A research project - Page 3

Environment Man · 12-16-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkavian

Hmm? I said RNA structure is defined by laws of physics and chemistry. It is "self designed and constructed" in pretty much the same way every other molecule is - through chemical reaction. If you think you need to be God to run chemical reactions, bow to me, because that's what i do for a living.

Granted, mostly unsuccessful, but i chalk it up to evolution

And if you wanna throw bones at me, make sure they have steak on them - you can't go wrong with steak

"Things just are" is different from chance, at least, the way i view it. Chance implies a desirability of certain outcome, like me winning a lottery. "Things just are" acknowledges the existence of a lottery, but makes no claims about winning or losing numbers. Life could exist, or it could not, it doesn't make a difference from a universal point of view.

For all i know, universe could have been designed by super intelligent mice for use as a computer simulation, but since those mice would have to exist outside the known space time, and we have no way of looking there, it's kinda pointless to worry about it. As it is, one thing that amuses me about Intelligent Design proponents is their fascination with statistics, how impossible it for life to come about in this exact combination because the odds of that combination are very low.

Life is enzyme catalyzed chemical kinetics. All the processes inside of you are chemical in in nature. Every second, there are about a trillion DNA bases that undergo decomposition inside a body or every human (well, adjust for mass) from just one one chemical reaction. Multiply by 6 billion humans. That's a billion trillion changes per second, only in humans, only from one ordinary reaction. Add in all other DNA based life forms, multiply, say by a few centuries, and you'll just start getting the scale of evolution at work.

But wait, that's just the beginning. Inside your head, the neurons communicate via small molecules, neurotransmitters. They are constantly being degraded and re synthesized. Turnover rate for the fastest - 10^15 molecules per second. That's a billion trillion times to begin with. And that's just biological examples. In chemical industry, i've seen catalyst designs that accelerate reaction rates as much as 10^30 times. So... if you wanna talk about chance, keep in mind, i get to roll a lot of times, and i only have to be right once.

To me, it is amazing that life didn't evolve sooner. Actually, if you wanna talk about unsubstantiated beliefs, here's mine - i believe life evolved a short time period after the start of the Universe (just enough for it to cool down) and it did so repeatedly on whatever worlds the conditions allowed, and in whatever forms were the most fitting for those conditions. Now that i'd believe in.

Maybe at least you are a deist. Regardless, what you wrote sounded good but was ultimately illogical. Inanimate elements could not create RNA or any other life building tool. Then what? By magic RNA 'evolved' into DNA, which then 'decided' to build an organism. Please.

You just threw around the term evolution like it is a steak on the barbie, since you think steak has magical powers. Just as well to throw the bones because there is not meat on that steak you described.

You simply reject God as the maker of the elements and the laws of physics but never explain where THEY came from. And who initiated the big bang.

Environment Man · 12-16-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkavian

One of the mistakes people make when they think evolution, is they assume it's directional (ie towards greater complexity).

It may or may not be, depending on the environment. Personally, i think intelligence is overrated. I'd prefer claws. But oh well, i guess brains where all they had in stock.

Too keep it short, yes, i think intelligent life is at least possible. BUT - you have to keep in mind that intelligent critters (based on available evidence) tend to kill each other off with global warming/nuke weapons and other suchlike business. So... they are out there, if they didn't off each other already.

The only way any life is anywhere else in the universe is if God put it there. Our science so far proves me out. Our space vehicles have found no life anywhere. Nor a signal. Nothing. Nada. So science supports God as the initiator of life.

CosmicRocker · 12-16-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkavian

One of the mistakes people make when they think evolution, is they assume it's directional (ie towards greater complexity).

It may or may not be, depending on the environment. Personally, i think intelligence is overrated. I'd prefer claws. But oh well, i guess brains where all they had in stock.

Too keep it short, yes, i think intelligent life is at least possible. BUT - you have to keep in mind that intelligent critters (based on available evidence) tend to kill each other off with global warming/nuke weapons and other suchlike business. So... they are out there, if they didn't off each other already.

I see ur point. Greater complexity doesn't necessarly mean greater enviornmental " efficiency". The purpose of evolution is to be more able to dominate the enviornment.

claws huh? not bad.....

But crabs don't play chess, and as I enjoy that game, i'll stick with brains

Environment Man · 12-16-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

I see ur point. Greater complexity doesn't necessarly mean greater enviornmental " efficiency". The purpose of evolution is to be more able to dominate the enviornment.

claws huh? not bad.....

But crabs don't play chess, and as I enjoy that game, i'll stick with brains

Evolution magically 'knew' to come up with a claw and a brain. Evolution has the powers of a god.

Malkavian · 12-16-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

Maybe at least you are a deist. Regardless, what you wrote sounded good but was ultimately illogical. Inanimate elements could not create RNA or any other life building tool. Then what? By magic RNA 'evolved' into DNA, which then 'decided' to build an organism. Please.

RNA bases are created through an ordinary chemical reaction... This can be demonstrated in the lab. No magic. And you don't need to 'decide' to build an organism... if you already got a basic RNA backbone that can hold it's shape, you just may incorporate a DNA base by mistake, if it was floating about. But i don't think the exact mechanism for early life replication is known yet. There are people who are getting there by reverse engineering.... Looking at what is the least amount of genes you can get away with and still have life. Once you sort that out, you can start substituting RNA for DNA and see where it'll get you.

