A New Theory for the Origins of Life

[Dov]

Probable early life raw materials on earth's surface were CO2, CO, H2, N2. None or very little free oxygen, thus formation of organic compounds enabled, that evolved into life.

 

Water was the medium enabling life evolution and celling of primary early archaic RNA genes, as lipid bilayer biological membranes need water to form.

 

The characteristics of the 4BYA environmental energy, that drove the auto-synthesis of complex living molecular conformations , is not now yet known.

 

Ukaryotes arose via ingestion and development of obligate symbiotic relationships which were metabolically specialized. Chloroplasts and mitochondria are compartments within the cells, bound by double membranes. Their DNA is in a circular strand, organized not like the chromosomes. Comparisons of ribosomal RNA and other molecules have confirmed that they are related to and likely arose from bacteria. Mitochondria were probably free-living bacteria that became cellular endosymbionts and lost much of their autonomy.

 

By evidence to date mitochondria were acquired only once within eukaryotes. In the case of chloroplasts, evidence suggests that several different types of photosynthetic bacteria contributed to several different episodes of formation of endosymbionts, since there are large differences among chloroplasts and chloroplast DNA.

[admiral_ju00]

i love the fact that the original poster is no longer here to defend his/her position, or propose a new theory......

[Sayonara]

I like the way Dov is putting all that effort into "maybe yes", even though we don't know what the "yes" is yet.

 

<3

[Dov]

Sayonara is precise, as usual.

 

BlackJackal post is "A New Theory for the Origins of Life".

 

My remarks aim at No or Yes likelihood of some conjectures about origin of life

[apathy]

The "entropy" in Information Theory has jack squat to do with the "entropy" of Thermodynamics. Maybe in analogy only.

 

If you want to use the 2nd Law as an argument against ToE, then you had better well understand what it says. If you can't pass this elementary test on the 2nd Law you have no place basing any arguments on its violation.

http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Thermo_test.html

 

No one wants to discuss a new theory because we are comfortable with the working one. Where is a viable alternative.

 

Also, we keep forgetting that ToE has jack squat to say about the ORIGINS or life, it merely deals with how it changes over time.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara is precise' date=' as usual.

BlackJackal post is "A New Theory for the Origins of Life".

My remarks aim at No or Yes likelihood of some conjectures about origin of life[/quote']

It was one of my "really difficult to spot" compliments

[Guest nasor]

BlackJackal, the guy who started this thread, likes to drag this same argument around from one forum to another. He plays it out until someone who actually knows about thermodynamics shows up and points out the gaping holes in his argument, then moves on to somewhere else. I have no idea why he does it.

[admiral_ju00]

Well, in the light of this evidence, I suppose he's trying to redefine the word Troll.

[budullewraagh]

i still prefer a i oparin's theory

[rbp6]

I think one of the problems is the way Thermodynamics is taught to people who go into it very briefly. Usually very simplified explanations such as a kid's room becoming dirtier or a messy baby eating dinner are used. Usually people are able to get the right idea from these analogies but some people misinterpret it.

[[Tycho?]]

No.

 

I'm glad somebody said it, I've heard this argument before.

 

Remember kids, its not that entropy always increases, its that net entropy always increases. So entropy can decrease, as long as it increases in another spot in the system to make up for it.

[apathy]

Oh, the entropy thing is the most tired argument. Whenever someone brings it up they are announcing "I do not understand basic thermodynamics!" and "I am new to the Creation vs. Evolution debate and would like to be schooled!"

 

For the lay folk, some sites about entropy that aim to clear up confusion:

 

http://www.entropysite.com

http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html

 

This site has nothing to do with c vs. e, but is the result of frustration stemming from people's confusion of entropy and "disorder." This is the result of undergrad textbooks attempts to "simplify" the concept, but only adding confusion to it.

[AL]

Looks like I got beaten to it while I was waiting for this account to activate....

 

But in any case blackjackal, you are not taking into account net entropy. Life is ordered, but how much energy was lost in the process of creating it? Everyday you eat and destroy another animal just to maintain your own life. Sustaining your own life increases net entropy.

 

At the most fundamental level, autotrophic life is also less than 100% efficient. For instance, photosynthetic plants only use red light, out of all the other frequencies of sunlight. Non-red light is simply wasted by clorophyll -- thus increasing net entropy.

 

There is a lot of lost energy going into life. You are not looking at the bigger picture. Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; if it did, physicists and biologists would have done something about it long ago.

[Guest blackscience]

Theory...it seems most people don't understand the concept of what a theory is. Theories are not accurate. They may explain some parts of a question but its not 100% accurate. Some test proved it to be wrong or inaccurate. Evolution has already been proven wrong! The Big Bang theory is a guess. The age of the planet is wrong!

 

The universe has always existed. I guess we forgot about the law that tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

Most people can't understand the origins of the universe. It takes a certain type of science to understand this, and that science isn't taught in public and private schools or at a college level.

 

Here's a question. Before anything can be made or created, what is the first thing needed?

[Sayonara]

Evolution has already been proven wrong! The age of the planet is wrong!

I'd love to see you back either of those statements up.

 

 

The universe has always existed. I guess we forgot about the law that tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

That law applies to the universe as it is now, not before or during the creation of the universe. The laws of physics that operate in this universe could not very well have operated before it existed, now could they?

