granpa Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) It wasnt a cell. It was a stack of plate-like molecules. A 1 dimensional liquid crystal that later became a molecule which evolved into rna It formed by chance To be considered alive it must reproduce and evolve (or be the product of something that reproduced and evolved) Edited July 26, 2016 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It wasnt a cell. This point is very important - cells evolved some time after the first very primative life emerged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 I am not sure that is the right word, emerge seems to suggest something rising up out of something, which somehow paints the picture of cell composing itself on its own accord rather than a result of other factors bringing it into being. What are these other factors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world The RNA world is one possible route from chemistry -> biology, but other routes have been suggested (not that I know much about this) The point is it was not like one day there was mud and the next day advanced cellular life. Thanks for making this point. Edited July 26, 2016 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted July 26, 2016 Author Share Posted July 26, 2016 God, I have been reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis It is littered with the word create. Ok, lets go with emerge. I will think about this more and get back you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) God, I have been reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis It is littered with the word create. Ok, lets go with emerge. I will think about this more and get back you. Interesting, but the reason for 'create' in the context of nucleosynthesis is that creationists don't seem to hijack particle cosmology! There is less worry about misunderstandings here. Edited July 26, 2016 by ajb 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 How exactly? I have been over this several times, it is the power, or the capability, to create, for example a cell. Chemistry is how. Again you are insinuating that a power of some kind has to be responsible for a cell? Life at it's most basic is just chemistry, everything else is simply emergent properties of evolution by natural selection. No "power" is necessary any more than the creation of a snow flake requires a power, it's just physics and chemistry. If you want I can give you a link to a talk by Dr. Szostak an expert in abiogenesis, his talk and a couple others helped me to understand what is going on but at it's most basic life is chemistry and physics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It formed by chance Careful, here. The outcomes of chemistry are not random. Using "chance" has the possibility of leading to the awful and misleading "tornado in a junkyard" example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 it was chance A typical tRNA has 75 bases. 2^75 = 3.77 * 10^22 1 mole of tRNA would weigh 25 kg and contain 6 * 10^23 molecules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 it was chance A typical tRNA has 75 bases. 2^75 = 3.77 * 10^22 1 mole of tRNA would weigh 25 kg and contain 6 * 10^23 molecules Chemistry is very deterministic, how do you justify asserting it is chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) the arrangment of bases was chance Edited July 26, 2016 by granpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Not necessarily. The first few bases perhaps; after that, secondary driving forces like hydrogen bridging, van der waals forces, dipole interactions, etc. become a major factor in preferring one base over the other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 it was chance A typical tRNA has 75 bases. 2^75 = 3.77 * 10^22 1 mole of tRNA would weigh 25 kg and contain 6 * 10^23 molecules That is a meaningless analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 How about you stop dancing around, introducing non sequiturs, changing the subject and generally messing about and actually discuss the subject that you introduced? For example I am not sure that is the right word, emerge seems to suggest something rising up out of something, which somehow paints the picture of cell composing itself on its own accord rather than a result of other factors bringing it into being. What are these other factors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 That is a meaningless analysis. It means it could have arisen by chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) It means it could have arisen by chance So could winning the lottery. Edited July 27, 2016 by Daecon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 It means it was likely to arise by chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) Well sure it was chance, it's not like there was a Flying Spaghetti Monster arranging the bases like a load of Lego. But just because it was chance, there are still physical and chemical factors determining which probablities are more likely than other probablities, so your comment about chance doesn't really seem to be an argument for or against anything. Edited July 27, 2016 by Daecon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 It means it was likely to arise by chance There's nothing about your post that suggests that. If I have a bunch of hydrogen and water molecules in the air, and I add a spark, what are the odds that I will get H2O as a result? What are the odds I will get H3 as a result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Intelligent design, as it relates to evolution, is essentially the claim that natural processes are insufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, and a creator of some kind is necessary to explain our observations. It is fatally flawed on many levels: 1) It uses a supposed absence of evidence for evolutionary processes to assert the existence of this creator - a logically fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam position. 2) It proceeds in a logically backwards fashion, starting with the conclusion that such a creator exists, and then attempting to fit the evidence to that conclusion. A scientific investigation is compelled to proceed in the opposite direction, allowing the observations to determine the conclusion. 3)The arguments for the lack of evidence for evolution to explain the diversity of life are largely based on either further logical fallacy, misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, or both. E.g. the argument for irreducible complexity is both an argument from ignorance, and ignores the fact that selectively neutral processes can lead to the fixation of novel traits. As a result, it is trivially dismissible in a scientific context. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tampitump Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I know this thread was created a while ago, but I thought I'd answer anyway. Intelligent design is religious because it is purely an effort to make something that is complete junk and garbage science look valid and scientific in order to serve the religious agenda of its proponents. When you unpack it, its just another attempt to get God back in schools. That's it. A supernatural designer or "creator" cannot be deduced out of nature, so the whole proposition (like religion) dissolves with a few very simple arguments. It is purely a religious endeavor. The Discover Institute is purely a religious think tank. Its just a more cunning and crafty way of framing the religious talk so they can try to sneak it into public school policy. That's it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyudmilascience Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Hi, I have looked at intelligent design and I am bit puzzled. I mean, I hear scientists say it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' and shouldn't be taught in our schools but after looking at it I really don't see any religion in it whatsoever? Consequently, could a someone who is against intelligent design being taught in our schools clearly explain intelligent design and why it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' to me please? I would like to see what I must be getting wrong, thanks! I dont really know what they mean when they say its cloaked in scientific language. religion and science can contradict. that might be what they are implying. I dont see any science in religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I dont really know what they mean when they say its cloaked in scientific language. religion and science can contradict. that might be what they are implying. I dont see any science in religion. It's put into language that sounds scientific to them, much like certain crackpottery sounds scientific to the crackpot but nonsense ("word salad") to people who understand science. It's a veneer they put on the religious idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) No offence but the big bang and evolutionary theology are nothing more than a Godless religion (i.e. a cult) with its ignorant and arrogant high priests like Laurence Krause and Richard Dawkins. It is the most stupid, ridiculous, absurd idea ever, the idea that the whole universe mysteriously and magically popped into being out of nothing, for no apparent reason (i.e. have no logic behind it) then start rapidly expanding into the same nothingness that it came out of, its absolute nonsense, it is pseudoscience, magical thinking. And then you have evolutionary theology where as in the same process of mystery and magic a fish, for no apparent reason, jumps out of a pond of primordial soup, starts crawling across the ground then climbs a tree before sprouting wings and flying, all by complete accident. What utter bullshit, I can't want for the second coming of Christ so he can begin teaching the truth about heaven and its blessings, a.k.a. the secret science of religion. Big bang and evolutionary theology is the mad, crazy, loopy science of the devils satanic, fascist cult that is currently raping mother earth with its superficial beliefs it demands everyone believe and respect while hypocritically applying the complete opposite to others beliefs. What a nasty fundamentalist cult, big bang and evolutionary theology adherents are little devils who think they know it all but in fact know nothing at all. Edited August 2, 2016 by SimonFunnell -9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts