For the alternative theorists:

[wellwisher]

The bias of traditions places the DNA or genes in the wrong place in the hierarchy of life. This improper placement, creates system wide confusion that makes it harder to solve the problem of forming life in the lab.

The DNA is analogous to the hard drive of a computer. It contains the programs and the data, but it can do nothing without being plugged in and supported by the rest of the cell. The DNA only appears alive, like an active hard drive, because it is plugged in and being supported. In the lab, scientists act as the surrogates for the DNA. By itself, the DNA does not spontaneously build a cell. The DNA is important but it is not number one.

If you look at red blood cells, when mature they lose their DNA, yet red blood cell will continue to be alive for months. The extruded DNA hard drive is dead in the water since it is unplugged and lacks support. It does not try to form a new cell or make copies of itself, like in the replicator mythology. When cells divide, they split the alive cell body, transferring life support to each of the two DNA. When the DNA is being packed and divided during cell cycles, the DNA is off-line, with the cel body still at work.

The DNA by itself is analogous to a virus, in that it needs a host to create the semblance of life. If a virus followed the replicator mythology, it would not even need a cell but would make more virus in the open water. It is can't do that because just because the mythology says so. The red blood cells shows the DNA is not needed for the basic functions of life, but being like a hard drive, the inclusion of the DNA makes more options possible.

The bias of tradition places the DNA as the brain of the cell. The traditions don't emphasize that the mother (cell body) is holding the child (DNA) up, as he rides the bike (life). Instead, the traditions assume the child is doing it all by himself. This illusion leads to the assumption of changes on the DNA being random, not due to mother helping, by participating in the reading/writing to the DNA hard drive.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

(confused)

Bummer.

I thought perhaps you had the ability to Post Honest and Earnest Posts on this Forum...instead of "playing"...

Does this mean that you are not going to answer my questions :

1.) - could you please explain where, at any point during that reproduction cycle, did NON-LIVING material "become" alive???!!!

2.) - how is your example of any use in support of the idea that "LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE"???!!!

I am more than willing to let the past be the past - I pose these questions to you, Honestly and Earnestly.

It is up to you whether or not you choose to answer these queries, Honestly and Earnestly.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Another poster posted something that reminded me of something: It's hilarious when people whine and cry and play the "stop bullying me" card when they are not getting their way, but later, when they think they are strong enough to stand once again, they come back for more!

 

[wellwisher]

Another problem with the current traditions, is these are way too organic-centric, and don't place enough emphasis on the majority molecule within life, which is water. Water, by being the majority and continuous phase of life, in contact with almost everything in the cell, while also hydrogen bonding to itself, places limits of what the organics can do. It also places limits on the types of organics that can evolve, based on energy and entropy considerations.

For example, the lipid bilayer is an artifact of lipids placed in water. The bilayer lowers the surface energy between the water and these organics. Before this formed for life, it was part of natural design due to energy consideration imposed by water.

The DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell, with beta-DNA, which is the version of the DNA double helix most common to life, having the most hydration of all the DNA configurations. This is not coincidence, but rather beta-DNA evolved in response to needs of water. It was not random but formed by design based on energy limits. Anything less hydrated would want to ball up and not make a good template.

Water alone does not answer the question as to how life formed in the first place, but a new POV is needed, since the DNA brain and organic centric theory can't seem to solve the problem no matter how many people and resource are applied with that approach.

With a red blood cell, the DNA is removed, with the cell still remaining alive for months. The DNA is dead in the water and does not act like a replicator. Relative to water, removing the DNA removes the most hydrated large molecule in the cell. Replication of the DNA needs the most hydrated molecule in the cell, but basic life does not need this much hydration.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy and AIP's re: Life.

The "X" factor that contributes to the creation of life? I don't know. As you know, anytime there are different factors added to a given set-of-conditions, the results can

be difficult to predict (in the manner of gravity interactions) I personally believe in the concept of dimensional-energy...a pre-existence of "potential".


This may be one of the factors that contributes toward the development of organic compounds...an "X" factor. (see my post in "junk" ideas)

(also, I'm not an adherent of BB/inflation models...I just don't "get it". I think the whole concept of "Bang" was a rush to judgment in reaction to the findings of

expansion observations. It seems to be a "burning bush" concept to me, almost a frenzy of "faith"..."You must believe this, or all is Lost!")



(Thanks for reading!) P.S. I don't know what is happening with regard to making proper entries on this "field"...everything seems to "jump" for
no reason I can find! I think Google search is not working right for some reason.

 

[Motor Daddy]

It seems to be a "burning bush" concept to me, almost a frenzy of "faith"..."You must believe this, or all is Lost!"

You think Moses was talking to a burning bush of Kush?

 

[Write4U]

In reply to paddoboy and AIP's re: Life.

The "X" factor that contributes to the creation of life? I don't know. As you know, anytime there are different factors added to a given set-of-conditions, the results can be difficult to predict (in the manner of gravity interactions) I personally believe in the concept of dimensional-energy...a pre-existence of "potential".

Perhaps this review of David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" may be of interest,

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order, which is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

 

[paddoboy]

In reply to paddoboy and AIP's re: Life.

The "X" factor that contributes to the creation of life? I don't know. As you know, anytime there are different factors added to a given set-of-conditions, the results can

At least honest...Far different from the other person proclaiming honesty in this thread....but anyway.
Neither does science as yet.....But unless the divine deity was responsible, it's the only logical conclusion one can reach.

(also, I'm not an adherent of BB/inflation models...I just don't "get it". I think the whole concept of "Bang" was a rush to judgment in reaction to the findings of

expansion observations. It seems to be a "burning bush" concept to me, almost a frenzy of "faith"..."You must believe this, or all is Lost!")

The BB wasn't just plucked out of someones arse.
As late as the early fifties, it was in serious competition with two other models...Steady State and Oscillating.
The observed expansion certainly kept it in the forefront, but after the discovery of the CMBR, it bounded ahead while the other two floundered.
BTW, the term BB was a term of derision applied by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of Steady State.

And it's nothing like faith, if one realises what a scientific theory is.....It has been improved on with Inflation.
Other than that big fat deity. have you a better model?
Of course the existent model is limited at this time...Just like Evolution, nether can explain the why and how as yet.
But from t=10-43 seconds, it describes the evolution of space/time/Universe from a hot dense state quite well.

The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and as yet we are still only scraping the surface in our search for knowledge and clues as to its structure.

 

[Motor Daddy]

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

Bohm and the Universe

In reply to Write4you...Bohm's suppositions are heady stuff.

His work seems to border on metaphysics and philosophy, a "blend" of Einstein and J.P. Sartre'...and a dash of mysticism.


My own interpretations of metric "reality" concerns what is normally referred to "radiant" energy (photons/electrons) and the possibility of their potential as "real" things-of-self.

By this I mean that the "potential" of energy to become manifest exists as a real factor, a metric-continuum of quantum reality...in effect, energy is already "here", a potential

that becomes manifest by the actions of matter/mass. So there is then a considerable difference in my concepts vs. Bohm.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

In reply to paddoboy and AIP's re: Life.

Have you read the OP in this thread Gerry?
In essence it's a list of 12 points, any alternative hypothesis pusher should adhere to.
In some cases though, questionable qualities like delusions of grandeur, general anti establishment bias, and tall poppy syndrome, by some, see those few deride and rubbish the scientific methodology and peer review.
Accepting that any incumbent theory has also "run the gauntlet" so to speak, and adhered to those 12 points, it's logically prudent for that incumbent model to be the default position.

Others will tell you here I'm a mainstream cheer leader, and am only capable of following the herd, sheep lile...
That is just sour grapes.
Although a layman, as most here now know, I have read plenty, all reputable stuff of course, and do listen to those with the knowledge and reputation in advancing scientific knowledge.


Here are those 12 points again.....

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:

That in my opinion, is what separates real science and scientists, from the would be's if they could be's.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy re: #645.

Sorry...I just don't agree with current models. (no "singularity"...no "bang") For some odd reason, my mind just refuses to "add up the evidence" that supports the idea of an "ultimate particle".

This would mean I'm not only an atheist...but an apostate with regard to "accepted" modern theoretical physics as well!

(do I have a "creation theory" of my own? Yes. But I don't think anyone would like it, and the rules say not to present it here on this thread)


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

In reply to paddoboy re: #645.

Sorry...I just don't agree with current models. (no "singularity"...no "bang") For some odd reason, my mind just refuses to "add up the evidence" that supports the idea of an "ultimate particle".

Firstly, the Singularity in essence comes about because of the limitation of the model and the maths. In other words it may not really exist.
It isn't even Infinite as some will tell you, although it MAY lead to infinite quantities like density and space/time curvature.
Plus as already mentioned the BB was a term of derision which stuck. It was just an expansion of space and time from a hotter, denser state..

(do I have a "creation theory" of my own? Yes. But I don't think anyone would like it, and the rules say not to present it here on this thread)


(Thanks for reading!)

We do have an Alternative theory forum too.
Present it there.
I'm sure the responsible members here will be honest with their opinions.

 

[Trippy]

Firstly, the Singularity in essence comes about because of the limitation of the model and the maths. In other words it may not really exist.
It isn't even Infinite as some will tell you, although it MAY lead to infinite quantities like density and space/time curvature.
Plus as already mentioned the BB was a term of derision which stuck. It was just an expansion of space and time from a hotter, denser state..

Having siad that - the density inside the event horizon of the SMBH at the center of the galaxy is what, somewhere around that of polystyrene?

 

[leopold]

That in my opinion, is what separates real science and scientists, from the would be's if they could be's.

scientists do not need any kind of "alternative hypothesis" to question the status quo.
all they need is a "quest for the truth", whatever that truth may be.

 

[leopold]

Having siad that - the density inside the event horizon of the SMBH at the center of the galaxy is what, somewhere around that of polystyrene?

you need a license to fish.

 

[paddoboy]

scientists do not need any kind of "alternative hypothesis" to question the status quo.
all they need is a "quest for the truth", whatever that truth may be.

Sure! I'm not knocking alternative hypothesis, nor any individual that speculates them.
If though they want to progress to scientific theory stage, then the 12 points are a must.

 

[Write4U]

In reply to Write4you...Bohm's suppositions are heady stuff.

His work seems to border on metaphysics and philosophy, a "blend" of Einstein and J.P. Sartre'...and a dash of mysticism.

My own interpretations of metric "reality" concerns what is normally referred to "radiant" energy (photons/electrons) and the possibility of their potential as "real" things-of-self.

By this I mean that the "potential" of energy to become manifest exists as a real factor, a metric-continuum of quantum reality...in effect, energy is already "here", a potential that becomes manifest by the actions of matter/mass. So there is then a considerable difference in my concepts vs. Bohm.

Thanks for responding. Please note that I am also an atheist.

Yes, I am aware of the metaphysical leanings of Bohm's philosophy, but I recall seeing that Einstein was very interested in his work and they spend a good deal of time in discussions. If Einstein could deal with Bohm's mysticism while delving into the physics and meta-physics of his proposition, who am I to question the merits of Bohm's propositions.

Allow me to ask one more question, before I leave this to more knowledgeable minds.

As layman, I wondered if the condition which Keepin calls "insight intelligenge" in this case does not necessarily mean a "sentience", but might be viewed as the planes (m-theory?) where "strings" reside. If so, is it possible that "strings" could be "units of potential" and the types of strings are types of potentials. Keepin does identify Bohm's postulate of an infinite "zero point energy" as already existing, i.e. as you mentioned "energy already here" ?

Intuitively I just feel that some of the answers may lie in the abstract concept of Potential as "that (latency) which may become reality". IMHO this is profound philosophical concept. Perhaps similar to the concept of "Life" emerging from non-living structures?

Ok, lest I get banned, i'll leave it at that. This is so fascinating.........!

 

[wellwisher]

Life evolved from the molecular potentials that exist between water and organics.

If we mix water and oil, by adding energy via agitation, we will get a high entropy emulsion. Once we stop the agitation, this state of high entropy emulsion will not last, since the water and the oil will want to move in the direction of lowering entropy until only two layers are left. This movement minimizes surface tension, which is a form of energy. This lowering of surface tension will occur in a direction opposite the second law. The emulsion is more random than two layers, yet water and oil will move in the direction of less randomness. Below is a you-tube video if you never saw entropy reverse in water-oil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4lvHM1ZJVIo

In chemistry, this phenomena is based on free energy, which is a combination of enthalpy and entropy. With water and oil, the enthalpy will dominate. This is useful to life, since changes in enthalpy can be used to enhance order or help move random back into order, like with an emulsion.


Another feature of liquid water and organics, critical to life, is a fifth force of nature, based on entropy. I will call this fifth force the entropic force. This force can be demonstrated in the lab with osmosis. As shown below, when water is separated by a semi-permeable membrane, water will migrate through the membrane in the direction of higher entropy. This migration to higher entropy, will generate the osmotic pressure, with pressure equal to force/area. This force, due only to entropy, is the entropic force.

Osmosis is a colligative property of water in that the osmotic pressure, is only dependent on the solute concentration but is not dependent on which particular materials are on the other side of the membrane. It is not connected specific ions or molecules or their specific EM forces, rather it is connected to the number of total units dissolved in the water, regardless of what they are. It is pure entropy based force.

If you look at a cell, its organelles and enzymes are analogous to beads of oil in water, phase separating into lower entropy; exact folds. The cell is also full of membranes that are semi-permeable (other things need transport enzymes), with water able to move in response to entropy and entropic forces.

There is one other feature of life that is connected to water. Water is a liquid, with liquid state physics different from solid state or gas state physics. Most of physics is actually based on gas or solid state analogies. Life uses liquid state physics, which has it own unique properties.

In the figure below, at steady state, water molecules will move freely back and forth across the membrane, even though there is a pressure force pushing down on the left and a tension force pulling up on the right. In the liquid state, the macro-effect (force) can act independently of the micro-effect (water diffusion). The water molecules sort of ignore the macro-pressure vectors. Solids can't do this, since macro and micro are connected via solid state bonding. The atoms are not allowed to move freely between each other like in liquids. Liquid state physics allows the entropic force.

 

[Write4U]

Life evolved from the molecular potentials that exist between water and organics.

Can we say that these potentials exist as latencies (implicate) until they are expressed (explicated) in reality when conditions "demand" this latency to become expressed. iow, we do not have to mix water and oil for these potentials to exist as independent relative properties between water and oil?

If such relative properties (potentials) exist indepently between everything in the universe, does it not follow that the universe is "filled" with latent potentials in addition to the expressed properties?