Even some scientists give lip service to fairy tales.

@Ionus,

Quote:

This suggests a purpose.

I prefer to say that this represents an economical and convenient way for compounds to interact. If you look at all features of life and non life, the basic structure is the tetrahedron, from which all other lattices are derived. In no fashion does a living cell, when dried out to its crystal state, violate the symmetry of the base cell ( a tetrahedron). REacting several compounds that you failed to mention (namely sulphur and phosphorus) we have most all of the needed chemicals for combination, replication, and respiration, all without violating a base cell structure.

You want to make it sound like a "plan", It can also be looked at as the most convenient way for thee compounds to "talk".

Every experiment so far, thats been attempting to replicate life seems to be following the same pathway, structurally and chemically.

Its as if, were there a God, he could say nothing other than "let there be light".

1 Reply

@Ionus,

This is not fairy tale stuff, this suggests a force pushing towards more and more complex things. This suggests a purpose. Some of our greatest minds in biology and chemistry are working on these very problems, and I wish they would pull their finger out because it is very puzzling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ionus humans had a build in need to see a design and a pattern behind things that is how our minds happen to works.

Look at a random number table and you will begin to see a patterns even those you know damn well that there is no patterns.

We also had been explaining phenomenas such as lighting bolts that we did not understood by bringing in gods for most of the history of the human race.

Every time our knowledge had expanded however to date, we had found that we no longer had a need to look towards the gods in that area of knowledge.

We surely do not understand at this moment in time the details of the start of life on this planet but if history is any guide at all. as our understanding of the processes increase no need for a guiding magical force will be found to had been needed.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

May I infer you dont think life has a purpose ?

Quote:

"let there be light".

During the Big Bang there was an great deal of light. It was when the universe was created. We will never now beyond the point of a short distance into the event what happened to create a singularity.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

(I said) this suggests a force pushing towards more and more complex things

Quote:

(you said) no need for a guiding magical force

You need to read a bit more William. Science is aware of increasing compexity and has not yet got a handle on it. Stop chanting your mantra and think. What kind of force pushes things into increasing complexity ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You need to read a bit more William. Science is aware of increasing compexity and has not yet got a handle on it. Stop chanting your mantra and think. What kind of force pushes things into increasing complexity ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell are you talking about as long as you had energy coming in from the sun there is zero reason why things should not become more complex over time on earth in fact that is the normal direction of things.

The only reason I can think for you finding this is remarkable is that you are under the impression that the second law of thermodynamics is some kind of barrier to things becoming more complex and therefore you need a magic wand. Sorry as long as you are not talking about a close energy system the law does not apply and thank to the sun the earth is not a close energy system.

No magic is needed here at all.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

"let there be light".
Quote:

Youve twisted my point. Since chemicals when in contact, under specific redox and pH conditions, can do no other thing than complexify ina defined order. With each reaction, the successive reactions are more and more limited and not , as you want to impress, more and more random. MY POINT WAS that "let there be light" was all that a god could say.

Quote:

May I infer you dont think life has a purpose

If you mean an "extrinsic Plan" , or a reason for existence other than existence itself, no, I dont . The only organism that bothers itself with whether it even needs a purpose is H. s.s. (us)

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

We will never now beyond the point of a short distance into the event what happened to create a singularity.

. An attempt a generating an impressive sounding phrase to establish a point of argument. "Never say never says I." (B. Gunn)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

. An attempt a generating an impressive sounding phrase to establish a point of argument.

Rephrase it then...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The only organism that bothers itself with whether it even needs a purpose is H. s.s. (us)

Are you using magic or belief ? How do you know this ?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You need to publish. This is not my original thoughts here, but what some of our greatest scientists have expressed. The entire universe is heading towards greater complexity. Where is the energy input then ?

No guessing is needed here.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

evidence. Most organisms save a few, dont even recognize their own reflections in a mirror. I think youre grabbing at shorties here.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

entire universe is heading towards greater complexity. Where is the energy input then ?

No guessing is needed here.

My guess is that you are short on evidence and long on opinion.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

IONUS, what do you mean by greater complexity? LIFE?, thats just not so. The increase in a genome for a series of related species is merely an example of single entry "bookkeeping" not an increase in complexity. "fossil" genes are retained on a genome thats how we can read common ancetsry for all species whose genomes we take time to unravel and read.

If our genomes could be used to make an argument ofr an "intelligence" we quickly see that this intelligence was really a hamhanded being whose attempts were mostly dead end trials and we further see entire species that outlived their niche-times.So was this intelligence goofing around with the worlds environment for kicks?

A chicken retains many genes in common with lizards and fish, but chickens dont contain any mammal genes, but mammals retain some chicken genes. The no2 human chromosome is clearly a fused Chimp 1 and 1A chromosomes. Weve actually "simplified "the chimp genome a bit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You are guessing. Where is the evidence ? Do you believe in magic ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Greater complexity is when you start of with hydrogen ...or even before that with plasma and you end up with everything we have in the universe.

Yes, I am aware we have about 60% common DNA with an oak tree. You asked the question :

Quote:

IONUS, what do you mean by greater complexity?

Wouldnt it have been more prudent to wait for the answer ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Then your guess is wrong. Take a look at what some physicists have written.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

evidence.

Show me the evidence of what animals think. Show me scientifically established fact not your guess based on the assumptions of others.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

This gets so tedious--your English really sucks. Here, let me show you:

BillRM wrote:

Well my friends [i am not your friend, let alone your "friends," but allow me to assure you that there is only one of me] whether one cult leader existed out of hundreds of similar cult leaders two thousands plus years ago is beyond knowing however [that was pretty opaque, and one would write "two thousand," not "two thousands"--leaving aside the mystery of why you think you are entitled to allege that there were hundreds of similar cult leaders] this cult leader existed [you wanted to use the word, "whether," that is, if you expect to be understood in the English language] or non-existed ["non-existed?" do you think that is reasonable English usage? It would have simpler, and more elegant to have just written "whether this cult leader existed or not"] happen ["happens"--youf verb needs to agree with its subject with regard to number, i.e., singular verb forms with singular subjects, and plural verb forms with plural subjects] to be tie ["tied," you wanted the word tied--from your writing it appears that you are completely unfamiliar with the past participle] up with all kind of supernatural nonsense that had been ["has been," not had been--there is no call for the anterior past in this sentence] echoing for two thousands years.

You chronically screw up verbs in that they don't agree in number with the subject--you use singular verb forms with plural subjects, and plural verb forms with singular subjects. You chronically use plural nouns where they aren't needed, and fail to use them where they are. You seem to be completely oblivious to the existence of the past participle. You mix conjugations of verbs chronically as though that didn't matter, and as though there were no logic to the conjugation of verbs.

You may claim that this doesn't matter. You'd be wrong. It makes you look like an ignoramus (before you start whining, i didn't say you are--although i have my doubts--only that you make yourself look like one), and it means that people won't want to spend any time reading drivel which it is painful to read. It also means they won't take you seriously, so that even if you have something worth while to write, it is likely to get ignored because your writing sucks so badly.

I am confident that none of this will sink in with you, and that you are too far gone to ever mend your ways, and learn how to sensibly write in the English language.

1 Reply

I ought to have written "it would have been simpler . . . " You see, everyone makes mistakes. The difference between what you write, however, and simply making mistakes, is that you so consistently butcher the language that there is good reason to assume that you haven't simply made a mistake, but that you are incapable of lucidly expressing yourself in English.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Physicists work physics, not biology. EWveryone is entitled to an opinion based upon his or her worldview. Your increase in complexity argument is precious, especially since its not the case.

1The formation of the heavy elements occured , as far as we know, once, so the metallogenesis , as a form of complexity is successfully debunked.

2The planet earth, for example, is nicely in a state of natural senescence. The systems established by the "dynamo" (such as seasfloor spreading, tectonics etc) are not in a state of increase in intensity nor complexity.

3Life, in its occurence, evolution, and develompment is certainly not keeping up with your "increase in complexity".You are viewing this from an anthropocentric POV and , like the neo-Darwinian creed, you seem to feel this "inexhorable pull to complexity" Life is tracking on a rather prosaic system as defined by living genomes. AS Miller says, "Evolution is taking what you have and doing something entirely different with it". IN that regard, there are as many organisms that have trended to the simple as a way pof life. The amount of commensal and parasitic life forms are about the same as ever on the planet. And, the top organism (applying your anthro observations) is mankind. Surely , by its bauplan, I wouldnt call humans any more (or less) complex than dinosaurs from the Jurassic or Cretaceous. Forms so varied and unusaul have certainly marked the various "Ages of Reptiles" or "Ages of Megafauna". Its really not an increase in complexity. Its an adaptation of ever changing environments.
As far as the planet an the Universe, Im astill wondering whether you arent confusing "complexity" for just the opposite, entropy.

1 Reply

Even some scientists give lip service to fairy tales.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know