Cairns-Smith, who postulates the first life as being a clay matrix. The replicating clay surfaces then provided templates for the assembly of DNA (or RNA) which proved more effective, thus superseding the clays.
Lab experiments have generated amino acids (and perhaps some polypeptides), but no proteins (that I am aware of, yet).
Again this sounds terribly like a mish-mashed interpretation of Cairns-Smith, but it is theory. The problem with his idea is that though elegant and attractive there are no independent data to support it.
Some simple lipids in a water solution will, due to thier hydrophylic/phobic end, will form bi-layers which will in turn form spheres. These speres will take in more lipids when encountered (eat), will break into smaller speres when they get large enough (reproduce), and react to light by moving away from it (move).
How many traits will chemical systems have to perform before you will consider them alive?
Because they are poorly educated, and taught scientific theories as fact instead of as a step along a process of understanding. This occurs because bugets are limited, and kids must pass standardised tests which ask "factual" questions instead of essay question. This occurs because multiple choise is easier to score using computers.
EDIT: Ophiolite countered my post, and it seems after some reading that I am a victim in this case of my own second point. I was taught the bi-layer stuff as fact, and I took it as such. Does anyone know of secondary experiments verifying the bi-layer spheres?
Also, I failed to mention the RNA will replicate on its own due to simple chemistry.
EDIT2: lots of more advaanced studies can be googled, but wikipedia seems to agree that lipid bilayer sphere will spontaniously generate. No word on other attributes of the spheres once formed.
"A biological membrane is a form of lipid bilayer, as is a liposome. Formation of lipid bilayers is a spontaneous process when the glycerophospholipids described above are placed in water. In an aqueous milieu, the polar heads of lipids tend to oriente toward the polar, aqueous environment, while the hydrophobic tails tend to minimize their contact with water. The nonpolar tails of lipids (U) tend to cluster together, forming a lipid bilayer (1) or a micelle (2). The polar heads (P) face the aqueous environment. Micelles form when single-tailed amphiphilic lipids are placed in a polar milieu, while lipid bilayers form when two-tailed phospholipids are placed in a polar environment (Fig. 2). Micelles are "monolayer" spheres and can only reach a certain size, whereas bilayers can be considerably larger. They can also form tubules. Bilayers that fold back upon themselves form a hollow sphere, enclosing a separate aqueous compartment, which is the basis of biological membranes."
I misunderstood which bi-layers you were talking about river-wind. You are quite correct, as you have established for yourself through the wikipedia articles.
I have also seen research linking the origin of life to spray generated over the ocean. Many people are familiar with the expression 'primordial soup' to describe the rich collection of pre-biotic organic molecules present in the early Earth. This is not just poetic fancy. The early oceans were likley replete with a far greater concentration of such molecules than we find today. Today those molecules are food and are quickly eaten.
Before life emerged droplets of this soup would be cast into the air through the interaction of wind and sea. These droplets would be miniature chemical experiments and some would be carried aloft for a long time. Many would form a protective lipid coating, so that they might remain intact on recontacting the sea. Within a few these proto-cells, self catalytic metabolisms may have begun.
I'm surprised there are so many replies to this thread.
When it was first posted, I considered replying, but then realised it's a troll, and didn't even bother. A troll or an idiot that doesn't earn any of my reply time.
I shouldn't have said protein, but amino acid polymers. I found what I was vaguely thinking about in my book, but it is just a brief introductory paragraph and does not focus on details. It says "Researchers have produced amino acid polymers by dripping solutions of amino acids onto hot sand, clay, or rock. The polymers formed spontaneously, without the help of enzymes or ribosomes." Unfortunately that is as far as the book goes, so I don't know how this happens.
About spontaneous forming bilayer membranes, I was talking about liposomes, which could become a membrane with the amino acid polymers.
Of course amino acid proteins in short strings are polypeptides and in long strings are proteins. I hadn't run across this particular synthesis method.
The one I like involved firing blocks of ice, laced with organic molecules including amino acids, at supersonic velocity against a wall. The objective was to find out if the amino acids would dissociate under impact. The underlying objective was to see if relatively complex organic molecules on board comets could survive collision with the Earth. To the surprise of the researchers the amino acids linked up to form simple peptides.
What this suggests is that their is a tendency, especially under extreme conditions, for organic complexity to increase. This is counterintuitive, but helps to explain some of the steps that led to life.
That sounds pretty interesting, thanks for posting it.
If anything is axiomatic, as far as fundamental physics goes, it must have unknown properties- including the principle of buoyancy - Einstein and a few others try to address this by looking for a unified theory, but it still remains that universe is composed of fundamental laws - how they got established, why they got established is unaddressable - this is why (some) scientific persons accept god, or the very least that intelligence directed the creation of the universe, since it appears most likely
But th e issue of addressing the mysterious nature of scientific axioms is never addressed because scientific progress means one axiom is superceded by another
Th e pride of science lies in examining details as opposed to the cause of all causes, because they err on the later they err on the former - also thesim can err in the same way too (evidenced by the flat earth notion)
- the saintly person however is beyond the 4 frailities that plague empiricism
(namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc
saintly people know god - they also advocate processes how one can come to the platform - there are words for these processes in sanskrit ("sadhana" - practical means to the goal) that at least seem similar to the implications of the word "science"
I'm not sure what you are alluding to but neither DNA nor enzymes are life - they are the chemical processes of exchanginf information that life utilizes
there is no such theory.
are you a liar or just brain washed by liars ?
never has been a theory of "molecules-to-man".
if you wish to have your own religous debate about religous theorys then go for it.
but trying to call the theory of evolution (which is actualy fact now).
a theory of "molecules to man", is simply dishonest and intentional miss direction.
if you have an ounce of self respect and honesty within you then i suggest you examine the real meaning of this term and come up with a new one that actualy does define the debate properly.
NOTE to accept the concept of the theory of evolution is not a statement saying there is no god.
It is just outlining the science we have (some could call science a gift of god)
with a process by which we developed into that which we are today.
throwing the baby out with the bath water is an old trait which should be left in the history books.
But why does that seem likely? It seems highly unlikely to me, because of all the other things that are revealed to have natural rather than supernatural causes. A crystal has symmetry and order, just like the physical laws. I disagree that the problem of how they got established is unaddressable.
Furthermore, explaining a complex universe using a previously existing complex agent only creates further questions. If complexity is required for complexity, how do you explain the existence of God? Another God?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was talking about the theories of the origin of life referred to as abiotic synthesis. The word abiotic means "the absence of life". The idea is these early abiotic things, called protobionts, were capable of metabolism and reproduction. I don't know what your definition of life is, but most people agree that these things were not alive, hence the word abiotic. Some people might, but from a biological perspective they is still lacking some traditional requirements, like homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth...
I was describing (badly) one theory of many that could explain how life started. Eventually a protobiont might have a good form of early RNA that allowed it to reach higher complexity and evolve into a unicellular prokaryote, which I would call life.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
fire exhibites all the traits you mentioned. is it alive? will it ever become alive?
or it could be for a totally different reason.
the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status
then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms
god is eternal - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god)
Separate names with a comma.