The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[El_Machinae]

But another poster said that these conditions no longer exist on Earth today

I'm saying that the existence of life have reduced the percentage chance of abiogenesis. It's almost the same thing.

Carlos: hmmmn, maybe, but you and I are saying pretty well the same things anyway.

 

[carlosMM]

I'm saying that the existence of life have reduced the percentage chance of abiogenesis. It's almost the same thing.

Carlos: hmmmn, maybe, but you and I are saying pretty well the same things anyway.

Yup, we are - but you said he was wrong, which he was only if you interpret the word 'time' very striclty as 'a segment in time determined by a certain amount of years having passed since then'. I interpreted it as a vague referal to a segemnt of the past, but not a specific period in it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay: so we've got

mutation for optimisation
macro-changes
abiogenesis

Now, can some please prove that a whole huge universe can come from nothing? C'mon!

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Okay: so we've got

mutation for optimisation
macro-changes
abiogenesis

Now, can some please prove that a whole huge universe can come from nothing? C'mon!

The question of 'whether non-life can be organized into life and then reorganized into more advanced forms of life' and 'where did the universe come from' are two totally different things.

There is no way at this time that I know of to scientifically answer the second question.

 

[MrCynical]

Now, can some please prove that a whole huge universe can come from nothing? C'mon!

Neither science or religion has come up with an adequate explanation for that. I have seen no explanation for the big bang which didn't require the pre-existence of something, even if it is only a set of specific rules. If the universe is essentially circular in time so there is no 'before' the big bang, then why are the laws of the universe what they are, and why does it exist at all?

All religions call on a God or Gods to create the universe, but suffer the same fundamental problem of requiring the pre existence of God or Gods. I've seen no satisfactory explanation for the origin of God in any religion, and indeed I haven't even seen an attempt to give a proper explanation.

Given the pre existence of the universe a scientific explanation can be produced for the origin of life, but I doubt that any complete explanation of the origin of the universe will appear in my lifetime, or possibly even the lifetime of the universe. It is a very different problem to that of abiogenisis. All lifeforms can be regarded as being merely immensely complex chemical reactions, and we merely apply an arbitrary cut off point where we consider them complex enough to be 'alive'. It is not even a clear cut line since as it has been seen it is debatable which side of the line viruses fall. I'm fairly sure a virus, or a bacteria if you want something which is defintiely 'alive', could be described purely in terms of chemical reactions if you had enough time, and a complete understanding of chemistry (which we don't have at the moment).

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought we were K'O'ing Creationism here ... ?

Sissies!

 

[carlosMM]

the 'coming into existence as we know and can explore it' of the universe (including time) is a bit hard to explain scientifically - anything 'before' cannot be measured in any direct way. Be patient!

 

[Quasar1011]

The question of 'whether non-life can be organized into life and then reorganized into more advanced forms of life' and 'where did the universe come from' are two totally different things.

Agreed. I was asking about the first.

If we are talking about the conditions under which life could arise from non-life, what are they? The chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere or crust? Extreme heat or pressure? Incoming ultraviolet radiation from the sun?

What was different about the early Earth, that life could arise from non-life?

 

[Perfection]

Agreed. I was asking about the first.

If we are talking about the conditions under which life could arise from non-life, what are they?The chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere or crust?

Reducing atmophere is the big one.

Extreme heat or pressure?

Isolated cases of extreme heat is needed say using lightning

Incoming ultraviolet radiation from the sun?

UV radiation is a mixed blessing. It can both damage chemicals and aid in thier production. I don't know much about the specefics though

What was different about the early Earth, that life could arise from non-life?

The big three that come to mind are reducing atmophere and no life arleady and a warm temperature. (I'd ballpark 0 to 100 degrees C)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Agreed. I was asking about the first.

If we are talking about the conditions under which life could arise from non-life, what are they? The chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere or crust? Extreme heat or pressure? Incoming ultraviolet radiation from the sun?

What was different about the early Earth, that life could arise from non-life?

It's been awhile since I studied this but IIRC the atmosphere had almost no oxygen and the planet was much warmer due to greenhouse gasses. I do recall lightning and volcanic action as being catalysts as well, with UV light as a genetic modifier causing a high rate of mutations.

I'm certain others could answer this question for you more throughly than I could.

 

[Quasar1011]

Reducing atmophere is the big one.

Yes, but that presents some problems. Our current atmosphere is oxidizing, not reducing. In a reducing atmosphere, free oxygen is locked up in carbon dioxide, water vapor, or carbon monoxide. But without an ozone layer, life would be unprotected from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Life wouldn't get started under such conditions. Also, geological evidence suggests that the atmosphere has been oxidizing as far back as can be measured. Besides, wouldn't an oxidizing atmosphere go against the principle of uniformitarianism?

 

[Perfection]

Yes, but that presents some problems. Our current atmosphere is oxidizing, not reducing. In a reducing atmosphere, free oxygen is locked up in carbon dioxide, water vapor, or carbon monoxide. But without an ozone layer, life would be unprotected from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Life wouldn't get started under such conditions.

Not neccesarily. UV is a double edge sword, while it is damaging to DNA and certain compounds. It is also a great way to make complex molecules. There are many theories to suggest that life developed undersea or underground where such deleterious effects wouldn't occir.

Also, geological evidence suggests that the atmosphere has been oxidizing as far back as can be measured.

I've heard otherwise, you wouldn't be able to back up those claims would you

Besides, wouldn't an oxidizing atmosphere go against the principle of uniformitarianism?

Perhaps, but I really don't care.

 

[Quasar1011]

Not neccesarily. UV is a double edge sword, while it is damaging to DNA and certain compounds. It is also a great way to make complex molecules. There are many theories to suggest that life developed undersea or underground where such deleterious effects wouldn't occir.

If life developed undersea or underground, why would the composition of the atmosphere even matter? Besides, the detrimental effects of UV outweigh the beneficial effects. UV has both short-wave and long-wave radiation. Only the short-wave radiation creates amino acids; long-wave radiation is destructive. And short-wave radiation does not penetrate the atmosphere very deeply; long wave radiation reaches the surface, even several meters into the ocean. So the beneficial amino acids would be created in the upper atmosphere. Whatever acids or sugars did reach the ocean, would then have to survive the long-wave radiation. I can see where the conclusion that life did not begin above ground came from.

I've heard otherwise, you wouldn't be able to back up those claims would you.

For one, iron oxide is common in even the oldest rocks. It wouldn't have been deposited in rocks, with a reducing atmosphere.

 

[Perfection]

If life developed undersea or underground, why would the composition of the atmosphere even matter?

The atmophere effects the dessolved gasses in the ocean.

Besides, the detrimental effects of UV outweigh the benficial effects. UV has both short-wave and long-wave radiation. Only the short-wave radiation creates amino acids; long-wave radiation is destructive. And short-wave radiation does not penetrate the atmosphere very deeply; long wave radiation reaches the surface, even several meters into the ocean. So the beneficial amino acids would be created in the upper atmosphere. Whatever acids or sugars did reach the ocean, would then have to survive the long-wave radiation. I can see where the conclusion that life did not begin above ground came from.

Well, if it's deep sea it should work out. I really wish I had a quantitative way of looking at this so we could get a better picture, unfortunately I don't know of any good websites on the matter.

For one, iron oxide is common in even the oldest rocks. It wouldn't have been deposited in rocks, with a reducing atmosphere.

You wouldn't happen to have a good source would you? (and IIRC that would only applie to Iron (III) oxides, I think they can be oxidized by water into the (II) state.

 

[MrCynical]

(and IIRC that would only applie to Iron (III) oxides, I think they can be oxidized by water into the (II) state.

Surely you mean Iron (III) can be reduced to iron (II). I think water is a good enough reducing agent for this to be possible, except at extremes of pH.

 

[sdwillie]

Alright, allow me to rephrase: In every example we have seen, maco evolutionary changes have been detrimental.

Now that that is out of the way, my question remains: Are there any real, good examples of "macro changes" that advanced a species and obviously also did not kill the subject?

Those examples aren't very good. You can find a better one here.

 

[Perfection]

Surely you mean Iron (III) can be reduced to iron (II). I think water is a good enough reducing agent for this to be possible, except at extremes of pH.

No, I mean that water is a good enough oxidizing agent to turn pure iron into Iron (II).

