|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
eadon-com:
good evening sinners
FishOn:
is their any evidence that the model for life
is actually inorganic
catdoc:
There is some evidence that the fundamental
building block is the liposome, a non-living
bag of fatty acids, more or less.
eadon-com:
That is cool catdoc. Liposomes have hydro philic
outsides and hydrophobic insides forming a cell
wall?
catdoc:
Yeah, is true eadon Micelles are phospholipids
are one-layered balls of phospholipids. Been
a while since I read the paper (in Scientific
American, probably). Vague on details.
eadon-com:
I read a new theory that aerosols in the atmosphere
might have supported the first cell like structures
similar to what you describe catdoc, very interesting
catdoc:
Well, the idea I guess is that phospholipids
form liposomes spontaneously in aqueous solutions.
Also lipid bilayers. But once you have a "cell"
with discriminatory properties, then certain
things become possible. And, they tend to "seed"
the conditions for their own replication.
eadon-com:
how does that seeding happen catdoc?
catdoc:
No idea. Have totally forgotten all but the
vaguest sketch.
eadon-com:
Ah I see catdoc! The cell gets to big and bursts
into smaller cells?
catdoc:
But really, I'm doing violence to an idea, to
present it so haphazardly. But I could hazard
a guess, that liposomes break apart to form
other liposomes, so that once you have one,
it tends to grow and then break up into smaller
clones.
FishOn:
my question is this...given the inorganic compounds
that exist naturally on the earth at its creation
(and maybe inorganic isn't the right word)...and
given the conditions that existed on earth...was
he formation of life inevitable [FishOn's wrestling
with the term inorganic is likely to be due
to English is not his first language. He is
Scandinavian]
FishOn:
creation=formation (I'm not suggesting " divine
" creation)
eadon-com:
By inorganic do you mean non-living/non-biological
molecules?
FishOn:
yes, thank you
eadon-com:
Ah! ok now I understand
eadon-com:
FishOn - 2 points first...
JGR:
That is a fine question FishOn and some seem
to think that the answer is yes. Some theistic
evolutionists take that stance also.
FishOn:
okay JGR...I have a follow-up after eadon's
2 points
eadon-com:
Comets are loaded with organic (but non-living)
molecules that are useful for making more complex
organic molecules. Comets might be a good source
of raw material for life
FishOn:
okay...drop my use of inorganic..its probably
not important
eadon-com:
And 2nd point is that we do know that as soon
as the world had cooled down enough to support
life, life came about, about 3.8 billion years
ago (I think). So we know that it didn't take
life long to appear
eadon-com:
I hand over to JGR here :)
JGR:
Hell no eadon, I'll stay out of this one..lol
eadon-com:
no, please JGR, I insist!
JGR:
I think the estimate is 4.5 billion years even
eadon...
eadon-com:
Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact date, I just
know that it was soon after earth cooled enough
for life not to fry
BishopHavoc:
is it soup yet?
FishOn:
let me re-phrase my first question.... given
the non-living material that existed at the
time of earths formation (plus any extraterrestrial
material that was added later by comets, cosmic
dust, meteors, etc.) and given the conditions
on earth at that time..was the formation of
life inevitable?
JGR:
Right, life came quickly and at the perfect
time. Gould wrote a good article on that.
JGR:
I'm not sure you can have a definitive answer
to that FishOn.
FishOn:
okay JGR, that's fair...but lets assume that
given those materials under those conditions
that life was inevitable....I have a follow-up
question
eadon-com:
Another angle for FishOn to consider is the
first molecule that life used
FishOn:
well, let me tell you what my angle is before
we decide what considerations are useful :)
eadon-com:
The starting non-living molecules available
on the earth good for information molecules
for life were the amino acids, simple proteins
if you will
FishOn:
which formed peptides etc.
eadon-com:
Out of these amino acids a molecule called RNA
can be built
FishOn:
okay okay...hold on. Here's my /real/ question
JGR:
Right, most scientists would agree that RNA
is the precursor.
eadon-com:
The RNA would have performed functions that
DNA does today, but also done tasks that proteins
in cells do today at the same time. DNA probably
came later according to this model
FishOn:
if life was inevitable (give those conditions)
(a point to which we have not agreed)....then,
is it possible that all possible "structures"
and "life forms" also existed as /potentialities/
within those materials?