Quote:

You just threw around the term evolution like it is a steak on the barbie, since you think steak has magical powers. Just as well to throw the bones because there is not meat on that steak you described.

Steak is good. Whenever i eat it, i don't feel hungry anymore. Must be magic.

Quote:

You simply reject God as the maker of the elements and the laws of physics but never explain where THEY came from. And who initiated the big bang.

Elements (heavier than hydrogen) come from stars, so i'm certain God didn't make them. Maybe God created a hydrogen life form and we are just waste byproduct? I dunno. I dunno where the laws of physics came from, for that answer, i'd have to be outside space time, i think. Haven't been done, yet.

Malkavian · 12-16-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

I see ur point. Greater complexity doesn't necessarly mean greater enviornmental " efficiency". The purpose of evolution is to be more able to dominate the enviornment.

claws huh? not bad.....

But crabs don't play chess, and as I enjoy that game, i'll stick with brains

Claws more like cat ones, so i could climb trees and eat monkeys with side dish of leaves

Environment Man · 12-16-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkavian

RNA bases are created through an ordinary chemical reaction... This can be demonstrated in the lab. No magic. And you don't need to 'decide' to build an organism... if you already got a basic RNA backbone that can hold it's shape, you just may incorporate a DNA base by mistake, if it was floating about. But i don't think the exact mechanism for early life replication is known yet. There are people who are getting there by reverse engineering.... Looking at what is the least amount of genes you can get away with and still have life. Once you sort that out, you can start substituting RNA for DNA and see where it'll get you.

So have you created RNA in the lab? Has anyone? Sounds like it was an achievement for that loon James Watson just to 'discover' it. I will answer. What you speak of CANNOT be replicated in the lab by the best scientists in the world. Yet it 'happened' by chance. I put this right up there with photosynthesis. We cannot replicate that process either but it too happened by chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkavian

Steak is good. Whenever i eat it, i don't feel hungry anymore. Must be magic.

Elements (heavier than hydrogen) come from stars, so i'm certain God didn't make them. Maybe God created a hydrogen life form and we are just waste byproduct? I dunno. I dunno where the laws of physics came from, for that answer, i'd have to be outside space time, i think. Haven't been done, yet.

At least you believe that God exists.

LeisureChrist · 12-16-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

The only way any life is anywhere else in the universe is if God put it there. Our science so far proves me out. Our space vehicles have found no life anywhere. Nor a signal. Nothing. Nada. So science supports God as the initiator of life.

And just how much of the universe (which is at least 15 billion light years across) have our space vehicles explored? For how much of our history have we even had the potential to listen for any signals that might be our there? And how can you assume that any signals being sent will be in a form we recognize? Or that any truly intelligent life out there would want anything to do with backwater balding apes that still believe in boogeymen and burnt offerings? Science supports your mom as the initiator of your life. Thank her for that, because she exists. God might not.

nroberts · 12-17-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeisureChrist

And just how much of the universe (which is at least 15 billion light years across) have our space vehicles explored? For how much of our history have we even had the potential to listen for any signals that might be our there? And how can you assume that any signals being sent will be in a form we recognize?

We have a pretty good idea that any signals received will be understandable. The reason being that math is universal, as are the laws of physics. Obviously their scientific evolution will be distinct from our own, but they will have invented math and it will be the same as ours...just not using the same symbols. Math is the universal language that will be able to bridge any language barrier between advanced civilizations.

That said, I recently did some thinking on the idea of intelligence out there and asked some people who knew more about the issues. Consider this: our star has been here for 5 billion years and it took all that to form us, and forming us was perhaps extremely fast - at least the first instances of life were immediate from a geological perspective. This means the universe was 8 billion years old when our sun was born and wasn't much older than that when life first formed here. Now, the stuff we are made of did not exist when the universe was born. It was formed in the cores of huge stars that didn't form for a few hundred million years after the big bang.

So it kind of makes us look like a rather immediate formation in the universe. Could there be anyone that is more advanced than us by any measure.

Well, it turns out that there might not be any intelligent species that have been here for billions of years longer than us...but millions is entirely possible. Look what we've done in the last 100.

Malkavian · 12-17-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

So have you created RNA in the lab? Has anyone? Sounds like it was an achievement for that loon James Watson just to 'discover' it. I will answer. What you speak of CANNOT be replicated in the lab by the best scientists in the world. Yet it 'happened' by chance. I put this right up there with photosynthesis. We cannot replicate that process either but it too happened by chance.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/85/16/5764

This is a paper from almost 20 years ago, talking about a lab synthesis of a 77 base long RNA oligomer. Their fully chemical built molecule had 11% activity of the natural, biological template. So it is indeed possible. What has not been convincingly demonstrated yet, is a natural set of conditions that could have existed on old Earth and imitated lab settings. But... one step at a time. Hundred years ago, nobody even knew what DNA was. We'll get there, eventually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

At least you believe that God exists.

Maybe, maybe not.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode