The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:14 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not stating it violates the 2nd Law.

Okay. Yes

(05-07-2016 03:14 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am saying it violates the basic drives of chemistry to lower energy and increase entropy. Reactions that absorb energy and lower entropy do not happen spontaneously without some outside force making them occur.
Therefore abiogensis could not have occurred naturally.

Consider I'm pretty sure there are some wrong things in the above statement but, having not done well in Highschool I'll let others with better knowledge/understanding straighten the point out.

On-wards!

Okay... So abiogenesis did not occur naturally. Yes

How then did abiogenesis happen/occur?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:44 AM)u196533 Wrote:  It is you who does not understand the chemistry. Having energy available does not mean a reaction will occur. If a reaction increases entropy it will. (Heat a gas and see it expand.) But it won't if the entropy is decreased.
Imagine a bomb explosion being reversed. It would never happen spontaneously.

Your statement is ridiculous. You really don't understand chemistry or thermodynamics. Facepalm

The energy absorbed by the atoms and molecules is the increase in entropy.

Sure adding energy can cause an increase in entropy. (Heating a balloon to cause the gas to increase is an example of a process that does that.) However a reaction in which you add energy AND the entropy if lowered will not occur spontaneously. Imagine a bomb working in reverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:02 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I understand the difference between abiogensis and evolution.
It is not that we don't know. It is that life violates the drives of chemistry.

Your understanding of chemistry is about nil.

Quote:If you were to take all of the atoms of any life form, put them in a jar and shake them up for eons, the laws of chemistry dictate that you would never see life.

No, they don't. IF you want to try to support your silly claim, please proceed.

Quote:The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy in their constituents.

You are still ignorant, I see. There is energy coming from outside that system. Facepalm

The "jar" is the entire Earth and the external energy sources include the sun and Earth's internal heat.

Please spend 5 minutes research the Gibbs free energy equation. That should give you the background to understand my argument. Your knowledge of chemistry is lacking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:44 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:22 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your statement is ridiculous. You really don't understand chemistry or thermodynamics. Facepalm

The energy absorbed by the atoms and molecules is the increase in entropy.

Sure adding energy can cause an increase in entropy. (Heating a balloon to cause the gas to increase is an example of a process that does that.) However a reaction in which you add energy AND the entropy if lowered will not occur spontaneously. Imagine a bomb working in reverse.

Many, many, many chemical reactions occur because of energy added to the system. That's Chemistry 101, literally.

We're pretty familiar with how this happened, even though they haven't gotten the path that life took "proved", yet. An excerpt from this 2010 journal article, published on the National Institute of Health's PubMed website:

In general, life is characterized by the fact that the catalytic and genetic polymers exist in a steady state far from equilibrium. It follows that the origin of life can be understood in terms of a process in which the flow of energy through relatively simple systems of molecules produced a more complex set of polymeric molecules that had specific physical and chemical properties. The origin of life occurred when a subset of these molecules was captured in a compartment and could interact with one another to produce the properties we associate with the living state.

Energy flow, and the changes it produces, are described by the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and kinetics. These concepts are familiar to most readers, but it is less obvious how they can be applied to our understanding of the prebiotic environment and the increase in chemical complexity driven by energy flux. We will briefly recapitulate them here in relation to the origin of life.

1. The amount of energy released as a reaction proceeds toward equilibrium and is referred to as free energy, which has components of enthalpy and entropy. Both must be taken into account to understand how systems of molecules can become more complex. On the prebiotic Earth, immense numbers and varieties of chemical reactions were taking place because the Earth itself was in a state of thermodynamic disequilibrium. To understand the origin of life, it is essential to sort out which of the many energy sources were primary factors in driving the increasing complexity from which life emerged.


(Emphasis mine. The article goes on in quite some detail... you really should read it.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828274/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:54 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:19 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  The 'driving force' is the energy that comes from an external source. It is just chemistry.

Just adding energy will not cause a reaction to occur if it also lowers the entropy.

It will with enzymes. You're an ignorant fool, and have no clue about how Biochemistry works.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 04:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:08 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. Not "inexplicably". Not at all. You just don't know anything about how it works.

"Enzymes /ˈɛnzaɪmz/ are macromolecular biological catalysts. Enzymes accelerate, or catalyze, chemical reactions. The molecules at the beginning of the process are called substrates and the enzyme converts these into different molecules, called products. Almost all metabolic processes in the cell need enzymes in order to occur at rates fast enough to sustain life.[1]:8.1 The set of enzymes made in a cell determines which metabolic pathways occur in that cell. The study of enzymes is called enzymology.

Enzymes are known to catalyze more than 5,000 biochemical reaction types.[2] Most enzymes are proteins, although a few are catalytic RNA molecules. Enzymes' specificity comes from their unique three-dimensional structures.

Like all catalysts, enzymes increase the rate of a reaction by lowering its activation energy. Some enzymes can make their conversion of substrate to product occur many millions of times faster. An extreme example is orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase, which allows a reaction that would otherwise take millions of years to occur in milliseconds.[3][4] Chemically, enzymes are like any catalyst and are not consumed in chemical reactions, nor do they alter the equilibrium of a reaction. Enzymes differ from most other catalysts by being much more specific. Enzyme activity can be affected by other molecules: inhibitors are molecules that decrease enzyme activity, and activators are molecules that increase activity. Many drugs and poisons are enzyme inhibitors. An enzyme's activity decreases markedly outside its optimal temperature and pH.

Some enzymes are used commercially, for example, in the synthesis of antibiotics. Some household products use enzymes to speed up chemical reactions: enzymes in biological washing powders break down protein, starch or fat stains on clothes, and enzymes in meat tenderizer break down proteins into smaller molecules, making the meat easier to chew."

You have correctly described how enzymes work. I don't see the direct relevance.

And that's only part of your problem.

The fact is, the energy reactions that drive life
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/...ioener.htm
do release energy, and do exactly the opposite of what this creationist fool is saying.

Compound
(change) Go' of phosphate hydrolysis (kJ/mol)

Phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) - 61.9
Phosphocreatine - 43.1
Pyrophosphate - 33.5
ATP (to ADP) - 30.5
Glucose-6-phosphate - 13.8
Glycerol-3-phosphate - 9.2

"The free energy change (changeG) of a reaction determines its spontaneity. The free energy change (changeG), and its relation to equilibrium constant, are discussed on p. 57-59 of Biochemistry 3rd Edition by Voet & Voet. A reaction is spontaneous if changeG is negative (if the free energy of the products is less than the free energy of the reactants).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:25 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "He talks about getting everything from energy in space"
Exactly. Where did the energy in space come from?

Krauss goes into great detail about that in "A Universe from Nothing" but that wasn't the point. The point was that he examines many types of "nothing" as starting points including already having space and energy. Your claim that his "nothing" is actually an energy field is wrong because that is not the only "nothing" that he deals with.

(05-07-2016 02:30 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.

And you are simply wrong. Nothing about the chemistry of life violates the laws of physics and you have yet to provide a single example where it does.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:10 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  What the video showed was just a change in state of matter. We started with water and ended up with water, no chemical reaction at all. The video was not about chemistry but about physics. You didnt notice the difference? Consider Tongue

In your original post you were referring to heating up a gas as it expands as a "reaction" too. It wasnt and isnt. I just wanted to have this confirmed from you. You seem to confuse chemical reactions with physical changes of state of matter.

Are you suggesting the video was faked? It wasnt. What was demonstrated is a well understood physical effect.

Are you sure? What if we slowly heat up the supercooled water?

You are absolutely correct. My examples were overly simplified, and therefore were not the best examples of chemical reactions. I was trying to explain the basic drives of chemistry and how the drive toward energy and entropy tend to conflict .
The fact that my examples were not ideal does not detract from the undeniable fact that all things tend toward lower energy and increased entropy. Life bucks that inexplicably.

Sorry that i have to insist here, but you didnt seem to notice the difference between a chemical reaction and an entirely physical process, twice. First in your example about heating up gas, and then when i laid out my bait (sorry, again). This was not an oversimplification but applying the wrong scientific category. You didnt provide a "bad example" of a chemical reaction with expanding gas, it wasnt a chemical reaction at all.

I am reminding here that i didnt claim to be an expert in thermodynamics (or chemistry). You did while talking for several pages about chemistry and thermodynamics, chemical reactions, RNA, DNA, abiogenetic chemistry, etc. And when you finally switched to physics (i assumed accidentally, due to a fundamental misunderstanding) i asked/baited you with physics again, and you didnt notice.

Quote:There was a lot of energy/outside influence to set up the experiment before that the camera started rolling
I still dont understand what point you were trying to make here. Please tell, i am (honestly) puzzled.

I also want to add to your statement of "life violates the drives of chemistry" by asking: where do you draw the line between Life and non-life in nature? If you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between animate objects and not animated objects (life being "supernatural", violating the drives of chemistry) then, accordingly you need to have a clear distinction.

