Self-Replicating Molecules. in The AnswerBank: Science

Start a new thread Khandro if you want answers on a new topic.

If an artist conjures an image of a robin which is then painted, others can perceive it as a robin. Or do you believe there is an architypical robin which no human can ever conjure into a picture?

pixie373

Khandro, you just put together what you already know. You know what an apple looks like and you know what a nail looks like. You know what "through" means. Not difficult.

solvitquick

Dear All,
Aaaw I'm just a sucker - disobeying my own resignation (from Khandro's frollicks) and advice to others.
But I'm here only catalysed by Naomi's earlier point about memory (unanswered concisely if at all by our dear Khandro).
There is plenty of evidence that memory lies solely in the brain, (akin to computer RAM, say).
Brain disease or damage has been shown to change or destroy memory. A classic case is the rare condition in which vacuoles form in the brain, This can cause the sufferer to remember only what they said or knew for a few seconds.
Then there are senile dementia and Altzheimers - no need for an ousitde ethereal force there.
Memory is better if regularly reinforced - if not it disappears from our conciousness. You know your telephone number through regular use. But what was your first telephone number? - rhetorical of course.
Ty Naomi, I think that nails "memory" slap in the material world and outside other dualistic concepts.
So might we not learn other apparently non-material entities like even the mind or conciousness, as being brain located, eventually? They certainly could possibly be the pinnacle of our evolution.
I have a deep sense of foreboding! I'm gonna pay for my stupidity in re-entering this debate.
Yours fearfully,
SIQ.

solvitquick

Instead of "disappearing from our conciousness", I should have used the colloquial and possibly correct "forefront of our brain",
Note to self: stop digging yourself in any deeper SIQ! lol.
SIQ.

Hypognosis

I've just spent an enjoyable few hours catching up from where I left off (Tuesday, page 6). Thank you for starting this thread and to all the contributors, especially SIQ, who has saved me a lot of recalling, thinking and typing.

A belated Happy 75th birthday, Khandro! Here's a small present for you

//
11:58 Mon 25th Nov 2013 (top of Page 11)
The history of the planet described against a scale of one year, humans appeared at one minute to midnight on New Year's Eve, so I was told as a boy, in HG Wells' 'Short History of the World', - someone correct me if this now shown to be wrong please. //

Let's call it 4 Bn, for cash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
(This page gives values ranging from 3.8 Bn for land deposits up to 4.4 Bn for retrieved moon rock.)

1 year represents 4000 million years (mya)
1 day represents 10.95 mya
1 hour represents 456,621 years
1 minute represents 7,610 years

So, anatomically modern humans first appear at 23:33:43 on 31 Dec, agricultural civilisations get going at around about 23:59:00 and most of recorded history happens after 23:59:30

Rather sobering thought, really. How's the hangover, btw :-D

p.s. (and note to self) Do not type alt-0247 in Firefox after having spent over 5 minutes drafting a reply.

Khandro

Question Author

And they said it was all over!! There's lots more but weekend plans are such that we are leaving now to have lunch in Heidelberg and then spend tonight with friends in Frankfurt, so you'll just have to struggle on. Thanks Hypo. :-)

solvitquick

Welcome Back Hypognosis,
In real-life and on AB I fight shy of compliments - embarrasing and usually unjustified. But here I say ty for your kind mention of me and am pleased. Why? 'Cos I feel it gives me, pleasantly, an opportunity to "daisychain" your "SIQ" mention to some very special contributors:
jomifl, jim360, LazyGun, FredPuli43, beso, yourself and Naomi24.
Dare I say, all (including me) have worked hard, rationally and shown dogged"stick-to-it-ness" in attempts to answer our dear Khandro's original question and his follow-ups.
HEY, HYPO, YOU'VE JUST CATALYSED THE CREATION OF A
HETERO-POLYMER COMPOSED OF HUMANS! A new transient super-life form.
And because you are part of its composition you become a self-replicating molecular complex, lol.
Science, reasoning and common sense are such fun!
Kind Regards,
SIQ.

Khandro

Question Author

Back from Heidelberg, brought this with me as a special treat; 'As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.'

— Max Planck, 'Das Wesen der Materie', 1944

jomifl

Assume what you like, eventually assumptions have to be tested, but obviously not just yet.(69 years on)

DTCwordfan

Q: How did the Universe chemist survive the f -amine?
A: By subsisting on titrations.

jim360

With all due respect to Max Planck, however great a scientist he undoubtedly was he never truly got to grips with Quantum Mechanics so can hardly be called the last word on the subject. Things have moved on since he died.

jake-the-peg

Yes Khandro, that Deist view was quite popular at the time.

Einstein was full of similar quotes.

We're a long way on from that now!

Anyway isn't that just the classic 'appeal to authority' fallicy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

solvitquick

Welcome back Kandro, we've missed you.
Regarding your "great mind" treat - Max should have settled for his Konstant. In this particular statement he was as thick as any plank on the Clapham Omnibus.
Guten Tag mein Herr,
SIQ.

