It appears to be blaming all of society's ills on people claiming to act in the name of God, although I could be interpreting it wrong. Anyways, I am here for the science . . .
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
incompletely seperated twinss, usually
Theryman
King
You have probably already answered this, but what about at the very beginning? At the very moment of the Big Bang? All that energy and mass had to come from somewhere. Is it not possible that there could have been a divine spark?
And to continue in that vain, what of the very first cell? Life from life, and all that stuff. I know that Chemevolution can answer how they formed, but how did they become alive? Because you cannot deny the fact that there is a large difference between a mass of organic molecules and a functioning cell.
Sorry- I cannot read three large threads and then 34 more pages.
And to continue in that vain, what of the very first cell? Life from life, and all that stuff. I know that Chemevolution can answer how they formed, but how did they become alive? Because you cannot deny the fact that there is a large difference between a mass of organic molecules and a functioning cell.
Sorry- I cannot read three large threads and then 34 more pages.
Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. As well, this topic has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, but of how creationism is not a valid topic of science.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, Bill, while this is about evolution, I am willing to make short stops through other sciences. What I don't want is to get into is debating the existance of God or the theological implications of science.
From the scientific perspective of mainstream Big Bang theory, the question of "where did all the crap come from" doesn't make too much sense. The Big Bang is the origin of the universe, there was no where or when before the Big Bang because there was no "before the Big Bang".
What's the diffference between the question of "how they formed" versus "how did they become alive"? The seem to be one in the same.
That's fine, I'm not unwilling to go over things again (though usually not with the same person). Please do read the opening post though, it'll give you a good grasp of how this thread functions.
It doesn't have to have come from somewhere. But even if it had - there being a "divine spark" is not an answer to the problem; the possibility of such a thing has nothing to do with whether the energy and mass had to have come from somewhere.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Possible yes, necessary no.
Sounds like you are making a dualistic assumption, I would contend that if you assemble the pieces correctly, you get life.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
According to some, RNA was where it all started. What was special about RNA and DNA is that it can do chemistry, it can snip out parts from other things and add it onto itself. So from there it grew, fast, I think.
MrCynical
Deity
Theryman said:
I can and do deny there is a large difference between a mass of organic molecules and a functioning cell. Take a cell and pull it apart and you'll just find organic molecules (and some which aren't strictly speaking organic, but are definitely molecules); some very complex ones it is true, but there's nothing that special about "Life". A cell is merely a complicated mass of chemical reactions, which happens to have the ability to replicate itself, and through the quirk of evolution, very slowly adapt. By further extrapolation, all lifeforms are merely an immensely complex array of chemical reactions. Granted, the complexity is such than we are nowhere near a full understanding of how it works, let alone the ability to manufacture a macroscopic lifeform in a lab from its component molecules, but that doesn't make "life" anything special, merely a curious and illdefined effect of a specific class of chemical reactions.
The concept that there is some clear distinction between something that is "alive" and something that is "not alive" is bizarre from a chemical perspective. Life is a poorly defined property at best. Is it something which can replicate itself? No, because viruses are generally not classed as alive (though why is uncertain. Personally I think it is because it is simpler to describe a virus than a bacteria in purely chemical terms). So is it something which can replicate without a host cell, as is sometimes claimed as a reason for discounting viruses? No, as there are bacteria which can't do this, and yet are classed as "alive". Given enough time and money (quite possibly more than is available in either a lifetime or the world respectively), I see no reason why we would be unable to synthesise something currently considered "alive" from its component molecules.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
A little off topic, but I've never understood why viruses aren't considered life forms. I think anything that can self-replicate with heritable variation ought to be considered life. I'd even include transposons in that.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
TGhey need a host to survive and replicate. They can't do this by themselves, which is the general definition of life.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
I'm don't think they need a host to survive, just to replicate. I'm not sure that outsourcing one's replication processes to a more complex organism ought necessarily result in disqualification from the life form club. I think the critical element is heritable variation. That characteristics of one generation can be passed with some reliablilty to the next, resulting in an evolutionary lineage, is what truly distinguishes life from other complex chemical reactions.
Sophie 378
Avvie by ybbor
In that case, would Mycobacterium Leprae (leprosy bacteria) be non-living? They are functionally unculturable- the genome has degraded to a state where they require an animal host to propagate. So sayeth today's lectures.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, viruses don't have a functioning metabolism unlike parasites.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Metabolism+heredity does indeed seem to be the current working definition of life.
It may interest someone to take a look at this Lovecraftian introduction to group I introns, another sort of parasitic DNA elements.
It may interest someone to take a look at this Lovecraftian introduction to group I introns, another sort of parasitic DNA elements.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Exactly. It's like 'what is north of the north pole'?
Swedishguy
Deity
No it's not. The question about what happened before Big Bang is a question of origin, your question is about location.Exactly. It's like 'what is north of the north pole'?
I'm getting really tired of these "Exactly. It's like 'some completely different question I use to strenghten my statement'" one liners.
Perfection
The Great Head.
So? The analogy still works. They're both a set of coordinates that don't exist in the framework being discussed. The fact that one deals with time and the other deals with space doesn't matter.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Exactly.. or it's like asking..
How good is the beef in my mom's vegetarian pizza?
How good is the beef in my mom's vegetarian pizza?
Love
Deity
Or like how much snow its in sahara...
- Status