TyroWarlock:
the structures don't exist in there.. they adapt
to their surroundings and form from there but,
sure.. with the certain specific chemicals,
and life form could have been made given the
right environment and conditions
JGR:
brb [be right back]
eadon-com:
FishOn many organic molecules that are non-living
have a propensity to create new copies of them
selves. this replication might mean that life
is more likely to spontaneously appear than
might be thought. Also, an interesting computer
simulation casts light on the issue. A computer
is basically a machine that follows instructions,
collections of instructions being programs.
The instructions were allowed to run and mutate.
But the instructions were random. Interestingly
"life" spontaneously appeared in the computer.
This means that groups of instructions appeared
(without any programming or intervention by
the programmer) that reproduced themselves.
This is good evidence that life can appear spontaneously
from non-life
FishOn:
here is the issue -- since I'm have difficulty
working up to it. If all possible structures
and life forms are pre-existing as potentialities
in the original materials...might they show
them selves (not by random mutation) but in
direct response to environmental conditions
eadon-com:
Ok to answer your latest question, FishOn (or
try feebly)... What we are dealing with is an
effectively infinite set of possible life forms.
Only a subset will be any good...
FishOn:
I agree with that eadon...I'm asking about the
forces which bring those life forms (or structures
of a life form) to be displayed by the organism
eadon-com:
So DNA has the potential to create any number
of life formed, theoretically, but in reality
evolutionary pressures and earths environment
rewards only mutations that are compatible with
those conditions
FishOn:
is it only random mutation and selection of
best structures....OR is it possible that some
structures manifest in direct response to environmental
conditions. e.g., webbed feet display (not solely
by random) but in /direct response/ because
the underlying potentiality is stimulated by
the environment
Madpole:
mutate yourself eadon and leave everybody else
alone with your fancy and sinful theories MADPOLE
tells You
JGR:
FishOn, you just can't ditch mutation. The best
test of mutation is what's happening in modern
bacteria. You have new and modern human created
medicines that can't be found in nature in their
current form but yet still bacteria fights them
off by mutation and selection. So, the test
is laid out, the information is "new"
eadon-com:
yes, interesting question again FishOn!
BishopHavoc:
I can and do ditch mutations. Many times. With
impunity
FishOn:
I wasn't ditching mutation....I include it..possibly
even as primary...but I'm saying that there
may be the capacity of living creatures to respond
directly to environmental stimuli and not have
to wait for /random/ mutation. Kind of a "responsive"
mutation
eadon-com:
There might not be an intelligent mechanism
that adapts deliberately to an environment.
I haven't heard of any such mechanism that is
generally accepted, but I am no huge expert
JGR:
Now you face another problem though FishOn,
what about all the billions of bacteria every
day that "don't" and can't evolve to fight off
the medicines? If they have the "built in info"
then what is wrong?
eadon-com:
There is something called Lamarckian theory
that says that a creature can adapt to its environment
directly. but this idea has been discredited
for the most part
FishOn:
well, I wouldn't say "intelligent" but I would
say that creatures may have the capacity to
develop any number of structures (which lie
as potential) in direct response to certain
conditions
BishopHavoc:
btw ,did I mention that I am really just a ROBObot
,designed by a mad christian scientist fanatic
fundamentalist christian dude?
Madpole:
we all suspected that for a long time BishopHavoc
- but if You really were a robot You would never
admit it - so we were wrong after all! ;-)
FishOn:
I'm familiar (somewhat) with the Lamarckian
idea...is what I'm saying the same thing?
eadon-com:
maybe related
JGR:
FishOn, look up at my last tell.....
eadon-com:
Indeed JGR is correct I think.
