*Author

Daxx

  • Guest
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg218313#msg218313
« Reply #252 on: December 06, 2010, 10:24:16 pm »
It's worth noting that there are at least two distinct schools of thought on abiogenesis, and since this is a developing field it is naturally competitive, so remember the context a lot of criticisms are made in. I recently read an extremely disingenuous attack on abiogenesis which used critical arguments from each school of thought to undermine the other in order to present the entire concept as being rejected by the scientific community (it was a pamphlet from some Jehovah's Witnesses; if anyone is interested I can probably find it online, along with the extensive rebuttals it generated).

Offline ratcharmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Reputation Power: 10
  • ratcharmer is taking their first peeks out of the Antlion's burrow.ratcharmer is taking their first peeks out of the Antlion's burrow.
  • I'm back, it's been a while.
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg218978#msg218978
« Reply #253 on: December 07, 2010, 06:45:39 pm »
It's worth noting that there are at least two distinct schools of thought on abiogenesis, and since this is a developing field it is naturally competitive, so remember the context a lot of criticisms are made in. I recently read an extremely disingenuous attack on abiogenesis which used critical arguments from each school of thought to undermine the other in order to present the entire concept as being rejected by the scientific community (it was a pamphlet from some Jehovah's Witnesses; if anyone is interested I can probably find it online, along with the extensive rebuttals it generated).
The link I cited is not a criticism of the original experiment, it's an interview with the man who ran the experiment.

I don't know why it isn't loading for you, QuantumT, it still opens just fine on my end . . .

Here's a few key quotes:
Quote
AB: What is your current opinion on the need for a primitive reducing atmosphere for pre-biotic life to take hold 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago?

SM: I have not found an alternative to disprove the need for a primitive reducing atmosphere.

AB: Do you believe that material transported on meteors or comets is insufficient to seed life, if such amino acids were successfully transported intact to the surface of the Earth?

SM: Meteorite and other exogenous contributions become very important only if the earth had a neutral atmosphere. However, if the only sources of organic compounds under such conditions were the very small number of compounds produced with a CO2 rich atmosphere and delivered from outside, the amount may be too low for the origin of life.

AB: Since many astrobiologists are currently examining hydrothermal vents, in search of extremophiles, does the prebiotic chemistry actually get decomposed rather than enhanced by the presence of such ocean venting?

SM: Locating extremophiles is not relevant to the synthesis of organic compounds necessary for life, as the conditions of such ocean venting decomposes rather than enhances prebiotic chemistry.
SM = Stanley Miller
Ab = the interviewer

QuantumT

  • Guest
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg218982#msg218982
« Reply #254 on: December 07, 2010, 06:57:48 pm »
If I read it correctly, this is what those responses need.

1) The reactions only occur in a reducing atmosphere.

2) In a neutral atmosphere, the number of compounds delivered from outside wouldn't be sufficient to seed life. It does not say that the early earth's atmosphere was in fact neutral.

3) Ocean vents wouldn't help in the formation of nearby life, so looking for them would serve no purpose.

Offline ratcharmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Reputation Power: 10
  • ratcharmer is taking their first peeks out of the Antlion's burrow.ratcharmer is taking their first peeks out of the Antlion's burrow.
  • I'm back, it's been a while.
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg219007#msg219007
« Reply #255 on: December 07, 2010, 07:57:41 pm »
If I read it correctly, this is what those responses need.

1) The reactions only occur in a reducing atmosphere.

2) In a neutral atmosphere, the number of compounds delivered from outside wouldn't be sufficient to seed life. It does not say that the early earth's atmosphere was in fact neutral.

3) Ocean vents wouldn't help in the formation of nearby life, so looking for them would serve no purpose.
ah, the underlined portion is directly stated elsewhere. Here's a quote:
Quote
But as the Earth's early chemistry has become better understood, a catch has arisen. Ironically, while complex biochemistry can spring from simpler building blocks, one missing element--the simplest hydrogen--may have been in short supply four billion years ago. Without it, the reactions don't trigger the right organic chemistry. If the Earth more likely was rich in nitrogen and carbon dioxide-- rather than hydrogen, methane and ammonia--, then any amount of sparking delivers a mere drop of organic byproducts. The primordial soup is too dilute.
The lack of hydrogen means the atmosphere was either oxidizing or neutral, but it could not have been reducing.

Here's another link to a different article, see if this one works:
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/5/reflections-from-a-warm-little-pond
This one doesn't contain the interview with Miller, but it does give a decent overview of the problem and explains the major attempts to resolve it.

QuantumT

  • Guest
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg220402#msg220402
« Reply #256 on: December 09, 2010, 07:50:31 pm »
Hmm... fair enough. Looks like we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.

Offline BluePriestTopic starter

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Reputation Power: 46
  • BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.
  • Entropy Has You
  • Awards: Slice of Elements 5th Birthday Cake
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg221087#msg221087
« Reply #257 on: December 10, 2010, 04:43:49 pm »
On to my next question. I have trouble finding a good explanation of the big band. You hear things that people who oppose evolution say, and it usually sounds like this.
1)There was nothing.
2)An Infinitesimal singularity appeared (which had an extremely high density)
3)That Infinitesimal singularity exploded (which with a little albeit not much research, it was more of just a constant expansion that is still thought to be expanding.)

Im guessing this is a drastic oversimplification, however, when put like that it sounds like rubbish.

And yes, this does relate to evolution. Evolution of the universe. I wasnt specific for a reason lol. I wanted to be able to cover all sorts of things in this topic.
This sig was interrupted by Joe Biden

Offline Chemist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • Chemist is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg221379#msg221379
« Reply #258 on: December 10, 2010, 11:25:20 pm »
On to my next question. I have trouble finding a good explanation of the big band. You hear things that people who oppose evolution say, and it usually sounds like this.
1)There was nothing.
2)An Infinitesimal singularity appeared (which had an extremely high density)
3)That Infinitesimal singularity exploded (which with a little albeit not much research, it was more of just a constant expansion that is still thought to be expanding.)

Im guessing this is a drastic oversimplification, however, when put like that it sounds like rubbish.

And yes, this does relate to evolution. Evolution of the universe. I wasnt specific for a reason lol. I wanted to be able to cover all sorts of things in this topic.
"The big band is a type of musical ensemble associated with jazz, a style of music which became popular during the Swing Era  from the early 1930s until the late 1940s. Big bands evolved with the times and continue to today. A big band typically consists of approximately 12 to 25 musicians and contains saxophones, trumpets, trombones, singers (or vocalists), and a rhythm section. "

Sorry, I just had to.

  The Big Bang: it's the name for the event at the very beginning of our Universe. We know from the red shift of observed galaxies that the Universe is currently expanding. So has the Universe been expanding "since it began"? Physicists have produced a very detailed model of how the Universe has evolved from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang till today. It is lent very great credence by the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, which would have been (and apparently was) produced in the conditions reigning shortly after the Big Bang. However, scientists can currently not say what happened before the aforementioned fraction of a second after the Big Bang because our current theories of (quantum) physics break down at such extreme conditions. Hence the need for the (very) high energy LHC experiment to help with our understanding of physics.

  Now, as for your asking about an "explanation for" the Big Bang I assume you're asking about what caused it... which is sort of a meaningless question. As you've probably already heard, time is sometimes referred to as the fourth dimension. We don't talk about time and space, but instead about space-time (Einstein's idea). Indeed time does act the same as a spatial dimension in how it bends in the pressence of matter, etc. This relates to the Big Bang in that since the event is said to mark the beginning of space-time, one can not meaningfully talk about a time "before" the Universe any more than a space "before" the Universe or space "next to" the Universe. Instead all the space-time we know of is part of our Universe ("inside it"). Hence we shouldn't look at it from an outside perspective as if there was time outside of it, but rather as a timeless entity that one would say "always existed" (if it weren't for how timelesness makes "always" a meaningless concept).

  Just like you could imagine looking at the Universe along its width (left end to right end), you could look at it along its duration (beginning(temporal) to end(temporal)). The "early" and "late" Universe are parts (areas) of it just like the "upper" and "lower" Universe are. No matter along which dimension you traverse it: The Universe is.

Offline BluePriestTopic starter

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Reputation Power: 46
  • BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.
  • Entropy Has You
  • Awards: Slice of Elements 5th Birthday Cake
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg221391#msg221391
« Reply #259 on: December 10, 2010, 11:51:30 pm »
Heh.. yeah I walked right into the big band crack lol. No for explanation I wasnt actually referring to what caused the big bang (yet). I was more of just looking for your first part that explained the big bang better than what I gave. Ok, so thats about what I usually find for the explanation and the evidence for it.

So now on to what I was leading up to. The Infinitesimal singularity, was it considered to have always existed? Or did is it thought to have just appeared (I know, really weird questions, and they sound like bait and trap questions, but I honestly want to make sure I get all the information right before I say anything, and you probably have an idea of where Im going with it)
This sig was interrupted by Joe Biden

QuantumT

  • Guest
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg221465#msg221465
« Reply #260 on: December 11, 2010, 01:19:03 am »
Heh.. yeah I walked right into the big band crack lol. No for explanation I wasnt actually referring to what caused the big bang (yet). I was more of just looking for your first part that explained the big bang better than what I gave. Ok, so thats about what I usually find for the explanation and the evidence for it.

So now on to what I was leading up to. The Infinitesimal singularity, was it considered to have always existed? Or did is it thought to have just appeared (I know, really weird questions, and they sound like bait and trap questions, but I honestly want to make sure I get all the information right before I say anything, and you probably have an idea of where Im going with it)
To be honest, we aren't really sure right now. It's likely that no explanation will be forthcoming until we manage to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Offline Chemist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • Chemist is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg221778#msg221778
« Reply #261 on: December 11, 2010, 09:51:23 am »
So now on to what I was leading up to. The Infinitesimal singularity, was it considered to have always existed? Or did is it thought to have just appeared (I know, really weird questions, and they sound like bait and trap questions, but I honestly want to make sure I get all the information right before I say anything, and you probably have an idea of where Im going with it)
QuantumT is right: we can't know for now. But in the meantime there are several views that might make sense as an answer.

  If you follow my outside view of the Universe as a timeless entity, then the singularity at its beginning has always existed, just like whatever event is at the Universe's end has always existed. Furthermore, the Universe has never changed (it's always the same). The reason that we perceive the Universe as changing is that we are constantly travelling through it along the time dimension. You'd similarly see the Universe as constantly changing if you were travelling along any spatial dimension while time stood still (changing scenery...). The reason we perceive time as "special" is due to our nature of being life ran by chemical reactions. We can't help but move along the arrow of time.

  Imagine it as a video tape (or a DVD) with a film on it. For the film characters their time is real and only runs in one direction. But an outside observer can see the whole tape at once: the beginning and the end of the story are there from the start.

Daxx

  • Guest
Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=4398.msg223627#msg223627
« Reply #262 on: December 13, 2010, 12:09:46 pm »
3)That Infinitesimal singularity exploded (which with a little albeit not much research, it was more of just a constant expansion that is still thought to be expanding.)
Whilst others have covered this obliquely already, it's worth emphasising directly that of your three steps only this one is relevant to big bang theory. The first two are to big bang theory as abiogenesis is to evolution. Does that make sense?

 

blarg: