blike Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 The more biology I learn, the harder and harder it becomes for me to understand how evolution could be considered the sole perpetraitor(spelling errors) for our existence. I'm not denying that natural selection occurs, and that traits are adapted, however it is hard for me to rationalize how we went from inorganic material to living beings. I'll make this a series of threads over the next few weeks, each week posting various questions and thoughts on the subject. Hopefully some of you can offer some comments.
fafalone Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 As the explanation goes, certain chemicals (amino acids) started working together. Personally, while I recognize this is possible, I do not believe several proteins working together would enable reproduction in order to continue the trait. A bunch of amino acids, a reducing atmosphere, and some lightning will give you life? I find this to be no more credible than a devine intervention. Something layed the foundation... "God" only layed the foundation and made life possible.
Sayonara Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 Some biochemistry we don't yet understand, and a period of time too long to comprehend in terms that make sense to us. I'd rather apply Occam's Razor than attribute the beginnings of life to some benign phantom nobody has ever shown tangible evidence of.
fafalone Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 That all this matter and energy came out of nowhere 15 billion years ago and organized itself into planets, stars, and chemicals that make up life seems like pretty good evidence to me :/
Sayonara Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 But the evidence on its own isn't enough. You also need to formulate a rational argument that explains how the appearance of said matter and energy suggests the presence of the entity you have designated 'god'.
aman Posted October 4, 2002 Posted October 4, 2002 The universe would make sense if entropy ruled and everywhere things were degrading but for some reason where there is a great deal of energy, things use it to build themselves greater. First why do things use energy to fight entropy? Then how do they use it to build life? What pushes these processes? I gotta think about it. Just aman
Sayonara Posted October 5, 2002 Posted October 5, 2002 Originally posted by aman First why do things use energy to fight entropy? Perhaps they don't. All energy processes in biology are 'lossy' - perhaps life is not a force acting agaist entropy, but the universe's way of slowing down the entropic dispersal of energy. There will never be enough life in the universe to stop energy from disappearing into the void altogether.
fafalone Posted October 5, 2002 Posted October 5, 2002 Who's to say that by the time the universe starts collapsing we won't have the technology to prevent it? In a million years we've gone from the first appearance of language to splitting the atom and gazing upon galaxies 132 sextillion kilometers away... imagine where we'll be in a few billion years.
blike Posted October 5, 2002 Author Posted October 5, 2002 In under 10,000 years we went from the first written languages to the internet. Technology is an exponential gain. Look at whats happened within the last 150 years. We went from riding horses to riding to the moon. Cars, flight, medicine, computers, the internet, phones, CDs, DVDs, televisions -- just to name a small few.
aman Posted October 5, 2002 Posted October 5, 2002 Since humans are becoming more connected and hopefully more organized by technology, then we are becoming less like individual cells and more like an evolving life form. Viewed from the outside we activate anti-bodies to fight internal disease. Have a brain to store and direct information and coordinate action. As a whole we respire, consume, and excreet. Our nervous system is wired with satellites and cable to connect us all. Under a microscope our planet is looking much more like an increasingly efficient, multi-billion celled life form. Do we meet a similiar form and reproduce, merge, or decide who gets absorbed? Just aman
blike Posted October 6, 2002 Author Posted October 6, 2002 Viewed from the outside we activate anti-bodies to fight internal disease. Have a brain to store and direct information and coordinate action. As a whole we respire, consume, and excreet. Interesting thought, Aman. Very interesting. Be back later, I need to go think on that.
aman Posted October 6, 2002 Posted October 6, 2002 Our circulatory system would be our roads, planes, and shipping. The first contact by a large system might be to draw some blood to analyze or scrape a few cells. That might be why we miss some planes or car passengers under mysterious circumstances. Maybe. Just aman
NapoleonGH Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by aman The universe would make sense if entropy ruled and everywhere things were degrading but for some reason where there is a great deal of energy, things use it to build themselves greater. First why do things use energy to fight entropy? Then how do they use it to build life? What pushes these processes? I gotta think about it. Just aman Entropy does rule in the universe as a whole (the closed system) entropy is increasing constantly, stars die matter is converted to energy big bangs happen, etc. Chaos does rule all (look at heisenberg everything is chaos) within the open system of earth and the open system of life order can be formed at the cost of increasing the entropy of the surroundings, that is how all order forms, stars form by increasing the chaos of their surroundings. that is the way 2nd law of thermodynamics works
fafalone Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 But that law has been broken under certain conditions.
NapoleonGH Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone But that law has been broken under certain conditions. name them, because i can bet that it hasnt if you look at the big picutre
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 Please see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 050601 (2002)
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 If you don't have access to the full article let me know and I'll upload it here.
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 i dont think i do, at least i dont have easy access, but if posting such a large thing would take up too much room please email it to me.
aman Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 Don't mean to trouble you Faf since I can do searches too, but if you have something specific available, I'd like to see it also Thanks Just aman
aman Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 Thanks Fafalone, I made a copy and will read it after supper. I scanned it and found it to be great stuff but I will need quite and concentration and right now it's Sunday and I'm watching football. Just aman
blike Posted November 3, 2002 Author Posted November 3, 2002 right now it's Sunday and I'm watching football. How bout them bucs
aman Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 My Rams won and Green Bay plays tomorrow, Yoops, today. Bucs eat the big weenie.:toilet: As far as Fafs post, it is really messing with my understanding of the laws of the microcosom. It seems to all go out the window the closer you get. Just aman
fafalone Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 My Canes won AGAIN this weekend =) We're on a 30 game winning streak on our way to a 2nd consecutive national championship. Also let me take this opportunity to mock USFs football team and point out to blike that they MIGHT be able to score once in a game with our THIRD string.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now