The evolution of complex life

[Dutch Uncle]

Life isn't the only variable that moves things around. Ice pushes rocks around and contrary to gravity. Water moves inanimate objects out of their "natural positions".

Ice reactions to natural law. The ice doesn't decide to go one way or another. It simply reacts to temperature.

Same for water. The Grand Canyon is good example. Still, look at humans draining the Colorado River for an example off a life form changing the natural flow of events. <--- see what I did there? LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

"Failure of imagination". You and I are agreed that the ability isn't within our grasp. You say it will never happen, I'm not so certain.

No, it's not really a failure of imagination. Just like perpetual motion machines don't exist, but NOT because of lack of imagination. I suggested that if you need more bits to calculate a phenomenon than there are atoms in the universe you will be unable to calculate it.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

For sure! I am just sensitive to the implication that earth scientists are an inferior brand of scientist who dodged math classes at every opportunity!

I don't think biologists and paleontologists have to take much in the way of math -- just enough to make it through chemistry. lol

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Ice reactions to natural law.

As does life. The tree root you proposed is simply following a bunch of simple chemical laws and physics laws.

The ice doesn't decide to go one way or another.

Nor does the tree root.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't think biologists and paleontologists have to take much in the way of math -- just enough to make it through chemistry. lol

Speaking as one for whom the classic geology joke actually DOES apply: geology is the science you go into when you want to study science but you lack the math skills to make it through a full chemistry or physics degree.

Now, the modern geology student probably does have to have a lot more math. And this was always just a joke around the grad student offices.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, it's not really a failure of imagination. Just like perpetual motion machines don't exist, but NOT because of lack of imagination. I suggested that if you need more bits to calculate a phenomenon than there are atoms in the universe you will be unable to calculate it.

Renewable energy sources are the equivalent of "perpetual motion machines". Our universe is full of energy. It's simply a matter of tapping into it. Easier said than done, but not impossible, as you suggest.

As for computers, who's to say we can't tap the Universe to compute the motion? Again, your failure of imagination is limiting you to thinking only in terms of microchips and atoms, not other ways in which things can be computed, calculated or observed.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Renewable energy sources are the equivalent of "perpetual motion machines".

100% perfectly wrong.

Nothing is the equivalent of a "perpetual motion machine". Not even solar energy. Not wind. Nothing.

As for computers, who's to say we can't tap the Universe to compute the motion?

Read what I wrote again: if you require more bits than there are atoms in the universe how are you going to use the universe?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

As does life. The tree root you proposed is simply following a bunch of simple chemical laws and physics laws.

Nor does the tree root.

Really, Perry PhD? I can make more ice cubes than you can make trees. Why? Because ice is a natural phenomenon of physics. Trees are life.

 

[Cypress]

In my biochemistry class we were allowed to bring "single sheets" on which we could write any of the biochemical cycles we wanted to use as a cheat sheet on tests. Obviously some of the sheets were larger than others.

No one is denying that life is chemically and physically complex and interesting. What I've been arguing against is the concept that life is somehow a significant and nearly incomprehensible change from non-life. Indeed they are very much alike in technical aspect. It actually kind of helps to demystify the concepts in biochemistry so that it can be discussed more dispassionately.

the biochemistry of metabolism is reasonably well understood.

That transition from an inert chemical soup to cellular life is one of the most important unresolved scientific questions out there, and it has been under intense investigation since the mid 20th century.

We have lots of ideas and hypotheses for how it happened. Lots of brilliant biochemists have devoted careers to studying the question.

We are making modest baby steps towards understanding it, but the best we have managed experimentally is the creation of amino acids and peptides under laboratory conditions. That's progess, but it's a long was from polypeptides to eukaryote cells.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

100% perfectly wrong.

Nothing is the equivalent of a "perpetual motion machine". Not even solar energy. Not wind. Nothing.




Read what I wrote again: if you require more bits than there are atoms in the universe how are you going to use the universe?

Results count, Perry. If mankind develops energy resources that tap directly into the "free" energy of the Universe, the result is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. Again, your imagination is limited. You're 100% practical, which isn't a bad thing, but it limits you to only what you see in a test tube.

Unknown. Again, Perry PhD; you say "It can never be done". I'm saying "I'm not so sure".

 

[Cypress]

I don't think biologists and paleontologists have to take much in the way of math -- just enough to make it through chemistry. lol

You're right! They typically just take calculus and statistics. The chemistry I took was really just basic arithmetic and maybe some algebra.

Still, chaos theory has been around since the 1960s, and I was hearing about it even before college. You'd think some dumb paleontologists would have heard of it!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

the biochemistry of metabolism is reasonably well understood.

That transition from an inert chemical soup to cellular life is one of the most important unresolved scientific questions out there, and it has been under intense investigation since the mid 20th century.

We have lots of ideas and hypotheses for how it happened. Lots of brilliant biochemists have devoted careers to studying the question.

We are making modest baby steps towards understanding it, but the best we have managed experimentally is the creation of amino acids and peptides under laboratory conditions. That's progess, but it's a long was from polypeptides to eukaryote cells.

If we can create life in a test tube, that opens a lot of doors including living machines; living spaceships, living habitats on the Moon, Mars, and terraforming Venus....although I'm sure there will be some who will protest altering the natural hellhole that is Venus. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're right! They typically just take calculus and statistics. The chemistry I took was really just basic arithmetic and maybe some algebra.

Still, chaos theory has been around since the 1960s, and I was hearing about it even before college. You'd think some dumb paleontologists would have heard of it!

Psychologists take even less; just statistics were required, although trig was part of my core classes.

 

[Cypress]

Psychologists take even less; just statistics were required, although trig was part of my core classes.

Linear algebra or advanced multivariate calculus were on our list of suggested course work, but I dodged them to sign up for intramural basketball league and racquet ball!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Linear algebra or advanced multivariate calculus were on our list of suggested course work, but I dodged them to sign up for intramural basketball league and racquet ball!

I liked racquet ball but don't recall it as a course. I did sign up for fencing which was a lot of fun.

 

[Cypress]

If we can create life in a test tube, that opens a lot of doors including living machines; living spaceships, living habitats on the Moon, Mars, and terraforming Venus....although I'm sure there will be some who will protest altering the natural hellhole that is Venus. LOL

I have my doubts that we will ever spontaneously create a eukaryote cell from prebiotic material in our lifetime, but if scientists create self replicating genetic polymers like RNA under laboratory conditions, I think that will be sufficient to convince most scientists of the validity of the RNA-world hypothesis as the correct idea concerning origin of life.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Really, Perry PhD? I can make more ice cubes than you can make trees. Why? Because ice is a natural phenomenon of physics. Trees are life.

Look, I'm actually making a good faith effort to not be a dick. Please drop the Perry PhD shit. Thanks.

Now, to your point: do you not realize trees obey the laws of physics and don't have "free will" themselves?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You're right! They typically just take calculus and statistics. The chemistry I took was really just basic arithmetic and maybe some algebra.

Still, chaos theory has been around since the 1960s, and I was hearing about it even before college. You'd think some dumb paleontologists would have heard of it!

Nurses don't take much math either, just algebra which is a pre-req for chemistry. BSNs also take statistics. We had a pass a dosage and calc test though before being admitted to the programs. All that stuff is already calculated by the pharmacy but mistakes happen so it's expected that we should be able to detect an error before administering the dose.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have my doubts that we will ever spontaneously create a eukaryote cell in our lifetime, but if scientists create self replicating genetic polymers like RNA under laboratory conditions, I think that will be sufficient to convince most scientists of the validity of the RNA-world hypothesis as the origin of life.

That's beyond my expertise, but I can see the advantages of being able to grow buildings, ships and other structures both on and off planet.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Results count, Perry. If mankind develops energy resources that tap directly into the "free" energy of the Universe, the result is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.

That is not a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines are not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Again, your imagination is limited. You're 100% practical, which isn't a bad thing, but it limits you to only what you see in a test tube.

Perpetual motion machines are a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Unknown. Again, Perry PhD; you say "It can never be done". I'm saying "I'm not so sure".

Perpetual motion machines violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.