 

 

Most people can't understand the origins of the universe. It takes a certain type of science to understand this, and that science isn't taught in public and private schools or at a college level.

Such as?

[NavajoEverclear]

Alright' date=' Like I said earlier the basis here is not to discuss evolution or creationism but to come up with a new theory. But since it doesn't look like that is going to get done without first arguing against evolution so be it. As for the 2nd law it goes something like this: Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

 

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical'] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

 

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

 

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

 

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never add useful information to the genetic code (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

 

What the hell are you talking about? You say you studied biology and evolution for years? Then you know how all this works. Look all around you YOU CAN SEE evolution working. It's common sense.

 

I dont completely understand this entropy thing, or why it has to be a universal law, but it doesn't sacrifice evolution. Doesn't it apply to the general disorganization of the entire universe combined? Stars dying out and planets drifting apart? Hopefully to collapse back in and start all over again.

 

You are an intellectual weakling and an idiot and i hope your head explodes. Also, your attempt at diplomacy is terribly aggrivating, disgusting to such a degree that not even I have mastered (and never will thanks to your obscene reverse-motivation). Sugar coating contempt is stupid. Conflict rules, embrace it.

[AL]

Theory...it seems most people don't understand the concept of what a theory is. Theories are not accurate. They may explain some parts of a question but its not 100% accurate. Some test proved it to be wrong or inaccurate.

It seems you don't understand the concept of a theory as used by scientists. Do not confuse it with the colloquial use of the word theory, which means "hypothesis" or "conjecture." In science, a theory is not a hypothesis or conjecture; it is a well-substantiated abstraction intended to represent the reality of the particular scientific phenomenon in question. Theory in science is as opposed to empiricism, which is observing the actual phenomenon as opposed to its abstraction.

 

An analogy would be learning to play the guitar. When you start out learning the techniques and how to read music, you are learning guitar theory. This is as opposed to actually playing the guitar, which would be analogous to empiricism (theory vs. practice). Theory in this case does not mean "guess," because you are not "guessing" how to play the guitar.

 

Evolution has already been proven wrong! The Big Bang theory is a guess. The age of the planet is wrong!

Evolution has been proven wrong? By who? Michael Behe and his ridiculous notion of "irreducible complexity," which is basically "intelligent design" in another guise? And Big Bang is not a blind guess. I am not aware of any other theory out there that does a better job of explaining an expanding universe, cosmic microwave background, isotropy and the numerous other things Big Bang explains.

 

The universe has always existed. I guess we forgot about the law that tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

Most people can't understand the origins of the universe. It takes a certain type of science to understand this, and that science isn't taught in public and private schools or at a college level.

Religion is not science, if that's what you were getting at. I'm sure you can learn this stuff at Bob Jones University, but there's a reason why it's not an accredited institution.

 

Here's a question. Before anything can be made or created, what is the first thing needed?

OMG A CREATOR!!!1 U R TEH CREATIONIST!!!1

You seem to be unaware of the logical fallacy of petitio principii. If you assume the universe was created, then you have already presupposed the existence of a creator. You are using a circular argument for creationism.

[YT2095]

the "creator" could be nothing more than pure probability, some may prefer to call this "God"

[mooeypoo]

I completely agree YT, but I just don't see how probability can be god.

I see how probability is the thing that made us - i completely agree here - but it doesnt fit the "all knowing" (it really doesn't care) and "all contolling" (it really really doesn't care) and "all seeing" (you got the picture).

 

So I agree, but I disagree with the GOD thing.

 

GOD is abstract and can be practically anything (nature, big bang, yadda yadda). But probability... don't see it

 

 

~moo

[john5746]

As for the 2nd law it goes something like this: Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

 

Just looking at my yard: It gets more and more complex all by itself. I try to keep it simple and nice, but it's a battle.

[Yakuzi]

 

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms' date=' but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never add useful information to the genetic code (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order.[/quote']

 

What about the Sickel Cell Mutation, just to name one mutation even within the human species?

 

Here's a question. Before anything can be made or created' date=' what is the first thing needed?[/quote']

 

Well that either would be matter or energy IMO...

If u are referring to a creator, then who created the creator???

[LucidDreamer]

I think we are just beating a dead dog now.

[DoorNumber1]

I once was bored and grabbed a book called Quantum Evolution by a Brit named JohnJoe McFadden... I think this guy would benefit a lot from reading it. It will, by no means, answer all of this dude's questions (what the hell will!?) but it explains why there can be such things as directed evolution in a system that itself has no external direction and is playing by simple (well, comprehensible at least) rules.

 

Sorry creationists, evolution occurs. Ever heard of penicillin resistant strains of bacteria?

 

GRR Go back to school!

[Yakuzi]

Sorry creationists' date=' evolution occurs. Ever heard of penicillin resistant strains of bacteria?

[/quote']

 

No you're ALL wrong, that's degeneration! Didn't you study your bible

[Guest devance]

There is a new theory, which is animal life, but not intelligent life, very much quickly responses to environmental changes basically by fractual morphing, because of predestionional whole gene complement fractual expresssion.

A linear random mutation pattern of evoltional would not have time to evolve in my opion.

Bryce 5 is a art learning tool for the artistcally challenged like myself and gives some insight..