A path to faith with science
No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.
Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.
Now, if those *are* alive, that's very interesting, because of the four possible states of matter, plasma is, by far, the most common, much more common than solids, liquids and gases put together. So, it could be that plasma-based life is the most common form of life in the universe. Such life would have very little in common with us though; even if it eventually evolves into something intelligent, (if it hasn't already), we'd have nothing they want, and they'd have nothing we want. Maybe information-trading, but that'd be about it.
A path to faith with science
I'm curious, doesn't it sound like natureisawesome is suggesting that all of us that disagee with him are going to hell? That seems as if he is judging us, where the bible clearly states that only God can judge us. why is it that "christians" are always trying to save us heathens when, assuming we are decent people, our souls arn't exactly stained with the blood of the innocents. I have always figured that if God is really going to send all the jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, taoists, scientists, ect to hell, then he isn't the kind of diety I want in my life. thankfully, i believe that God isn't so picky, so I am not too worried for my soul.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
LMAO you can copy and paste all you like - I still stand by my point.
There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.
There ya go.
With all your links pointing to the same "resource" you really won't get far with your "evidence"
Yes there is plenty thermodynamic reason and I'm not wasting my time typing it all again go reread what I've read or check out this site for information on thermodynamics (there are other laws as well but this is the most outstanding one that keeps life from forming from in organic molecules) :
Origin of Life Q&A
Thermodynamics and Order Q&A
I just don't even think you care whether it's right or wrong. Surely you didn't even understand what I wrote. If you did, and still wished to deny it, you would need to show me some mechanism or way that inorganic matter can form into complex organic information bearing systems (life) while working against the second law of thermodynamics. But you can't, because there are no exceptions to the second law. Entropy affects both energy and matter. That doesn't really leave anything left.
Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.
A path to faith with science
Wow some size of a post there, wish I had time to get involved in this one. You are talking about entropy and stuff, that kind of scientific rhetoric can force me into an excited state. I might print that out and read it on the train to work tomorrow, if it's less than 10 pages....
A path to faith with science
LOL Of course there are no known exceptions to the second law, I didn't mention any did I?
I'm saying life IS NOT a exception. You aren't even arguing with me FFS :wtf:
Creationists mis-represent the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
You are basically saying:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy ;). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law, so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently.
I would post more. but its you who are mis-representing facts and we can't be arguing over something you don't accept as the same version of reality :wtf:
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.
Its wrong, and Don't try and be funny - I have an honours degree in Medical Microbiology and Genetics so if that's "my presupposition and prejudice" then I paid a lot for it :wtf:
Come over to my Macroevolution thread instead :asskick:
and stop trying to suggest this is a personal attack - I'm attacking your ideas, I'm sure in real life you are a splendid chap :jointsmile:
A path to faith with science
Quote:
No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.
How do they not know what life is? How can they search for life if they don't know what it is? I have life, you have life. Rocks do not have life. I think it's pretty obvious what life is. If they're wrangling over something like plants yeah that can't form by evolution either, not that they've found any outside of our planet.
Quote:
Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.
well, I've defenitley been led on a wild goose chase with this one. First of all, there are very few articles on this, and I first found one blogger on evoilutionspace who qouted another article from sciencedaily which got it's information from institute of physics which got it's information from New journal of physics. There's also one other article from the search for terrestrial intelligence. So there's really very little about this on either side of the debate. It also seems to be very new, from just this past week.
Here's what I've learned about it so far. It's not the plasma itself which is supposed to have life in it, it is inorganic "dust" within the plasma. The dust forms into spiral shaped structures. They use the term helical which really just means spiral, obviously meant to push the reader to think of it more closely resembling dna. But just because something looks "helical" by no means does that make it dna or any time of gene carring information necessary for life.
from the institute of physics article :
Quote:
"However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other."
So what. They are still inorganic molecules. If they form corkscrews and attach together, that's not evolution, that's just chemistry. Elements and chemicals that go through a chemical reaction " self-organize" all the time. An obvious one is when water splits apart into different gases or comes together to form a liquid. They apparently mean to suggest that since these molecules are cahrges while they are in strands that it appears to be a dna like structure because the molecules in our body are charged also. Of course it's much more complicated then that and there are other known inorganic charged molecules found in the natural enviroment for sure.
Quote:
They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure.
This appears to be pure word play. If a stand of "helical" inorganic structures and it divides or splits, it's merely two stands of spiral shaped inorganic molecules!
Quote:
These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma.
