The evolution of complex life

Perry Phimosis said:
We actually know quite a bit about the staircase. We don't know which staircase exactly but we have a pretty solid idea.

Why? Because we understand the chemistry really well.

Let's take the question of chirality (again): we know that most biologically active chemicals that have stereoisomers prefer ONE enantiomer over the other. Why is that? It's a genuine mystery. But it makes very good sense when you realize that many of these compounds preferentially adsorb onto phyllosilicates (clay minerals) naturally biasing the selection of one enantiomer over another. That's a HUGE indicator for how life may have started. It indicates a role of the "non-living" inorganic world and what ultimately becomes biochemicals.

I think the difficulty is NOT one of "where to even start" but rather finding the exact conditions that spontaneously create life. That's a bit tougher, but certainly not in the realm of the impossible to even imagine.

In other words: we know quite a bit about the staircase, we know quite a bit about every single stair. We just may not have found that EXACT staircase yet. But we haven't really been looking that long or with that huge of an effort.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry......but the fact you understand bricks and mortar does not bring you closer to knowing that staircases build themselves.....
 
BidenPresident said:
Why there is randomness in nature.
Click to expand...

It's not clear if there is any randomness in nature. Newton's Laws of Motion have been applicable since shortly after the Big Bang.

What appears to be chaos may really be order once a person sees the bigger picture.

Example; a person caught at sea in the middle of a hurricane may only see chaos, but from high above, the order of the storm can be seen.

stormo.gif
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Not all things which spontaneously occur require a catalyst.
Click to expand...

symantics......a spontaneous event is one which happens without a cause....a catalyst.....the application of external energy.......proximity to another element or molecule with which it has an automatic reaction (in which each can be considered a catalyst to the other).......all three are causes......https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-makes-chemical-reaction-spontaneous-enthalpy-free-mukherjee#:~:text=A%20reaction%20is%20called%20spontaneous,accord%20without%20any%20external%20help.&text=It%20is%20an%20exothermic%20reaction%20and%20it%20is%20a%20spontaneous%20reaction%20.
 
Doc Dutch said:
It's not clear if there is any randomness in nature.
Click to expand...

I disagree in the extreme. Radioactive decay appears to be random. Stochastically it is possible to model the overall rate of decay but any given atom cannot be predicted when it will decay.

Even simple chemical reactions are predicated on a stochastic approach. Molecules randomly moving at varying speeds. The key is that sufficient are in the right speed and hit the right molecule to drive the reaction.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
symantics......a spontaneous event is one which happens without a cause....a catalyst.....the application of external energy.......proximity to another element or molecule with which it has an automatic reaction (in which each can be considered a catalyst to the other).......all three are causes......
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I got mixed up between technical language and loosey-goosey common parlance. My bad. I keep forgetting this isn't really a "science" discussion.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Oh, sorry, I got mixed up between technical language and loosey-goosey common parlance. My bad. I keep forgetting this isn't really a "science" discussion.
Click to expand...

and I'm sorry I had to remind you the 'science discussion" is about cause, not about non loosey-goosey technical language....stop pretending organic chemical reactions are not caused.......or, name one that happens "spontaeously" (in non loosey-goosey technical language).......

any reaction in a organic chemical that could have resulted in the existence of life which was not spontaneous cannot be considered the origin of life because it would have happened previously when the catalyst, energy, or proximity would have triggered it......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if these unthinking natural laws will spontaneously trigger the formation of a new universe under certain circumstances, then obviously it is the "certain circumstances" which are the cause, not the natural laws......that should be obvious.....it is the catalyst which is the key......
Click to expand...

I'll leave you to cloak yourself in a veneer of certainty.

I myself don't know if the physical laws are eternal in an infinite series of universes; whether they required some unknown catalyst; or whether they just randomly and spontaneously popped into existence with the mathematical scaffolding and numerical constants they have now.

I don't have the data or knowledge to say one way or the other, that's the honest and responsible scientific position.

It's an open question, and all three of these solutions have their own problems as well as their own strengths.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not the question.......the question is where did staircases come from.......any one who looks at a staircase can observe the bricks and touch the mortar.......
Click to expand...

It is fine if you want to wave your hands around and take wild guesses. I like to understand the technical stuff before I try to figure out how the technical stuff all fits together.

In fact understanding the bricks and mortar are CRITICAL to this discussion. Just not a comfortable area for YOU. And that's cool.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and I'm sorry I had to remind you the 'science discussion" is about cause,
Click to expand...

WIthout understanding the technical details the conversation is exactly meaningless. Sorry.

It would be like me trying to pontificate on some legal topic without understanding the underlying basis of the law. I'm sure you'd understand being a lawyer and all.

stop pretending organic chemical reactions are not caused
Click to expand...

What do you mean "caused"?

.......or, name one that happens "spontaeously"
Click to expand...

You can easily find that by looking up tables of Gibbs Free Energy figures. You will know which ones are the spontaneous reactions. (Sorry if you are unfamiliar with ANY of those topics)
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I disagree in the extreme. Radioactive decay appears to be random. Stochastically it is possible to model the overall rate of decay but any given atom cannot be predicted when it will decay.

Even simple chemical reactions are predicated on a stochastic approach. Molecules randomly moving at varying speeds. The key is that sufficient are in the right speed and hit the right molecule to drive the reaction.
Click to expand...
Key phrase "appears to be".

Nuclear weapons have become more efficient as the ability to control the detonation as increased.

Are you denying that a sufficiently powerful enough computer can not only track but predict every molecule in a box? In the ocean?

Atheists should appreciate the fact that, while the motions of molecules can be tracked, the decisions of living creatures are tougher to predict. The simpler the creature, the easier to predict, but at higher levels of sophistication, those predictions become closer to "likely" than "certain".
 
Doc Dutch said:
Key phrase "appears to be".
Click to expand...

So far there is nothing that we have found to induce it. I remember one reference years ago that indicated something between neutrino flux and a rare isotope of Si decaying but I never saw anything come out after that. For the most part it seems to be random.

You are correct, there could be something unknown that induces it, but we have ZERO information on that. We do, however, have very good models of ensemble behavior which cannot be reduced down to individual behavior. As such it is best viewed as a stochastic topic.

Why would it be a problem for something to be indeterministic?

Nuclear weapons have become more efficient as the ability to control the detonation as increased.
Click to expand...

Not sure what that has to do with this part of the discussion. Radioactive decay still operates on the basis of first order rate kinetics.

Are you denying that a sufficiently powerful enough computer can not only track but predict every molecule in a box? In the ocean?
Click to expand...

I believe it would require more computational "bits" than there are atoms in the universe to do so.

Atheists should appreciate the fact that, while the motions of molecules can be tracked, the decisions of living creatures are tougher to predict.
Click to expand...

Both are best modeled using statistics and probabilities.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
What do you mean "caused"?
Click to expand...
dude, this is why I give you links.....so you will read them and know what we are talking about......

A reaction is called spontaneous when it takes place of its own accord without any external help.
Click to expand...

external help would include catalysts, external energy or proximity to a reactive element or molecule (which I would consider synonymous with "catalyst" but you thought was too loosey-goosey)......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude, this is why I give you links.....so you will read them and know what we are talking about......



external help would include catalysts, external energy or proximity to a reactive element or molecule (which I would consider synonymous with "catalyst" but you thought was too loosey-goosey)......
Click to expand...

Why do you think I gave you the reference to Gibbs Free Energy?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Anything that can be predicted isn't random. :)
Click to expand...

That's not wholly correct.

Random things can be modeled using probabilities quite well. As such I can predict that half of a mass of uranium will decay in x number of years. What I cannot predict is the time when any single uranium atom will decay.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
That's not wholly correct.

Random things can be modeled using probabilities quite well. As such I can predict that half of a mass of uranium will decay in x number of years. What I cannot predict is the time when any single uranium atom will decay.
Click to expand...

....yet. A hundred years ago you wouldn't have been able to do that much.
 
Doc Dutch said:
....yet. A hundred years ago you wouldn't have been able to do that much.
Click to expand...

Again, probably not technically correct. I'm not sure when the first rate kinetic was calculated, but the rate kinetics which cover radioactive decay are first order. This is a standard rate kinetic even for some chemical reactions that we use every day.

The concepts around statistical modeling of stochastic processes have actually been around for a rather long time.

Is the point that one day you think we WILL be able to predict accurately when a given radioactive atom will decay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top