• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Belief vs Science

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
One thing that science struggles to answer is how the first self-perpetuating organism came into existence. If formation of life was purely a material affair, there must have been some self-assembly process that took place during the formation of the first organism.

Scientists pursue this question/answer in a number of ways. One approach is to take a very simple organism known and starting deleting its genes. Soon you'll get to point where you've identified genes absolutely essential for the survival and perpetuation of that organism. The hope is one day you'll get to a point where you've recreated the ground zero organism. Then maybe you could possibly replicate the conditions required for abiogenesis.

Right now, the simplest organism still has at least 400 genes. This is an incredibly complex organism and cannot be explained by any self-assembly mechanism we currently know. Moreover, a self-replicating organism requires both genetic material (DNA) and molecular machinery (proteins) in order to replicate the genetic material. As far as we know, DNA and proteins are inextricably tied. DNA encodes proteins but proteins are required for DNA replication. It becomes a chicken or the egg type of dilemma.

That's why there are many scientists who believe the first biopolymer was RNA. RNA can store genetic information like DNA but can also catalyze reactions like proteins. To my knowledge, no self-replicating RNA has been discovered.

Disregarding the non addressing of my request for the Nobel Prize winners in question..

I don't understand what it is you're trying to imply here. There are multiple theories because no one is 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt, yes that is the current standing situation..

I don't understand either what defintion of "self replicating organism" you're actually using, as nothing in of itself is "self replicating" in a vacuum. There need not be any of the modern day notions of "self replication" because even this replication we see today is highly dependent on many external factors. Likewise with the replication of RNA, it need not have been strictly an interaction as you would imagine today, multiple hypothesis exist that have merit as pointed out in the link I provided. Also, we already have replicated the creation of RNA from simply chemicals in a lab, to which very few contest would be impossible on Earth naturally. But there are multiple hypothesis as I've said, and you can read about in that link if it's to your fancy that address the whole "self replication" ordeal you're concerned with.

One thing that gave me pause though.. is your statement with the following wording though:

"If formation of life was purely a material affair"

I just have to ask.. as opposed to what if it weren't a material affair? What competing hypothesis is more sound than any of the material ones? Or better yet, what event in reality has ever been scientifically demonstrated to be the case outside of "material affair"?

I understand there aren't answers to some things in the current world we live in. But that is a far cry from what your first post was stating.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
The simplest living organism engineered thus far has 437 genes. Currently, no evolutionary biologist can give a believable explanation how 437 genes randomly came together to form the first organism.

Because the whole basis of evolutionary biology is that the processes are NOT random.

If the nature of evolution is of interest, I'd suggest a bit of time studying Ernst Mayr's very accessible but rigorous books. "The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology" is a superb collection of writings (including Mayr's) on how evolution actually works, as opposed to the comic book views. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you can't do better than Dobzhansky's "Genetics and the Origin of Species."
 

jfetter

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
51
Likes
13
It's interesting link. I have to dig in more. If it was 'seeded' with any piece of existing bio structure then was not created but rather was engineered.

Then there too as always 'second law of thermo' issue.
That is 2nd law bias is towards degradation to ground state. Not towards self generation.
 

NTomokawa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
779
Likes
1,334
Location
Canada
Perhaps somewhat incredibly, I believe in both evolution and the existence of the divine.

You know, the Japanese traditionally believe that the more conflicted a person is, the deeper and more meaningful is their existence.

Maybe I'm just carrying that tradition along.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
That is 2nd law bias is towards degradation to ground state. Not towards self generation.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the Second Law.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl

scott wurcer

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,501
Likes
2,821
You know, the Japanese traditionally believe that the more conflicted a person is, the deeper and more meaningful is their existence.

Tolerance for ambiguity, something worth cultivating.
 
OP
Wombat

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Perhaps somewhat incredibly, I believe in both evolution and the existence of the divine.

You know, the Japanese traditionally believe that the more conflicted a person is, the deeper and more meaningful is their existence.

Maybe I'm just carrying that tradition along.


Sort of the opposite of 'ignorance is bliss'. ;)
 

jfetter

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
51
Likes
13
This is not relevant to a biological structure being created from inanimate matter. Aka self-organizing.

-became interested in this as a child , then as time ( ha there it is again , time) allowed looked at the entire evolution/creation saga.
I simply looked at it from an engineering view and immediately saw the 2nd law problem. Not saying one or other is correct.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
The second law of thermodynamics is concerned with energy in a closed system, why are people trying to apply it to evolutionary processes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wes

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
The second law of thermodynamics is concerned with energy in a closed system, why are people trying to apply it to evolutionary processes?

Because they don't understand the basics of thermodynamics, chemistry, or physics. Sadly, those who do and still cynically promote this stuff in the name of their interpretation of their religion actively harm their own cause. I think St. Augustine had something to say about that.

St. Augustine of Hippo said:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
 

JIW

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
378
Likes
551
Location
Germany
This is not relevant to a biological structure being created from inanimate matter. Aka self-organizing.

To the contrary, it is.

Inanimate matter in the universe is not an isolated system but, relative to the rest of the universe, open or closed as it can exchange energy and possibly also matter with its surroundings. If the universe is an isolated system, that which was initially inanimate matter may thus decrease its entropy if the entropy of its surroundings increases at least as much if not more such that the entropy of the universe (the isolated system) does not decrease.

There is thus no contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and living organisms arising spontaneously from inanimate matter, whichever way that may occur/have occurred, since sufficient energy may be received/drawn from the rest of the universe.
 

JIW

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
378
Likes
551
Location
Germany
The second law of thermodynamics is concerned with energy in a closed system, why are people trying to apply it to evolutionary processes?

The second law is concerned with the entropy of an isolated system, i.e. a system that can exchange neither energy nor matter with its surroundings. A closed system can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings and can thereby decrease its entropy contrary to an isolated system which according to the second law cannot.

Thus, according to the first law, in an isolated system, energy is constant/conserved while in a closed system, the increase in internal energy (DeltaU) equals the difference between energy supplied to the system as heat (Q) and the work done on the systems surroundings (W), i.e. DeltaU = Q - W.

Anyways, applying a law concerning isolated systems to systems that are clearly not is at best misguided.
 
Top Bottom