Entropy Disproves Abiogenesis

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Imagine you are a dog. You live amongst a god like creature known as human. They are able to feed you, keep you warm...your existence is kind of attached to them. You have learned to love a couple very deeply, as they have loved you as well over the last 15 years.

Another human you recognize from periodic visits walks up to you as you sit in that stark white room, in a kennel, awaiting their visit. You don't feel great, but in the past when you didn't feel great, these visits always seemed to help.

This human picks you up, tells you its going to be ok like they always do. They give you a shot, like they always do. But now you are really drowsy and begin to fall asleep....

From the perspective of the human everything was ok. They compassionately ended the life of a faithful friend. To the dog, its was not ok, as they didn't even get a choice. They weren't even aware a choice was to be made. They lived amongst a race of magical gods, so who knows what can and cannot happen.

My point is: we are dogs when compared to even other humans like Williams Sidhis. A 300 IQ is stunning to contemplate. Its hard to understand. His IQ was in a relative vacuum of 130 IQ's, so it was highly unactualized. He was front loaded with human hormonal interactions, and human synaptic connections. So the limits of what that IQ could do was certainly limited. But he lived amongst us, and few really were able to understand him. The world crushed him, and he ended up nearly fully unactualized. But imagine if he were to have lived among a species of being with a matched IQ, and a few thousand years of development with that IQ. How would you even contemplate their motivations?

The question you ask is the right question. But its a question that is almost impossible to answer from within the closed system that is Earth (at least closed biologically).

Its likely that life is common. Its also likely that life that is intelligent is not. And also likely that life that gets intelligent enough to leave their own solar system is even less common. Just think of all the things that have to happen to get to that point.

Either we assume that somewhere out in the unfathomable depths of the universe, a society exists that possesses sufficiently advanced technology capable of terraforming and bioengineering, or we assume that no such society exists and we are very lucky or very cursed by the inherent juxtaposition of reconciling our existence with our futility.

The first possibility tells me, based on tenuous fleeting interactions and general absence of communications, that someone is afraid of us or afraid of hurting us. Neither of those conclusions are particularly reassuring.

The second possibility tells me that we are resentful of the human condition and crave some manner of "upgrade" which will eventually be engineered by our brightest and most reckless minds whose job is to alter the fundamental definitions of our people and reinvent society. Or... they fail entirely and civilization as we know it is doomed like dozens of empires and countless extinct species before us. Again, neither of these conclusions are particularly reassuring.

FWIW

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I made a thread a little way back titled The Queen Of The Trees. I think the video I included lends itself to simplifying how it works.

I've heard good things about that documentary, I'll have to check it out some time.

We look at birth as the beginning, and death as the end of life. I don't think there is ever an end. Death is just the next phase. Just a reset.

It is hard for us to understand, because our ego will not allow us to see that we all start out as tiny microorganisms with no identity. Early enough in our development, you can't tell the difference between a cow, a pig, or a human, with your naked eyes.

We are blinded because we only see what we want to see. The magic is in the fact the we are all living on this planet together and are dependent on the other inhabitants, and environmental factors, much like the inhabitants in a terrarium.

Without death life ends. Death is at the core of abiogenesis. That is where the first law comes into play.

" The energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside."

The co-dependence of many facets of our environment are further proof that the system could not have come to be in a piece-by-piece manner as proposed by evolution. I gave some examples in this (link) post that I made not too long ago. The interconnectedness of life doesn't show we all mutated from some ancient microbe over time, it shows the necessity of the entire biosphere to be in place for the whole to function. Not to mention the cosmological factor where we have been in an inhabitable zone for the entirety of human history, and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. These are all hallmarks of a well-designed system, not random chance creation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Either we assume that somewhere out in the unfathomable depths of the universe

Considering the entirety of all things we can see with the naked eye are on a small 400nanometer band within an infinitely large spectrum of frequencies shows there is potential not just in far places, but in different frequencies. The reason I harp so much on why evolution is wrong is due to an explorable potential that might otherwise be ignored if someone thinks they're just a mutant accident that will one day return to eternal unawareness

a reply to: cooperton

"Explorable potential" I think you mean exploitable. Exploitation of physics, information technology and esoterica to gratify the ego.

a reply to: cooperton

it shows the necessity of the entire biosphere to be in place for the whole to function.

We have over the years found the bread crumbs that have led us to the knowledge that life starts at a molecular level. We just don't understand what we have learned.

