I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 01:09 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 06:16 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ..but if you put the right chemicals (found in abundance on old earth) in a flask and apply enough energy you get the kinds of organic molecules with the potential to become life. All it takes is one successful little bacteria to get the ball rolling and with millions of years and 300 foot tides it starts to look more inevitable than 'irreducibly complex'

I have long thought that abiogenesis is much more likely to occur in a double planet system like our earth/moon then say a single planet system like Venus precisely because of the tides.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 01:43 AM by Chippy.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 01:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What other natural chemicals processes have ever been observed to apparently only happen once? One off events are not natural. The usual and ordinary course of nature is repetition.

Randomness is a feature of the biological and physical worlds. For example, at the atomic level radioactive decay is a stochastic process as is neuronal firing.

Natural patterns are a blend of regularity and irregularity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:35 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 05:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If primitive life were being created naturally today then it would be attacked and absorbed by the more efficient and more complex life already in existence today. The new life would be eradicated very quickly. How do we know this isn't happening all the time?

Why doesn't the more complex life that exists today attack and eradicate and absorb the more primitive life that exists today to such an extent that we wouldn't be able to observe it?

A better and simpler explanation is that abiogenesis isn't happening today which is why we don't observe it.

You are correct Abiogenesis is not happening today. The situation is not primed for it. There is very little "free" material floating around and there is competition from the microbes that currently exist.

Oh and what primitive life are you referring to? If you mean microbial life that is by no means primitive. With their fast reproduction rate microbes evolve at a much faster pace than larger animals (like horses, dogs, or humans) and are highly successful at their strategy for survival. Remember everything on this planet has had the same amount of evolutionary time (roughly 3.5 billion years) since we all share a common ancestor, some just cycle faster than others.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Why doesn't the more complex life that exists today attack and eradicate and absorb the more primitive life that exists today to such an extent that we wouldn't be able to observe it?

That's what he is saying is happening. But regardless of whether that is in fact occurring no one is arguing that the emergence of a high-fidelity self-replicator (something even simpler than a bacterium) is a routine occurrence. It is improbable that is why you will not see it in your lifetime. But over the course of several thousand years it will likely occur again and if we learn where to look we will find it.

Quote:A better and simpler explanation is that abiogenesis isn't happening today which is why we don't observe it.

No, that introduces more problems than it answers. That nature exhibits a uniformity is an intrinsically simpler idea than one in which there are special exemptions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 06:16 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ..but if you put the right chemicals (found in abundance on old earth) in a flask and apply enough energy you get the kinds of organic molecules with the potential to become life. All it takes is one successful little bacteria to get the ball rolling and with millions of years and 300 foot tides it starts to look more inevitable than 'irreducibly complex'

I have long thought that abiogenesis is much more likely to occur in a double planet system like our earth/moon then say a single planet system like Venus precisely because of the tides.

The rotational stability that having a binary planet system provides is what causes our seasonal and predictable weather. Mars for example has a much less stable rotation (it's poles can and do end up where it's equator should be and vise-versa) This stability in weather patterns most likely did have an impact on the evolution of life but we still do not know if Mars ever had bacterial life (a strong possibility back when it had liquid water and an atmosphere) so to say that Abiogenesis is affected by it may be over stating.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:44 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Oh and what primitive life are you referring to?
Possibly something pre RNA. Something that would be more non life than life but would still blur the lines.

BTW we don't know that Abiogenesis isn't happening today, even if it is only for a brief moment before it is devoured. We don't know all the conditions that it can happen it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Oh and what primitive life are you referring to?
Possibly something pre RNA. Something that would be more non life than life but would still blur the lines.

BTW we don't know that Abiogenesis isn't happening today, even if it is only for a brief moment before it is devoured. We don't know all the conditions that it can happen it.

Well Scientists have had Amino Acids form under Early earth conditions in a lab. Those are the basic building blocks of life but the conditions required are very exact. Lots of free floating material and an abundant energy source. The one exception to this may be those volcanic chimney vents in the Pacific Ocean. They turn on and off at random (based on the shifting Pacific plate) and each is so isolated that it sports a unique ecosystem. Perhaps (and this is just speculation) there is some amount of abiogenesis happening there when they first become active.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 02:16 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are correct Abiogenesis is not happening today. The situation is not primed for it. There is very little "free" material floating around and there is competition from the microbes that currently exist.

The prevalence of oxygen in the atmosphere and ocean is probably a better reason why abiogenesis isn't happening today(assuming it happened at all on this planet).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:41 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have long thought that abiogenesis is much more likely to occur in a double planet system like our earth/moon then say a single planet system like Venus precisely because of the tides.

The rotational stability that having a binary planet system provides is what causes our seasonal and predictable weather. Mars for example has a much less stable rotation (it's poles can and do end up where it's equator should be and vise-versa) This stability in weather patterns most likely did have an impact on the evolution of life but we still do not know if Mars ever had bacterial life (a strong possibility back when it had liquid water and an atmosphere) so to say that Abiogenesis is affected by it may be over stating.

I was referring to huge tides(created by a moon 5000 miles aways as opposed to 250000 miles away today) rolling deep inland creating tremendous amounts of tidal pools. As these pools evaporate in the sunlight they concentrate the chemicals they contain which would increase the chance of a chemical reaction occurring.

Rotational stability is going to have a bigger impact on evolution then it does on abiogenesis....methinks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 02:26 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:35 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Oh and what primitive life are you referring to?
Possibly something pre RNA. Something that would be more non life than life but would still blur the lines.

BTW we don't know that Abiogenesis isn't happening today, even if it is only for a brief moment before it is devoured. We don't know all the conditions that it can happen it.

The diet of a species of microbe isn't that varied. We haven't observed any that feed on self replicating molecules so I think it is safe to say that none exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: