Posts in total: 71
maybe by-products of quantum fluctuations
I have no idea what that means, how does that explain how "life" got the information to create, replicate and survive?
have you ever heard of cellular automata?
no, but I searched it up.
"Cellular automata can simulate a variety of real-world systems, including biological and chemical ones."
I don't know enough about it to see how it applies, you'll have to explain :)
DNA must be arranged in such a manner as to do something.
More accurately, the order of DNA determines which proteins get synthesized.Pretty much all the processes of life involve interactions between proteins.
But how does it know what to do?
It doesn't, any more than water "knows" to flow downhill or acid "knows" to dissolve metal.
While DNA has physical properties it also has information, where does that come from in not a designer
The fact that a certain combination of DNA produces proteins that assemble into function biological constructs does not imply a designer. The fact funcDNA is ordered to produce biological function is the result of those sequences that are non-functional or dysfunctional getting weeded out. You can call the remaining functional orderings "information" if you want, but they do not imply conscious intent.
If abiogenesis happened where did the information come from that tells the DNA how to replicate, what to produce etc all those things needed for "life"?
You may as well ask where the laws of physics came from.
If life's only purpose is to self replicate, where did that come from, how did that come to be?
Saying replication is its "purpose" is anthropomorphism Replication is simply what it does.
wow thgis blew up
As far as we are able to be aware, evolution is more or less likely to be the consequence of a magical creation event. Perhaps.!
That's the second time today that I've discussed the vagueness of epistemology.
I'm asking because I don't really know, but it seems it is generally thought the "origin" was a strand of DNA? From which everything else came?
Not necessarily DNA, but any replicating molecule. Although that isn't the "origin". There is no "origin. The big bang was the "origin". Or was it?
The origins of life are chemical. The component atoms are the most reactive. They are bound to react! Get them in a medium, like a fluid. Add some geothermal or solar heat. And watch them react. Well, watch them for several million or billion years.
The exact details of the self-replicating molecule that led to life may never be known, but it is clear that life arose in the Earth's oceans. One hypothesis that has gained traction in recent years is the RNA world hypothsis. It says that the first self-replicating molecules were not DNA, but RNA. The oceans contained RNA mocules which possessed the only two things you need for evoltuion to proceed: self-replication and variability. We have been able to synthesize RNA in the laboratory, lending credence to the idea that it could arise naturally.
"We have been able to synthesize RNA in the laboratory, lending credence to the idea that it could arise naturally."
except that IS intelligent design lol
"Although self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have not been found in nature, scientists are hopeful that they can be constructed in the laboratory. While this demonstration would not prove that self-replicating RNA molecules were essential in the origin of life on Earth, it would certainly suggest that such a scenario is possible."
"Although RNA seems well suited to form the basis for a self-replicating set of biochemical catalysts, it is unlikely that RNA was the first kind of molecule to do so."
The design in the lab was intelligently designed to be unintelligent. We didnt try to create life, we tried to recreate early conditions and see if life unintelligently arises.
yes "tried" with all the purest of compounds in large enough quantities, environmental controls etc how successful have they been? As exceedingly difficult it is to intelligently create these precursors, you can understand why the idea of it happening randomly seems rather impossible, improbable.
No, they had a similar atmosphere, with the same quantities. And they were lacking 1 VERY important thing, a billion years for more reactions to happen, and to continue to happen increasing complexity progressively. What they proved is step 1, and that's a big ol' step!
You are right that Difficulty emulating ambiogenesis in the laboratory suggests that the process is extremely improbable, But improbable is not impossible. I fact, we know it happened, therefore i obviously cannot be impossible. When you consider vast oceans with processes all taking place in parallel, then even exceedingly improbable events become much less so.
In a way I agree. Evolution versus creation is useless. They are in fact unconnected. Whether the universe was 'created' or not (and indeed whatever that means to you) it clearly includes functional evolution which can be measured in real time as generational mutations.
This is a little like saying gravity versus creation is useless. That is technically true as whether or not the universe is 'created' or not it clearly includes the force we refer to as gravity and its effects can be measured in real time through the movements of celestial bodies.
Even if it is unexplained, all that means is that we don't yet know. It does not mean it requires supernatural intervention.
that's true, no one I have read or listen to has said that and neither have I, if I did that was an error on my part. Though for me it's more plausible given we almost have the technology and ability to do it, so it seems more possible that some older/advanced being(s) or whatever, started life here. One of the talks mentioned the movie Prometheus (which sucked imo). But then where did the intelligent designer come from....another infinite regression perhaps. It's fascinating to me.
Thank you it's good to be back.