Khandro

Question Author

jim; //Things have moved on since he died.// Well that sounds a trifle hubristic. How can you look at yourself, the world, and the universe you appear to inhabit, and suggest it is all a result of blind accident, originating by chance and taking place in the theatre of a meaningless universe, without a scrap of evidence for support for that view.
jake; //We're a long way on from that now!// Are you really? - please explain,

pixie373

That does seem most likely, khandro. If an egg cell can grow into a fully-functioning human by meeting the right chemicals, it makes sense that at some point in time, it would happen with more basic organisms?

jim360

Why not the product of chance? Most of our physical laws seem to point that way after all. Quantum Mechanics is probability in nature -- so the basic laws of chance seem to govern how things work. Not too hard a leap in imagination to suggest that the same is true of the Universe as a whole, especially as thermodynamics has the same concepts of probability built in. In that sense there is a great deal of evidence, albeit circumstantial, for a Universe of chance rather than of purpose. You could just as well say that there is no evidence for purpose in the world either -- at least, none beyond the drive to exist and keep on existing for as long as possible. But even then in nature the drive to continue existing seems to be only for the sake of existing, nothing more.

jomifl

Almost back on thread, well done Khandro. Instead of rubbishing everybody's often well thought through suggestions why don't you get off your @rse and put some efffort into explaining why you are so dismissive of other peoples ideas other than perhaps because they are not your own. Why not put forward your views and have them dismissed with equal facility.

Khandro

Question Author

jomifl; Once again you show your aggressive nature, and instead of answering, show your unique preference for insult. I have just looked back through the entire thread and your contribution has been minimal; first with your "Bucket Chemistry" which was dismissed by the rest of the science cohort, and then your assertion that dualism and mysticism were somehow linked, which despite the request you were unable to substantiate. The rest has been constantly and tiresomely asserting that I know nothing about science, with an occasional link to wikipedia.
I think my position should be pretty clear to anyone following the thread, viz. I refute the form of materialism which includes consciousness, and I believe life most likely originated outside of this planet, which in turn would indicate the existence of an unknown, and perhaps unknowable greater power than we can at this stage in human development, imagine.
Perhaps it is you who should give us some answers?

jim360

The problem Khandro is that your position has in most respects even less evidence than those you criticise for having "not a shred of evidence". I'm reminded of the debate between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright where she keeps asking where the evidence is for evolution, Dawkins lists the extensive evidence, and then Wendy Wright dismisses is all with "no that's not evidence. Show me some evidence," as if that is the end of the matter.

In your own words there is "not a shred of evidence" for a Universe formed by chance. Except that is pretty much the only theory for the origin of the Universe that actually has any evidence whatsoever to support it. This raises two questions: why do you think there is no evidence when there is?; and secondly, why is a perceived lack of supporting evidence so important to you when dismissing other ideas, but suddenly all such demands for having supporting evidence go out of the window when advancing your own theories?

With the best will in the world there is no hard evidence (or even "soft" evidence for that matter) that Earth has been visited at some point in recorded history by aliens. Such hints as there are (e.g. the "helicopter Hieroglyphs") do have plausible alternative explanations (e.g. the "palimpsest" effect). Nor even have we found any signs of alien life of any sort at all anywhere despite looking for it. Organic matter, yes, but not life. And it's still not been sorted out whether that organic material could have survived an impact or not. With all these questions yet to be settled, at the very least you have to accept that there is not really much more than a few tiny scraps of fairly flimsy evidence that support the idea that life reached this planet from elsewhere. In future the picture may clear up and we'll see much firmer hints (SETI can hardly be called an exhaustive and conclusive search, for example) -- but right now there is almost nothing.

By contrast the evidence to support a terrestrial origin of life is rather a lot stronger. Firstly, you have a theory in which life can emerge perfectly naturally as a thermodynamic process. The theory isn't finished yet, but there is more than a century of work. I'm pleased to hear this given that my earlier mentions of this idea were essentially my own speculation, but you should check out such sources as Russell Doolittle's ""The Probability and Origin of Life" or this more recent article from last year, and references therein: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1179v1.pdf . I'll try to read this last critically when I get time. Of course such an article is by no means the complete theory, but at any rate it suggests that self-replication is a perfectly natural process and absolutely does not need any higher power.

So, to recap:

-- Life emerging from beyond our earth due to an unknowable greater power who also designed things to have some purpose has no supporting evidence except that you cannot believe that things can have happened by chance.

-- Life emerging on this planet as the result of a natural chemical process driven by already-known physical laws is an active research field with much progress still to be made but is at least getting to the point of producing testable hypotheses.

Even if the theory turns out to be false, at least the end result is that we'll actually know (or have a better idea of) how things happened.

Self-Replicating Molecules.

Answers