 

[Quasar1011]

The atmosphere affects the dissolved gasses in the ocean.

This is true. But in a reducing atmosphere, O2 molecules too readily combine to form other compounds. But once organic molecules trickle down to the ocean, there are other problems.

Well, if it's deep sea it should work out. I really wish I had a quantitative way of looking at this so we could get a better picture, unfortunately I don't know of any good websites on the matter.

As far as I know, polymerization was required to form the first DNA and RNA molecules. This cannot happen in water, according to Le Chateliers principle. The needed chemical reactions do not take place due to dehydration synthesis. So deep sea, shallow sea, tidal ponds, and thermal vents are ruled out as formative places for the first DNA/RNA strands. We again come back to the problem that these strands must filter through the atmosphere of the early Earth. Any surviving nutrients would also be diluted by the early ocean.

You wouldn't happen to have a good source would you? (and IIRC that would only applie to Iron (III) oxides, I think they can be oxidized by water into the (II) state.

Just my college geology textbook. I'll look to see if I can find the info online.

 

[Perfection]

This is true. But in a reducing atmosphere, O2 molecules too readily combine to form other compounds. But once organic molecules trickle down to the ocean, there are other problems.

What are you refering to, the stuff mentioned below?

As far as I know, polymerization was required to form the first DNA and RNA molecules. This cannot happen in water, according to Le Chateliers principle.

What does chemical equilibria have to do with this system?

The needed chemical reactions do not take place due to dehydration synthesis. So deep sea, shallow sea, tidal ponds, and thermal vents are ruled out as formative places for the first DNA/RNA strands. We again come back to the problem that these strands must filter through the atmosphere of the early Earth. Any surviving nutrients would also be diluted by the early ocean.

Neve mind the fact that RNA and DNA polymerization occurs in our watery bodies...

Just my college geology textbook. I'll look to see if I can find the info online.

Be very careful about what is said, UV radiation was obviously increased, noone disputes that. The real question is was it enough to prevent life, I have not seen that demonstrated.

 

[Sidhe]

Neither science or religion has come up with an adequate explanation for that. I have seen no explanation for the big bang which didn't require the pre-existence of something, even if it is only a set of specific rules. If the universe is essentially circular in time so there is no 'before' the big bang, then why are the laws of the universe what they are, and why does it exist at all?

All religions call on a God or Gods to create the universe, but suffer the same fundamental problem of requiring the pre existence of God or Gods. I've seen no satisfactory explanation for the origin of God in any religion, and indeed I haven't even seen an attempt to give a proper explanation.

Given the pre existence of the universe a scientific explanation can be produced for the origin of life, but I doubt that any complete explanation of the origin of the universe will appear in my lifetime, or possibly even the lifetime of the universe. It is a very different problem to that of abiogenisis. All lifeforms can be regarded as being merely immensely complex chemical reactions, and we merely apply an arbitrary cut off point where we consider them complex enough to be 'alive'. It is not even a clear cut line since as it has been seen it is debatable which side of the line viruses fall. I'm fairly sure a virus, or a bacteria if you want something which is defintiely 'alive', could be described purely in terms of chemical reactions if you had enough time, and a complete understanding of chemistry (which we don't have at the moment).

Qunatum mechanics principles not only make the existence of life more likely they generally make the existence of life elsewhere to be almost inevitable.

What was there before the big bang is a sore point it all depends what you believe, conveniently QM says matter can spontaneously come into existence but it's a stretch to say the universe and all it's mass just appeared out of nowhere for no reason. If that's true then the universe could be destroyed by another universe The quasi particles are one explanation allbeit a contentious one for why the universe has a repulsive accelerating force to it or why the universe is expanding faster and faster or why the hubble constant appears to be increasing but that's by the by.

The Big Bang theory itself: not all physisists think it is the correct model anyway.

M theory explains what caused the universe to exist. But then M theory is an extension of string theory and we all know how much scientific evidence there is for either

In conclusion No one knows what caused the universes creation if indeed there was a cause or rules or whatever. Probably never will for sure but it's here it's queer and it's not gonna go away, it'll eventually be a sea of fundemental particles such as photons which will eventually attenuate into virtually nothing, and then I'd imagine the whole process will happen again