We can look at a sperm and a ovum under a microscope. We can watch each stage of development, until that merging develops into a fetus, than a child, than an adult. There it stops for us. But it does not stop for the biosphere.

When we speak of life after death, we think in terms of the resurrection of the body, restored to the full measure of its existence. Yet that is not were life began.

I don't think we can ever really deal with the massive complexity that I believe is at play in the cycle of life.

It is almost science fiction to believe that a rib bone taken from the ashes could be used to create cells that could form a a living being. But the possibility is written in our minds.

As long as we look at life only as a life-form, while rejecting the all that forms life, I think we will miss the mark.

It is like looking at a beautiful picture that becomes obscure when reduced to just pixels.

a reply to: cooperton

100% false. The earth gains new energy from the sun every day. You know this, yet you continue to lie about it conflicting with abiogenesis. You don't have a clue, and really need to stop making garbage threads.

originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: cooperton

100% false. The earth gains new energy from the sun every day. You know this, yet you continue to lie about it conflicting with abiogenesis. You don't have a clue, and really need to stop making garbage threads.

The Toothache has returned.

None of the polymerization reactions of DNA, RNA or protein monomers are thermodynamically favorable in water. Even with a massive heat lamp sun you aren't going to change that fact

Also, The cosmos exhibits order. This is peculiar since our universe is tending towards disorder. If our universe is tending towards disorder, and order still exists, this means there was order to begin with.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution creates pressure leading to greater complexity. Lets say we write a computer program the two ways in which one might program a computer to generate the following sequence of characters: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. The first program randomly producing a new 28-character sequence each time it is run; since the program starts over each time, it incorporates a “single-step selection process.” The probability of randomly generating the target sequence on any given try is 27x28 (that is, 27 characters selected for each of the 28 positions in the sequence), which amounts to about 1 in (10,000 x 1,000,0006). While a computer running eternally would eventually produce the sequence, it would take 1,000,0005 years—which is 1,000,0003 years longer than the universe has existed.

However evolution doesnt allow for random variations its a building process as each generation in order to survive must get closer to the bulls eye. So our second program would incorporate a “cumulative-step selection mechanism.” It begins by randomly generating a 28-character sequence of letters and spaces and then “breeds” from this sequence in the following way. For a specified period of time, it generates copies of itself; most of the copies perfectly replicate the sequence, but some copies have errors (or mutations). At the end of this period, it compares all of the sequences with the target sequence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL and keeps the sequence that most closely resembles it. For example, a sequence that has an E in the second place more closely resembles a sequence that is exactly like the first except that it has a Q in the second place. It then begins breeding from this new sequence in exactly the same way. Unlike the first program which starts afresh with each try, the second program builds on previous steps, getting successively closer to the program as it breeds from the sequence closest to the target. This feature of the program increases the probability of reaching the sequence to such an extent that a computer running this program hits the target sequence after 43 generations, which took about half-an-hour.

So when we place one restriction in our program we achieve our goal. Evolutions one restriction is survivability.So from chaos we get order.

a reply to: dragonridr
If this is how it works....
Who wrote the two programs?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: dragonridr
If this is how it works....
Who wrote the two programs?

You missed the point completely. To make it simple the laws of the universe ie nature causes the restriction needed for life to evolve. If you want to say God created those restrictions I don't care in the least it doesn't change the fact that evolution by its very nature creates more complex lifeforms.

a reply to: dragonridr

You missed the point completely. To make it simple the laws of the universe ie nature causes the restriction needed for life to evolve

Yet you had to introduce two programs and a Programmer to explain it.
I thought you did a very good job.

a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis disproves itself because water and carbon already contain organic compounds (living-matter)

Where did the living matter come from as opposed to non-living matter.

Abiogenesis falls short, narrow in scope and intentionally ignores this argument in its own favor, like news media's do, it's called omitting facts.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis disproves itself because water and carbon already contain organic compounds (living-matter)

Where did the living matter come from as opposed to non-living matter.

Abiogenesis falls short, narrow in scope and intentionally ignores this argument in its own favor, like news media's do, it's called omitting facts.

If I get what you are saying, you're referring to how we take for granted the existence of stable elements? That's a very good point. Consider how fascinating the physics are for an atom to persist in its particular state. These intramolecular laws are the groundwork for all matter, and for them to maintain their physical nature to allow matter to persist in a consistent manner is quite astonishing really.

For a proton or electron to come into existence is just mind-boggling. Let alone the physical laws necessary to cause the electron to find a goldi-locks zone in its orbit around the proton.

Everywhere you look it implies a Designed system