FishOn:
I see that....but random mutation doesn't handle
that either JGR. Many species fail to evolve
or adapt..but the problem does not seem to be
with the "capacity" to adapt or evolve.. but
only with the speed with which the adaptation
occurs
eadon-com:
Don't underestimate the power of random mutations
coupled with sexual gene mixing FishOn. Computer
simulations show that this mechanism can be
used to great effect, it is even used by engineers
to design efficient jet engines and other difficult
problems
FishOn:
eadon...again I'm not discounting random mutation...on
the contrary I accept it....but I'm curious
about other possible "forces" at work
JGR:
FishOn, 99.9% of life that has existed on earth
is extinct. More losers than winners.
eadon-com:
What you do in the computer simulation is you
generate random instructions and you see how
good they are at solving a problem. Then you
breed the best solutions and add a few mutations
here and there and repeat the process. After
several generations you end up with software
that is good at solving the problem (often).
This software hasn't been TOLD how to solve
the problem, sex and mutation were enough!
FishOn:
well, I think we have to explore the possibility
that not all change/evolution/adaptation is
a result of pure random mutation and genetic
mixing thru sexual reproduction
eadon-com:
Sure, FishOn, but maybe you also have to consider
that your "possibility" is a solution looking
for a problem
JGR:
I think it is a good idea FishOn but like I
said, it faces two problems...1. The quadrillions
of life-forms that never evolved to survive
even though they have "capacity" and 2. medicine
assaults (*not found in nature*) that work.
FishOn:
and JGR I think that both of your "problems"
raised are addressed by the consideration of
the /time/ it takes to evolve either by mutation,
sexual reproduction, and this hypothesized "directed"
mutation. If I used your argument of species
failing to adapt to survive as some kind of
proof...I would have to reject random mutation
as well
JGR:
I mean, let's say that we both get sick with
the same virus. We both take the same medicine.
You die because of *one" mutation that breeds
stronger. I get better. Consider that billions
of bacteria were in each of our bodies. Heavy
numbers to work around to prove "direction".
Madpole:
genes that, poly this, graphy that - boy - is
this linguistic channel - or just channel full
of linguistic egos ? "Consider the bacteria"
Isolani - that is very useful, spiritual statement
that is
Isolani:
Bacteria, they're cute.
Madpole:
it is practically Zen Koan - so we are in religious
channel after all - I love bacteria. It produces
alcohol after all! ;-)
Isolani:
Anyone here read "God's Equation" by Amir D.
Aczel?
eadon-com:
What does FishOn think about life and it's creation
and evolution?
FishOn:
what do you mean eadon?
eadon-com:
no what's it about Isolani?
JGR:
I also don't understand what time means in the
way that you use it. A bacteria, if it had the
"gene" and the "will" to mutate it's daughter
stock ...well, it wouldn't wait till 10 generations
down the line because it can't! right? It would
be dead
Isolani:
Our understanding of the most fundamental truths
governing our universe is shirting. Soon, writes
Amir Aczel, "we may begin to understand the
ultimate laws of nature and formulate our Estimation
of God's equation."
eadon-com:
Well, do you find the spontaneous appearance
of life from non-life plausible without the
hand of an intelligent "creator"?
FishOn:
well eadon..that begs the question of how the
non-life got there. I'd like to not address
this question for now...it is a rat hole and
not relevant
eadon-com:
Ah yes, is this about the physics holy grail,
the theory of everything Isolani?
Isolani:
I think so eadon. When the final equation is
constructed, we should be able to use it to
solve the riddle of creation. Perhaps that's
why God sent us here in the first place." Hoaky
sentiment. I hope it's a good book.
eadon-com:
I don't understand that a god would send us
here to solve his riddle for him :) hoaky indeed
:)
Isolani:
Pop science, it was on the "New Arrivals" shelf
at the library :)
eadon-com:
FishOn it just so happens that for life to exist
there must be an extraordinary number of conditions.
