Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

A simple quibble differentiates a black hole from AGN.

More coherent seeing as the most rapidly developing stars form from cluster galaxies surrounding AGN. You see the vortex created by quasars from the photosphere is probably the most orderly mechanism unknown.

Build a really big funnel that studies bosons. Invert the LHC and use it as a telescope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Off to the ignore list for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just goes to show there are no stupid questions. Just answers above some peoples heads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea why you imagine falsehoods the way you do.

 

Like I asked. Given that Darwin created the theory based on his beliefs do you think he was right to conjecture chemical evolution in forming this theory?

 

There's another falsehood.
You denied you had been banned from another forum, until I supplied the evidence that you had....just one of many falsehoods you are known to tell, and why your other thread has been moved to the fringe sections.
You are a fraud chinglu.

 

No. He didn't. As explained at least twice.

Since his theory was neither "based on" nor predicated on his conjectures about chemical evolution your question, besides being insincere, is meaningless.

 

We know based on my links that Darwin personally believed in chemical evolution. Are you saying this is false?

 

Since you obviously can't read, or cannot comprehend what you've read, (or, perhaps, you're simply dishonest) there's no further point in engaging with you.

 

I am OK with that. Darwin believed in chemical evolution and I proved that but you are unable to face this fact scientifically. OK.

 

Again, another falsehood chinglu!

Again, you attempt to mislead and defraud the forum.
Why do you persist in we and us?
I don't know of anyone on the forum that agrees with your inane attitude on light and SR, and the scientific mainstream certainly does not....even some of our best pseudo and woo characters appear to have disowned you.
So why all the pretense with we and us?
You are on your own!

 

Darwin may have believed in chemical evolution, because he probably realised that it was the only possibility to the question of the origin of life.:shrug:
But he also proclaimed loudly that Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life.
So what's your beef?
You've been soundly routed in your vane attempt to again invalidate SR.....And now you are trying to invalidate more accepted science.
Of course your continued efforts in trying to invalidate that, probably stems from the mythical biblical issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Remembering that under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the mythical bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old.
Evolution is a fact...live with it.
Abiogenesis is a fact.....live with it.

 

Antonine Lavoisier is considered the father of modern chemistry. He lived from 1743 to 1794.

The statement in bold is not too far from the change assumptions of evolution and abiogenesis where matter is changing its form and shape but there is a conservation process, which later was attributed to the chemical DNA. Darwin, if he had any chemistry would have already assumed something along this line. He may not have explicitly said this because that would have been repeating the consensus of thought, which would be gauche.

 

Are folks here arguing about how Abiogenesis occurred & that is what they mean by chemical evolution?

 

I don't believe we know how Abiogenesis occurred, and whether Earth was seeded by comets or Asteroids.
All we know is that it did 100% occur, and the evidence of that is that we are here.
And even if Earth was seeded by asteroids and comets [Panspermia] or some other intervention by another intelligent Alien species, Abiogenesis, speaking Universally, is the only logical answer we can arrive at.
Some sort of chemistry took place somewhere, sometime, when conditions were right, and Voila!!! here we are today.

Divine intervention is not considered in this context, as it is a non scientific copout solution, based on unsupported myth.

 

If you look at life, cells attempt to build energy value (growth) and will lower structural entropy into repeatable order.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase with time, yet cells work hard to lower entropy. This lowering of entropy is reflected in precise templates and exact folding of proteins. It is avoiding random as well as possible. Once life dies these structures will break down back into the direction of higher entropy; smaller pieces with random motion within solutions from which they originated. These two conditions of purposely increasing structural energy and lowering structural entropy is unique to life. Any model for biogenesis will gain credibility if it help jump start this basic physical process. The random approach goes the wrong way and has failed for decades since life is trying to go the other way; perfect folds not nilly willy folding.

The easiest way to begin this general direction of energy and entropy is with water and oil (organics). If we add organics to water and agitate, the energy level of the water will increase, since the organics contain energy value which can be released. Since water and oil (organics) do not mix well, there will also be a natural push to phase separate into two layers. This separation, contains lower entropy, than if the water and organics could maintain a solution. A solution would allow entropy to be as high as possible, but this is not possible due chemical differences that separate into two layers.

Since the entropy of the universe is the dominant push and the big guy (universal entropy) needs to increase, this phase separation process will eventually need to change in ways that allow the entropy to increase like it should. This will occur via chemical modification of the organics in solution. These have the energy already and increasing entropy has a big backer via the universe. The organics will become more polar organic, so they can lower energy and mix with water better, allowing the second law to be satisfied.

Abiogenesis is about the water-oil foundation becoming altered in ways that lower system energy and increase entropy. One main global way to do this is cell division, since this burns a lot of energy (lowers system energy) and doubles the number of cells thereby increasing entropy. Life sets up a situation that is destined to change, since the universal laws of energy and entropy will need to win in the end. We call this process evolution with adaptation and selection defined by the local universal pushes and the resistance of life. Necessity is the mother of invention since the push of necessity cause changes to the status quo which seeks perfection.

 

I think you are attempting to relate two analogies rather than two real-connected situations. The human brain for instance, can be explained only up to a point, using the random chemical reactions of subatomic and moleculer systems, but the human brain is a very complex system... that specific description doesn't actually explain consciousness, because we find we are out of the factors by a significant amount... consciousness is more than the sum of it's parts, therefore the matter it encompasses is more than just the chemical reactions inside the brain - the brain does only up to a point use the known chemical reactions. There is a lot of a missing information which needs to be accounted for.

 

I think that the most difficult thing for man is to understand the nature of his thoughts, because understanding is a thought, etc.
What I am basically trying to point out is that despite people know that we don’t live in the center of the Universe, they still believe that we live in the center of Nature. And i am not only referring to creationists. You know why? Because everybody thinks that the hallmark of life is organization.
Lets say that we have a repeating system of random reactions: A+BC+DE+F…..Y+ZA+B..Y+Z and so on. If a system of inside reactions is the reference frame, then it would perceive the whole system as totally organized and all reactions perfectly knit together.
However, I am not saying that there isn’t order in human body or human actions.
But: a) If you write something in the sand with your finger, for you this is order, but for a bee, its only disruption and randomness.
b) Order and symmetry are found everywhere in the Universe. For instance, a drop of water is spherical in shape due to natural laws, the lipids in lipoproteins of cell membranes are all pointing at the same direction, the horizon is a line, diamonds and crystals have very ordered structures, etc. Order and symmetry are found in human bodies and actions, are found in the ants, the bees, and even at the structures of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles or the motion of electrons. They are found everywhere because they offer sustainability. Objects with these properties simply survive. In other words, they offer survival advantage. The electrons move till they reach a symmetric orbit which represents the lowest energy demanding state and then it remain in that condition indefinitely. Symmetric bodies help us walk, stand and survive at the lowest energy cost. Smart actions help us survive as well. Thus, its not about order. Its about natural history.

 

I believe there are things which are above science.

Take the pheonomen of gravity for example. Gravity is quite well-understood but not enough to satisfy all the metaphysical questions in order to discard the existance of something unworldly, a force or entity above physics.

Ask science "why does this phenomenon exists?", "why does gravity exists?", "why does the universe exist?", "why does morality exist?", "why do humans have morality?" and you will get a non-scientific answer, or a non-answer.

Science will fail to answer you this, because it's not the epistemological purpose of this area of human knowledge. It hasn't the means and intent of answering us this. Science describes reality, it doesn't give it sense or meaning, thus it isn't enough to define what has or hasn't to do with God, with gods, souls, destiny, or whatever ulterior questions or anything ethereal and beyond our rationale.

You will still need philosophy and/or religion to find an answer you're confortable with, or you'll need to accept living with the doubt and conjecturing possibilities.

Unless one day technology evolves to a point where science and other areas of knowledge overlaps, and religious or philosophical questions become subject to the scientific method. We can't still know if this is possible.

 

Agree that the questions you pose about sense or meaning are not scientific ones. In my view that is fundamental and will never change. There seem to be two sorts of scientist: those one might label "reductionist", who would challenge the point in even asking questions of that sort, and those who don't rule out such questions, but refrain from seeking answers to them by the methods of science.

The people that cause all the trouble are those who do not understand that such questions are ipso facto inappropriate for science. This is where "Intelligent[sic] Design" and similar quasi-scientific forms of mumbo-jumbo come into play.