One again their terminology appears to be very depective. Evolve simply means change in this istance through a chemical reaction, but they want you to cnnect evolve with evolution. of course the fittest structures in the plasma are left behind, they are the fittest. This is chemistry. Not evolution.
So, could helical clusters formed from interstellar dust be somehow alive? "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve".
These are the properties he says qualify them for "inorganic living matter". Which is interesting because according to what organic means it is life such as plants and matter and carbon compounds of living things but this has no life or genetic information observable and from what the article said it's not carbon based at all. So basiclly he's saying nonliving living matter. By autonomous he can't mean relating to the autonomous nervous system because their is no observable nervous system let alone dna. He must mean that it is in an indepent self governing state, which must be referring to how the structures forming by thier own intrinsic chemistry and physics of the structures themselves.
Hwen he says reproduce obviously they not reproducing by any organic processes so he must be reffering to how the chains split or some other process intrinsic to the nature of the molecule. evolve simply means change and is very vague and meaningless. There are other examples of chemicals that change when they are introdcued into different processes like interacting with another element or molecule.
Quote:
He adds that the plasma conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space.
That's interesting. I know that most of the stars and planets if I remember correctly are supposed to be plasma and this seems to be a generally non-disfuted fact on both sides of the debate but I can see how this could in fact be an argument against evolution. If these structures are so common and the intrinsic structure of the particles may cause them to
somehow form into dna like they seem to be hoping then wouldn't life in outer space be plainly evidence all through the galaxy, let alone the universe? from what they're saying it's not carbon based and so wouldn't depend on the same things as we do for life.
I find this whole thing very outraging because they're obviously not being honest with thier wordings. Basically thier aguement seems to be, it looks to the eye similar to helical structures in dna and so maybe it is dna or will turn into dna which is lucricrous. Just because it looks like it doesn't mean it is or will in any way form into extremely complex dna and rna or some other information bearing system able to reproduce or have a consciousness or central nervous system.
From what I've read elsewhere " this throws a small wrench in the current search-for-ET works, since today??s astrobiologists ??have based all of their searches and instruments on the existence of carbon and??on Mars, for example??on minerals that only could have formed in the presence of water.? Instead, it seems they should be searching for interstellar dust devils."
What do you think of what I wrote, I mean that's what this thread is about. I've answered some of your criticisms, not that I'm not find with discussing those things. You seem to have disagreements and I'd like to talk about that.
A path to faith with science
Delta 9 i'll get to you, first to drink a beer.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.
Odd. The very tactic used by many to "prove" that God exists (it's nopt possible to disprove), is the same tactic we're now being asked not to use because it would be "unrealistic".
Also, If one believes that everything is an illusion, evidence doesn't really matter, as it would be an illusion also. This is what happens when someone has a view of the world and tries to make the evidence fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.
The existence of a god or God does not disprove evolution. You just think it does, or you want it to be so. God could easily have created a system for evolution if it pleased.
And the fact that you disallow pantheism, who's to say that the universe itself isn't supernatural? Why is that not a possibility? A supernatural universe would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted.
Here's what I *can* accept from what you've written, merely as possibilities, are that
I can accept that a god may have created the universe. But, I'm also willing to believe accept that the laws as we see them today need refinement, or are completely wrong (you know, possibly being illusion and all).
I've recently converted to Pastafarianism being crossed with Last-Thursdayism. According to the evidence I've gathered, I am right, and you are wrong. You'll probably try to convince me that I'm looking at the evidence wrong.
Your use of "scripture" was nice too, but we all know that true scripture can only be originally written with (or in) Pasta, and since your "scriptures" were originally written on scrolls. then they must obviously be false.
A path to faith with science
The origin of life is just one in a very long series of questions that used to, out of ignorance, be answered, 'Well, dunno...so it must've been God.' That's what religions do, they embrace ignorance, and ascribe anything they don't understand to God. But just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we won't understand it eventually. And even if there are some questions we *never* answer satisfactorily, that still does not mean the root cause is God. I hope we don't answer every single question -- that'd render the universe a rather boring place.
So, DNA is complicated. Many living things are complicated. So what? Fractal images can be complicated too. String theory is complicated. Dark matter is complicated. Making a really superb chili is complicated. Doesn't mean that God had anything to do with anything, or even exists. It just means that the universe in which we live can be kinda confusing, and we haven't yet figured out how everything works.
Now, if while looking through DNA scientists find some molecules signed 'Designed by God. Copyright (C) 4000 B.C. All Rights Reserved' or something, hey, maybe we should start lending more credence to theory that God did some work. Wake me up if that happens. ;)