If you change any of the laws of physics and
constants of nature even by a miniscule amount
then life, for one reason or another, would
be impossible. Of course, if life (as we know
it) is impossible we wouldn't be here :) interesting
philosophy involved here ;)
FishOn:
I completely agree eadon 100%
eadon-com:
Some christians use this argument I have stated
above to claim that this unlikelyness, this
fine-tuning of the laws of physics to allow
life, is evidence for a god. I don't agree.
FishOn:
my point is about /random/ mutation vs. /directed/
mutation...by directed I mean in response to
the environment
eadon-com:
Oh yeah, see my tells about the power of random
mutations demonstrated by computer simulations
FishOn, above
FishOn:
I saw that eadon...and that does support the
purely random theory. I agree...I'm simply exploring
adjunctive (no alternative) possibilities
Isolani:
On eadon's site today I read a mind-blower that
came from physics, quantum that is, about how
without an observer nothing would exist.
Isolani:
One word of wisdom from John Prine is all you
really need know. "Leave the lights on till
your baby gets home." Nine words.
FishOn:
eadon... let me give you an example of how the
environment can direct differences in a life-form.
Enzymes are critical to maintain bio-function
at many levels...however, enzymes can change
dramatically based on environmental factors
such as atmospheric pressure, sunlight, etc.
Might it be possible, that the inner-workings
of a creature may have the capacity to produce
new structures (based on enzymic action, etc.)
in response to such stimuli ...on a broader
basis. Taking the enzyme example to an extreme...is
it possible that the molecules in a creature's
feet my respond to constant exposure to water
to become "webbed" ?
eadon-com:
if that happens FishOn, then it is by pure chance,
a serendipity. If enzymes happened to be useful
for a different function than they originally
evolved for then this is not deliberate. But
this sort of thing is common in evolution. Genes
that evolved for one function often end up do
different functions in different organisms [that
evolved later]
JGR:
Let's say an old disease that we once had an
immunity for in the ancient past comes back....the
information may still be there but not used.....the
environment, in a way, could force a mutation.
Your point, FishOn, is valid in certain cases
maybe.
FishOn:
not sure about that eadon...what is your evidence
that it is serendipitous?
eadon-com:
If the serendipity is useful then this serendipity
may well get passed on to future generations,
a mechanism of evolution
eadon-com:
Well I have no evidence I can present right
now, but there is no evidence for directed evolution,
that I know of. And there is no need for directed
evolution either.
FishOn:
serendipity sounds too close to "random" for
my point though :)
eadon-com:
undirected evolution is enough to explain what
we see, I believe. We could apply Occams razor
and say that we need not invoke a complex model
when a simpler one serves our purpose
FishOn:
but maybe I'm not as confident as you in that
computer model. GIGO
eadon-com:
FishOn read up on computer GENETIC ALGORITHMS.
There are many layman articles on the subject
which are fascinating
FishOn:
true eadon...but as an intellectual exercise...its
worth exploring
dlh:
in the paper today was a pic of a genetically
engineered monkey!! Charles Darwin would have
been proud!
 Please add your comment to this page | | | | | | From: |
Warrior Princess | Subject: | 2001-04-21 12:47:22 |
| | | | | | From: |
XxDoubleHelixX | Subject: | 2002-07-02 15:17:28 |
| | | | | | From: |
BC Baptist | Subject: | 2004-11-10 20:55:43 |
| | | | | | From: |
tallguy78578 | Subject: | 2005-03-06 01:10:18 |
| | | | | | From: |
Thart | Subject: | 2005-06-19 09:58:48 |
| | | | | | From: |
Nybsaka | Subject: | 2005-12-07 19:16:47 |
| | | | | | From: |
Mike | Subject: | 2006-10-24 00:42:05 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 8136
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
