溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: if not Creation... [打印本頁]

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-18 18:07 標題: if not Creation...

This is NOT a post about
religion vs religion
nor
creationist vs evolutionist
and not exactly
theist vs atheist either

I've always wondered about evolutionist(macro) believing that all species on earth are evolved from a single cell organism,
and that's how we've come into being.
Leaving this argument aside for now

How did the first single cell organism come into being?

I am just interested in what the macroevolutionist in lyk think about this issue
Evolution might be an explanation of the diversity and complexity of life as it is now
(i.e. the origin(s) or species)
but it does not seem to explain the First Cause
(i.e. the origin of life)

I don't mean to stir up religious/anti religious wars here
please refrain from using or attacking religious terms if possible

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2008-8-18 18:36

小學既時候睇<<十萬個為什麼>>, 好似話好耐好耐之前, 地球既環境係好惡劣, 到處都有雷暴.
d 雷暴就令到空氣中既nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide 同hydrogen 產生化學作用, 而形成不同既amino acid.
地球當年就係有一個amino acid 既海洋.

唔知係唔係又因為d 雷暴, d amino acid 慢慢就融合成一d 結構好簡單既結構 - 粒線體. 跟住仲有好多, 不過已經唔係好記得了.

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-18 19:03

I remember a Star Trek episode saying that single life began when some chemicals were mixed together. like amino acid mix with protein. http://wiesium.wrzuta.pl/film/9KBoXo4aGr/

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I think this is plausible because simple condition can give rise to complex systems. Like Chess or Go, there is many moves you can make with those simple rules, but some moves are better than other and those moves usually prevails.
Now if certain chemical reactions are favorable than those reactions will thrive, and those reaction that are better will continue to react. Like those equilibrium reaction seems to be alive as they try so hard to stay at equilibrium.

Evolution proponents will say that the processes of life is not random, and this is true, but the beginning of life is certainly by chance. If those chemicals did not come together and react I would not get to pretend to be smart ass right now.

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-18 19:11

But the problem is
The first single cell organism (that is, if that's how we came into being) must have complex and functioning genetic material, which can "self-reproduce"
This would require billions of atoms, somehow, by chance, getting together forming this long strand of genetic material (is that RNA in simple organisms like this? correct me if i am wrong)
This strand would have to give instruction to how the organism would
function (e.g. to produce and release certain chemicals)
be formed (the cellular level structures)
and reproduce (telling it how to copy the genetic material correctly and splitting the cell at least)

if i am not wrong, unzipping RNA/DNA would require a special enzyme to do the work

can this complexity (irreducible complexity) be formed JUST by chance?

that is the question

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-18 19:27

The wiki article said something about that it was random bits of RNA first so it didn't need billions of atom to come together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
whooo this article have pictures showing what the "Letters" is in chemical structure.

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-18 19:55

notgoddy can you please point out where exactly in the article gives the exact notion you've given?

also, in the same article gives a cruicial point:

Difficulties

Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids.[14]
Tellingly, the nucleoside cytosine has a half-life in isolation of 19 days at 100°C and 17,000 years in freezing water, which is still very short on the geologic time scale.[15]
Others have questioned whether ribose and other backbone sugars could be stable enough to be found in the original genetic material.[16]
For example, the ester linkage of ribose and phosphoric acid in RNA is known to be prone to hydrolysis.[17] Additionally, ribose must all be the same enantiomer, because any nucleotides of the wrong chirality act as chain terminators.[18]

For random molecules to join together (like they have a mind of their own) and forming complex genetic material which is also the Foundation of all future life's DNA/RNA (being meaningful and replicable)
isn't that a little stretched?

A cell coming from nothing also contradicts part of the cell theory: all cells from come from pre-existing cell(s)
(Both the classic and the modern)

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-18 20:12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori ... dels:_the_RNA_world

The first article said that "relatively short RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed that were capable of catalyzing their own continuing replication. It is difficult to gauge the probability of this formation." And the second article I linked is an hypothesis about how the formation might had come about.

I don't think random molecules needs a mind to joins together, it is all like chances of collision. Apparently scientist aren't sure about the origin of life as you know, but it looks like they have a lot of theories and a few experiments that supports them. That said, I don't think there is a full-filling answer for you puZZle, yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory
Exceptions to the Theory

1. Viruses are considered by some to be alive, yet they are not made up of cells.
2. The first cell did not originate from a pre-existing cell. See: Origin of life.

lol quoting wiki is fun! I think I'll edit it so I am "right" lol

[ 本帖最後由 notgoddy 於 2008-8-18 21:16 編輯 ]

作者: Blue 時間: 2008-8-18 21:02

ahh.. no one will hv a perfect answer anywayz.

but considering "life" didnt show up until not too long ago comparing to how long earth existed. the chance of the elements colliding together n forming the first AA isnt too surprising. i guess.

scientist tested that long time ago the atmosphere is capable of producing AA and it is very likely to form AA under that circumstances anywayz. then AA covered by the clay bubble and RNA existed long b4 that too and if an RNA happens to join the little bubble isnt too crazy either.. but given that the atmosphere produced a lot of AA n only some or maybe just one outta so many of them had that combination is very likely. its like someone winning 649. chances r slim but it happens..

but the first RNA isnt as specialized tho. it only has the self replicating function and the rest of the evolution still had a long way to go.

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-18 21:26

May be we are thinking too small as well, because this possible life giving reaction could had taken place all over the Earth, so we are not talking about just one single pool of chemical. If the chance are like the 649, 1 in 14 millions, than it would be quite likely to be a common occurrence because of the condition at the time exists all over and there are trillions and trillions of atoms on the surface of the Earth. (Earth was just cooling down and water finally gets to be liquid at this point in time, so the theory goes.)

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-18 22:18

it is true that chance might be a factor here
but we have to also note that chemical bonds are easily broken by elements such as oxygen
for billions of atoms to join together without breaking apart (and meanwhile carrying meaningful and super complex instructions for the organism) requires an environment with no oxygen, and the like

作者: Intelstan 時間: 2008-8-20 10:22

I thought the Miller-Urey experiment was a representation of what the earth was like way back and produced some single-celled thing out of stuff from earth's supposed atmosphere.

I think once the first single-celled being can be explained, the rest can also be explained with natural selection and evolution.

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-20 18:35 標題: Well this sucks

A good chunk of the thread is missing! I had a nice long reply but somehow it got deleted.

*oh well

"chemical bonds are easily broken by elements such as oxygen"-puZZle, citation needed.

Ignore the first two and an half minutes:
[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]

underwater = no O2 gas

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-22 12:29

reposting some deleted stuff~

Intelstan
the Miller-Urey experiment would not be a good representation of the ancient ocean/atmosphere because of the super high concentration of compounds which existed in the consealed flask

lemme just quote what was "created" in the experiment from wiki (not my favorite but ya i am just too lazy)
引用:

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).
...
Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.
As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. Virtually all amino acids in the proteins of living cells are left-handed amino acids.
Any right-handed amino acids, for the most part, are poisonous to the construction of the protein, causing it to unravel. Equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids would not be an environment friendly to life.

No life was ever created (out of "nothing") by humans
i think i have partly answered notgoddy's question here also?

Also, regarding the whole "ancient atomosphere" hypotheses,
there are much debate about what what when how why of the environment.

How can they really know it was around 4 billion years ago that all these had happened (if they did)
and how can they know how exactly the environment was like?
(There exists much circular arguments in this field,
e.g. for life to have begun on its own, the environment must be oxygen-less etc
which assumes that life DID begin on its own)
引用:

Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted

We cannot just simply assume that there was no creator (be it a deity or aliens or other sources)

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-22 12:35

...and then lyks talked alot about "objective truths," "believing," "ultimate creator"
too lazy to copy and paste all that sorry
then chunsh said:
thats what I am talking about if our assumptions are correct, puzzle wants to refer to ultimate creator.

Austin:
So what? Ultimate creator doesn't have to be related to any religion. i.e. all the religions in the world might be referring to the wrong ultimate creator.

notgoddy:
Do we need a creator in order to exist?

Littleprince:
愛因思坦有天造了一個很漂亮的地球儀﹐
叫了他的朋友們來看﹐
他的朋友問他﹕
“這麼漂亮精美的地球儀﹐誰造的﹖”
他說﹕
“沒有﹐我只是把零件放在這裡﹐
過了許久﹐它們自己碰撞就出來了。。。”
他的朋友大笑說﹕
“開玩笑。。。
這麼漂亮精美能碰撞得出來﹖”
愛恩思坦就說﹕
“就是了﹐
區區一個地球儀都不能﹐
甚麼令你們覺得﹐
這麼精美結構奇妙浩瀚的宇宙﹐
是沒有創造者的呢﹖”

(puzzle: i thought it was said by Newton, lol o well, the concepts the same)

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2008-8-22 12:37

oh thanks Puzzle... my bad memory, hehe....

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-22 12:44

原帖由 notgoddy 於 2008-8-20 19:35 發表
"chemical bonds are easily broken by elements such as oxygen"-puZZle, citation needed.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of Miller-Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[13] These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller-Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

oh i just thought you would know that since you argued that genetic materials can be formed in a natural environment o_o sorry
this is the same reason why the Miller-Urey experiment did not have any oxygen in the mixture

作者: chunsh 時間: 2008-8-22 12:50

原帖由 puZZle 於 2008-8-22 13:35 發表
...and then lyks talked alot about "objective truths," "believing," "ultimate creator"
too lazy to copy and paste all that sorry
then chunsh said:
thats what I am talking about if our assumptions are ...

then who created the creator?
dont tell me there is none

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-22 12:55

whatever the First Cause is

作者: Austin 時間: 2008-8-22 12:55

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-8-22 13:50 發表

then who created the creator?
dont tell me there is none

If you want to talk about a creator, then there could be a creator of that creator
If you want to talk about an ultimate creator, then there is no creator of that ultimate creator.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2008-8-22 13:05

原帖由 Austin 於 2008-8-22 13:55 發表

If you want to talk about a creator, then there could be a creator of that creator
If you want to talk about an ultimate creator, then there is no creator of that ultimate creator.

do u think there is ultimate creator?
if so, how did the ultimate creator exist by him/her/itself?

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-22 13:21

we have the concept of causation because we reside within the limits of time

"outside of time" there can be an ultimate creator or whatever the First Cause is
that First Cause would have created Time also

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-22 13:24 標題: 回復 16# 的帖子

I am not a fan of Miller-Urey so I didn't know the oxygen thing, but I really like the thermal vent thing with the RNA and stuff. that is cool in that video.
No need to apologize to a fellow expert, puZZle.

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-22 13:31

Yeah, the ultimate creator is in the 11th dimension, no way we could get it.

作者: Austin 時間: 2008-8-22 18:51

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-8-22 14:05 發表

do u think there is ultimate creator?
if so, how did the ultimate creator exist by him/her/itself?

I think there is an ultimate origin, not necessarily a creator.
And heck would I know how it becomes of its own existence.

作者: Intelstan 時間: 2008-8-23 18:06

I don't believe in an ultimate creator. If anything comes close to a creator, it would be the continuous expanding and collapsing of the universe which would by chance create the set of laws of physics that are just suitable for life to exist.

作者: puZZle 時間: 2008-8-23 18:26

how big, do you think, is that chance?

say.. if the properties of carbon and it's compounds are changed
would life still exist?

作者: notgoddy 時間: 2008-8-23 19:17

We are 4 dimensional being anchored by a 3 dimensional body, and so we have a hard time letting go of the idea of time. The ultimate Universe is timeless, and chances are 1:1.

If initial conditions are different then different kinds of life might exist.

作者: Intelstan 時間: 2008-8-23 20:38

Even a tiny change in the laws of physics would disrupt everything. But with the continuous expansion and collapsing of the universe, it is just a matter of time before a random set of laws fit together and make life possible.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)