Quote:If you were to take all of the atoms of any life form, put them in a jar and shake them up for eons, the laws of chemistry dictate that you would never see life.
Are you aware of the fact that by pulling this argument you are removing -in a single move- all credibility you ever had in this discussion? I cant remember that anyone has ever claimed that abiogenesis happened as you just described/attacked it? You are attacking a straw man.

What is next? Watchmaker analogy?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
05-07-2016, 04:37 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 05:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 04:19 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  You are absolutely correct. My examples were overly simplified, and therefore were not the best examples of chemical reactions. I was trying to explain the basic drives of chemistry and how the drive toward energy and entropy tend to conflict .
The fact that my examples were not ideal does not detract from the undeniable fact that all things tend toward lower energy and increased entropy. Life bucks that inexplicably.

Sorry that i have to insist here, but you didnt seem to notice the difference between a chemical reaction and an entirely physical process, twice. First in your example about heating up gas, and then when i laid out my bait (sorry, again). This was not an oversimplification but applying the wrong scientific category. You didnt provide a "bad example" of a chemical reaction with expanding gas, it wasnt a chemical reaction at all.

I am reminding here that i didnt claim to be an expert in thermodynamics (or chemistry). You did while talking for several pages about chemistry and thermodynamics, chemical reactions, RNA, DNA, abiogenetic chemistry, etc. And when you finally switched to physics (i assumed accidentally, due to a fundamental misunderstanding) i asked/baited you with physics again, and you didnt notice.

Quote:There was a lot of energy/outside influence to set up the experiment before that the camera started rolling
I still dont understand what point you were trying to make here. Please tell, i am (honestly) puzzled.

I also want to add to your statement of "life violates the drives of chemistry" by asking: where do you draw the line between Life and non-life in nature? If you are claiming that there is a fundamental difference between animate objects and not animated objects (life being "supernatural", violating the drives of chemistry) then, accordingly you need to have a clear distinction.

Quote:If you were to take all of the atoms of any life form, put them in a jar and shake them up for eons, the laws of chemistry dictate that you would never see life.
Are you aware of the fact that by pulling this argument you are removing -in a single move- all credibility you ever had in this discussion? I cant remember that anyone has ever claimed that abiogenesis happened as you just described/attacked it? You are attacking a straw man.

What is next? Watchmaker analogy?

That is true. there is no absolute boundary between life and non-life. Viruses are not considered "life" by some.

Putting atoms in a jar and shaking them IN NO WAY replicates the conditions in which life began. That is one of THE most ignorant things anyone has ever said here, and proves he has NO CLUE what he's even talking about.

The only real question, involves how did the Kreb's ("Cirtric acid") cycle evolve, which produces this energy.
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/10/2830.full

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:22 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Sure adding energy can cause an increase in entropy. (Heating a balloon to cause the gas to increase is an example of a process that does that.) However a reaction in which you add energy AND the entropy if lowered will not occur spontaneously. Imagine a bomb working in reverse.

Many, many, many chemical reactions occur because of energy added to the system. That's Chemistry 101, literally.

We're pretty familiar with how this happened, even though they haven't gotten the path that life took "proved", yet. An excerpt from this 2010 journal article, published on the National Institute of Health's PubMed website:

In general, life is characterized by the fact that the catalytic and genetic polymers exist in a steady state far from equilibrium. It follows that the origin of life can be understood in terms of a process in which the flow of energy through relatively simple systems of molecules produced a more complex set of polymeric molecules that had specific physical and chemical properties. The origin of life occurred when a subset of these molecules was captured in a compartment and could interact with one another to produce the properties we associate with the living state.

Energy flow, and the changes it produces, are described by the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and kinetics. These concepts are familiar to most readers, but it is less obvious how they can be applied to our understanding of the prebiotic environment and the increase in chemical complexity driven by energy flux. We will briefly recapitulate them here in relation to the origin of life.

1. The amount of energy released as a reaction proceeds toward equilibrium and is referred to as free energy, which has components of enthalpy and entropy. Both must be taken into account to understand how systems of molecules can become more complex. On the prebiotic Earth, immense numbers and varieties of chemical reactions were taking place because the Earth itself was in a state of thermodynamic disequilibrium. To understand the origin of life, it is essential to sort out which of the many energy sources were primary factors in driving the increasing complexity from which life emerged.


(Emphasis mine. The article goes on in quite some detail... you really should read it.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828274/

I did read it but found nothing really relevant. It was a lundry list of high level wish-washy hand waving. It presented a list of possible kinda sort ways that metabolism could occur in early cells. Then in each category it also said, BUT it probably didn't happen that way for these reasons. The author never made one strong claim about how metabolism in early cells. It wasn't worth reading.

"We're pretty familiar with how this happened"- You are delusional.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: