Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

I asked this question in another thread once upon a time, but the person I asked it of adroitly dodged. Seemed simple to me:

I remember seeing this question from you before. And I remember answering it. Several times. And in excruciating detail.

Unfortunately these threads get very long due to someone asking the same questions over and over again and not reading the answer, so that previous exchange may be difficult to locate.

But the short answer is incuded [again] below...

real life wrote:

When you study sedimentary rock layer 'x' and you notice that there are no fossils of organism 'b' in this layer. Does that mean that organism 'b' did not exist at the time this layer of sedimentary rock was formed?

No.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

farmerman,

How would you rate the chance of life being found elsewhere within our own solar system?

What do think would be likely candidates....? Europa, Titan, Io...?

To fully answer that question, we of course need to understand the definition of life. For example, is a virus alive? In a way, yes, but in another way, no. It is not alive when outside of the cell, but is alive when inside? Some consider the virus to not be alive because of this, yet it clearly exhibits some characteristic traits of life and a "desire" to procreate and survive which leads some people ot think it is alive.

What is life? That is one of the big unanswered questions, not to be confused with "What is the Meaning of Life?" and "What is alive?"

0 Replies

Eorl, as far as life on other planets. Im sitting in the front row with my popcorn like evryone else. I dont see any gtreat impossibility knowing the extremophiles we have here on earth. Weve recently unlocked spores from the PErmian and they were viable. SO any crack or watery glade on a dry mars or wet Titan , why not.

0 Replies

ros, what I think RL wants to elicit is a response that could be used to beat the drum for Creationism, in the absence of fossil evidence (because weve admitted that a species"B" could be existing and not fossilized in sediment x) The question is an out of context that attempts to establish some sort of falsification on the inerrancy of the fossil record.
We dont just work with a fossil "B" in sediment "X" or wed all get fired for incomplete work.
When certain index or guide fossils are used to establish the likelihood of oil or , in my case Ti metal ores in ancient sands, we look for key index fossils that, together indicate an environment of deposition in a specific time horizon. (We like to locate outwash deposits from ancient mountain ranges and specific critters help us out).
Now if RL were honest hed ask whether there was a marine arthropod from the late Permian(for example) that didnt appear in an environment that contained this arthropod elsewhere, probably it didnt exist in this limited environment. Its a matter of "where" not necessarily "when".
Its a big planet and , we can nly know of those organisms that weve already discovered, we cant , use as data, any organisms that were "Created" as a sketch or a possible intermediate.
Its interewting that the intermediates between fish and amphibians were drawn and speculated way before someone actually found one.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ros, what I think RL wants to elicit is a response that could be used to beat the drum for Creationism, in the absence of fossil evidence (because weve admitted that a species"B" could be existing and not fossilized in sediment x) The question is an out of context that attempts to establish some sort of falsification on the inerrancy of the fossil record.

I know that. But I don't mind giving him enough rope to hang himself with.

We've actually been though this line of reasoning already with RL, and we've explained that extrapolations of evidence come from more than just an isolated snapshot of data. But here we are again. Oh well.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Eorl wrote:
farmerman,

How would you rate the chance of life being found elsewhere within our own solar system?

What do think would be likely candidates....? Europa, Titan, Io...?

To fully answer that question, we of course need to understand the definition of life. For example, is a virus alive? In a way, yes, but in another way, no. It is not alive when outside of the cell, but is alive when inside? Some consider the virus to not be alive because of this, yet it clearly exhibits some characteristic traits of life and a "desire" to procreate and survive which leads some people ot think it is alive.

What is life? That is one of the big unanswered questions, not to be confused with "What is the Meaning of Life?" and "What is alive?"

I am convinced life=replication.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

I am convinced life=replication.

If the replication were so simple that it only involved chemicals reacting together, would that be life?

Should there be a special branch of chemistry called "Replicative Chemistry" which represents life?

At what point does something stop being just a chemical reaction, and start being life? Is it just a symantic difference?

Are living things just big long duration chemical reactions?

0 Replies

Quote:

At what point does something stop being just a chemical reaction, and start being life?

Once it starts replicating itself.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

At what point does something stop being just a chemical reaction, and start being life?

Once it starts replicating itself.

Ok. It's clear that you agree with your original definition. Smile

I didn't mean to be obtuse. Just wanted to challenge the boundary conditions a bit to see where it led.

0 Replies

Well, it's a pretty simple that was arrived at through a very complicated path Razz

As soon as a cell begins to replicate itself, it is alive by my definition.

0 Replies

There are some big polymers that will replicate themselves in acid media. About all they do is make carpet fibre

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

There are some big polymers that will replicate themselves in acid media. About all they do is make carpet fibre

My carpet is polymer ****?

0 Replies

The definition of life includes at a minimum:

1. Self awareness and self survival
2. Procreation or replication
3. Response to environmental stimuli

0 Replies

Talk,
1:What is 'self survival'?
Most of what biologists would consider alive is certainly not self aware by any means measurable to them.
2: Procreation is a form of replication.
3:Response to environmental stimuli? That would include most everything, from the effect of boiling on water to a rockslide on a rock.
Are water and rocks alive?
Meh

I don't see how 1 or 3 are useful distinctions, could you expound?

0 Replies

3. Self awareness is that it has a nervous or sensing system by which it becomes aware of its environment.

1. Self survival is by use of this same sensing system get into an avoidance pattern, run or escape to keep itself alive.

Dissolve salt in water and evaporate the water. Thefirst crystal willseedother crystals of salt. Inanimate structures can self replicate.

0 Replies

Quote:

3. Self awareness is that it has a nervous or sensing system by which it becomes aware of its environment.

What you describe is a misappropriation of the term 'self awareness', as self awareness implies awareness of self.
But regardless, what of single celled organisms,?
They have no sensory perception to speak of.

Quote:

1. Self survival is by use of this same sensing system get into an avoidance pattern, run or escape to keep itself alive.

Fight or flight. Although this IS a trait of just about every successful lifeform on the planet, I would again refer you to the question of single celled organisms, which have neither a sensing system nor a fight or flight instinct.

Quote:

Dissolve salt in water and evaporate the water. Thefirst crystal willseedother crystals of salt. Inanimate structures can self replicate.

Wait, are you actually saying salt replicates itself?
one grain of salt becomes a billion, just add water and heat?
But seriously..what inanimate structure are you talking about? I'd like an example.

0 Replies

I am not a scientist so I leave it to farmerman.

Single celled organism do sense things if not with a sensory nervous system maybe by a biochemical system.

As farmerman pointed out with polymer replication it is inanimate.

0 Replies

Well, I'm a scientist of sorts, but I know very little about polymers.
Do they actually replicate themselves, without outside interference?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

But seriously..what inanimate structure are you talking about? I'd like an example.

Silicates Do It, and so do Peptides. Let peptides work a while, and pretty soon you get Proteins; thats where proteins come from. Toss in the near-ubiquitous Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mentioned most recently here), which arrange themselves at precisely the same 0.34 billionths of a meter spacing which is the spacing between the ladder-rungs of both DNA and RNA .....

Interesting, huh?

0 Replies

Thanks Timber. What I wrote was basically what I learned in Biology class along time ago about living things.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know