For the alternative theorists:

leopold said:
what you posted (the above link) does not show "recreating life".
consider the following:
you have a functioning, running, V8 engine.
you replace the 8 pistons with domed ones (for more power).
you DID NOT recreate the V8.

i believe science will eventually be able to do this with ALL the parts of the cell, but this not the same as "naturally occuring".
Click to expand...

All our "inventions" are already part of the greater Universal Potential and its functions. You will not find the same exact assemblies in nature everywhere, I'll agree to that. It is the way of Evolution. But then nature has no specific purpose to create anything at all. If something is created in nature it is by fortuitous circumstances and sometimes after billions of (simultaneous) tries and failures. And then, "miracle of miracles"! WATER!

But that V8 you speak of started as a single piston steam engine, very different than a gasoline engine, but already existing for billions of years throughtout the universe. I believe it is called geothermal activity and in the case of generating energy by solar energic process it is called hydrofusion. That is sufficient for the universe. It does not require wheels or is trying to break speed records. Photons already travel at SOL, without an engine at all.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
All our "inventions" are already part of the greater Universal Potential and its functions. You will not find the same exact assemblies in nature anywhere, I'll agree to that. It is the way of Evolution. But then nature has no specific purpose to create anything at all. If something is created in nature it is by fortuitous circumstances and sometimes after billions of (simultaneous) tries and failures. And then, "miracle of miracles"! WATER!
Click to expand...
i don't think water can be considered "organic chemistry".
i also do not believe it takes "billions of tries" before a water molecule is formed from its elements.
 
leopold

i also do not believe it takes "billions of tries" before a water molecule is formed from its elements.
Click to expand...

Ah, a glimmer of understanding that life is just complex chemistry. Just like a hydrogen atom easily combines to form water, the carbon atom(upon which our form of life is based)easily forms complex molecules with many of the chemicals that make up life(CHON with impurities like iron). Energy applied to carbon rich mixtures gives you complex chemicals like amino acids(found in interstellar space, by the way, some the same ones you depend on today in order to continue living), so when the Earth first formed it was likely rich in the precursors of life. No wonder that on a world only 4.5 billion years old, life existed less than a billion years after it formed, and not the simplest forms of life but blue-green algae that had already evolved the ability to photosynthesize. Unfortunately, the earlier lifeforms simpler than that don't leave fossil evidence in the rocks. But they left their chemistry for every other lifeform that has ever existed, it is from this chemistry that DNA developed, the rest is evolution.

Grumpy:cool:
 
leopold said:
i don't think water can be considered "organic chemistry".
Click to expand...
Yes it is! Ask any chemist.
i also do not believe it takes "billions of tries" before a water molecule is formed from its elements.
Click to expand...
There you have it! The assembly of the simple water molecule was one of the first steps in the evolution of life.
 
leopold said:
i don't think water can be considered "organic chemistry".
Click to expand...
Water participates in organic chemistry - to the point where there is some organic chemistry that can only be performed in the absence of water. I really don't know what would make you think otherwise.
 
in reply to Grumpy, re: #963.

What say you regarding the "Electric Eel?" What served as a primary causation for the cellular adaptation to "create" electricity? I'm curious as to your "take" on this.

Or the input of AIP's.



(Thanks!)
 
Trippy said:
Water participates in organic chemistry - to the point where there is some organic chemistry that can only be performed in the absence of water. I really don't know what would make you think otherwise.
Click to expand...
yes, i know.
the hydroxyl radical is common and some reactions must be anhydrous.
on the other hand organic chemistry is basically the chemistry of carbon, with some exceptions.
 
Gerry Nightingale said:
in reply to Grumpy, re: #963.

What say you regarding the "Electric Eel?" What served as a primary causation for the cellular adaptation to "create" electricity? I'm curious as to your "take" on this.
Or the input of AIP's.
Click to expand...

a) Murky water. Eyesight has no use.
b) Water conducts electricity. It is an ideal way to insulate yourself from the environment with an electric shield.

While modern technology would lead us to believe that we have mastered these lofty goals, the disheartening fact remains that Mother Nature has beaten us to it. Within the animal kingdom, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of electric animals, common and obscure, which are just simply shocking!
Click to expand...
http://www.electricshock.org/electric-animals.
 
Grumpy said:
It's exactly opposite of the belief system of religion, as illustrated by leopold's Creationist cites.
Click to expand...
i want you to follow up on "the storehouse of knowledge" cite i gave earlier.
then i want you to explain why creationist scientists are denied tenure.
 
origin said:
Fixed the link.
Click to expand...

Much appreciated...
reading.gif
 
leopold said:
yes, i know.
the hydroxyl radical is common and some reactions must be anhydrous.
on the other hand organic chemistry is basically the chemistry of carbon, with some exceptions.
Click to expand...

No you don't, otherwise you would know that it's not just the hydroxyl radical, but water.
 
leopold said:
i want you to follow up on "the storehouse of knowledge" cite i gave earlier.
then i want you to explain why creationist scientists are denied tenure.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "denied tenure"?
Anyone who accepts the biblical account of the Universe, life etc, are not scientists anyway...at least not scientists adhering to the scientific methodology.

Are you saying as our creationists friends often say, that the scientific establishment is engaged in some huge conspiracy to censor the creationist view?


Doesn't history show that it was the Christian church that can lay complete claim to such censorship claims, with their forced doctrine of geocentralism and who persecuted Galileo for suggesting otherwise, based on his observational evidence.
The claims of the YEC's and other creationalists are about as valid as the fairy tale account of the Universe they wish to bombard humanity with, and take us back to those horrible dark ages, before the light of science revealed the real truths.

In essence they are a blot on mankind and are slowing technological progress and learning.
 
leopold said:
yes, i know.
the hydroxyl radical is common and some reactions must be anhydrous.
on the other hand organic chemistry is basically the chemistry of carbon, with some exceptions.
Click to expand...

In fairness I was mistakingly referring to bio-chemistry more than organic chemistry.

However the very separation of disciplines places a barrier to the concept of evolutionary chemistry. IMO. ALL chemistry is involved in the evolution of matter in the universe including the matter required for life and living things, from the atomic to molecular scale.
I find the following an interesting and profound statement.
Organic chemistry,

Organic reactions are chemical reactions involving organic compounds. Many of these reactions are associated with functional groups. The general theory of these reactions involves careful analysis of such properties as the electron affinity of key atoms, bond strengths and steric hindrance. These factors can determine the relative stability of short-lived reactive intermediates, which usually directly determine the path of the reaction. The basic reaction types are: addition reactions, elimination reactions, substitution reactions, pericyclic reactions, rearrangement reactions and redox reactions. An example of a common reaction is a substitution reaction written as:
Nu− + C-X → C-Nu + X−
where X is some functional group and Nu is a nucleophile.

The number of possible organic reactions is basically infinite. However, certain general patterns are observed that can be used to describe many common or useful reactions. Each reaction has a stepwise reaction mechanism that explains how it happens in sequence—although the detailed description of steps is not always clear from a list of reactants alone.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
and
Bio Chemistry,

Much of biochemistry deals with the structures, functions and interactions of biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and lipids, which provide the structure of cells and perform many of the functions associated with life. The chemistry of the cell also depends on the reactions of smaller molecules and ions. These can be inorganic, for example water and metal ions, or organic, for example the amino acids which are used to synthesize proteins. The mechanisms by which cells harness energy from their environment via chemical reactions are known as metabolism. The findings of biochemistry are applied primarily in medicine, nutrition, and agriculture. In medicine, biochemists investigate the causes and cures of disease . In nutrition, they study how to maintain health and study the effects of nutritional deficiencies. In agriculture, biochemists investigate soil and fertilizers, and try to discover ways to improve crop cultivation, crop storage and pest control.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry

IOW, "Evolutionary processes"
 
Trippy said:
No you don't, otherwise you would know that it's not just the hydroxyl radical, but water.
Click to expand...
the definition of organic chemistry has no doubt been updated to include water.
last i remember, water wasn't considered an "organic molecule".
 
leopold

believe it or not, "biochemistry" was the original definition of organic chemistry.
Click to expand...

Don't get hung up on how the sciences are divided, there is no magical difference in the chemistry itself. Life is complex chemistry, but it didn't start that way(complex, that is). Within a billion years of the late bombardment period there was photosynthetic algaes that left fossil evidence. Here's what they look like today, still growing in shallow water...

images


This is a multi billion year old cross section. Stromatolites like this are up to 3.5 billion years old, they are among the oldest fossils on Earth.

images


You could say that cyanobacteria found their niche early and they filled it so well they survive to today. By weight and numbers most of the life on Earth is closer to the cyanobacteria than they are to us, genetically.

Grumpy:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top