Origins of life

[AstusAleator]

I think I vaguely see the connection to feminism, but you haven't made it clear in your post.

In order to tie it to "feminism" per se, you would need to argue that females began to require more monogamous relationships before they would mate. This could very well be, as keeping the male around would greatly increase the fitness of the mother and child.
This is also a population-limiting behavior though. It calls for a sex-ratio of approximately 50:50, limiting the number of offspring that can be produced.
For example, in a 50:50 population of 1000 people, no more than 500 babies can be produced in a 10-18 month period of time (allowing time for gestation and nursing).
On the other hand, in a 75:25 male to female ratio population of 1000 people (a rough ratio resembling herom-istic animals) the number of offspring that can be produced increases accordingly.
The same can be said aboud a 99:1 ratio.
So the change must have taken place when Homo or earlier ancestors began to become highly social, and rely more on inclusive fitness than mass propagation.

[Linn]

Hello and nice to meet new forum members!
Dont be intimidated by
the evolutionists because
that theory is no more
scientific than creation.
And this discussion will just go
around and around like always
Evolution is like a religion of its own.
It just happens to be the popular one right now.
I think scientists and biologists should keep looking for
answers either way and keep an open mind.
Then there is the middle ground about how
God used evolution. They will say there is proof
of evolution but I think if there is ever any real
proof with out any doubt at all (mit would be all over the news)
then evolution will
no longer be a theory and the debate will end.

Its funny though has any one ever given thought about
how the bible was scientific at a time thousands of years
a head of the times. Wouldnt the creator of all things
have known these things?
Lynne

[Linn]

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:28 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spygirl
I think perhaps we are all looking at this wrong. Doesn't this all seem really pointless why would animals reproduce and struggle to survive if all they would do is die?
Why would humans have such wonderful loving relationships if we were no better than the black widow who eats her husband?
I don't know if you have ever taken a physics class but the 3rd law of physics is that everything increases in disorder. Since Biology and Physics work together it seems clear that life could not have truly been an accident. But then we come back to the age old question of what is the purpose of llife?

So eloquently stated!

God has put eternity in to them (Humans) having been
made in his image they are a little above the animals.

Humans can choose between instinct and love.

[Khaiy]

Spygirl
I think perhaps we are all looking at this wrong. Doesn't this all seem really pointless why would animals reproduce and struggle to survive if all they would do is die?
Why would humans have such wonderful loving relationships if we were no better than the black widow who eats her husband?
I don't know if you have ever taken a physics class but the 3rd law of physics is that everything increases in disorder. Since Biology and Physics work together it seems clear that life could not have truly been an accident. But then we come back to the age old question of what is the purpose of llife?

You can't apply the "3rd law of physics" (by which I think you mean 2nd law of thermodynamics) that way, it's a misinterpretation of the law itself, which only deals specifically with energy moving from a more ordered source to a less ordered one. And as for survival, well the organisms that don't try to reproduce just don't, so of course we'd never see them.

With the science out of the way, I think that spygirl made a very interesting point about love. I (as a Catholic) feel that it's our ability to build those loving relationships that make us something special as compared to the black widows. I can't pretend that I come even close to understanding God's designs for the universe even at the lowest level, but that's what makes the most sense to me.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure why I threw my personal beleifs into the science message boards, but oh well here they are anyhow :p

[AstusAleator]

Linn I would congratulate you on killing another scientific discussion, but it really has been mostly metaphysical from the beginning.
For a biologist to state the "meaning of life" in any sense other than biological would require him or her to go outside their realm of expertise and into the realm of speculation.
Likewise, for a scientist to state that there isn't a God or that the earth wasn't created, is also pure speculation, as that cannot be addressed scientifically.

********you can go ahead and start ignoring what I'm saying right around here*******************


If, at some point in the future, every aspect of human capacity for emotion, spiritualism, etc, is isolated biologically and tied to various hormones and neurons, that will still not disprove the existence of spiritual meaning (kinda like the Matrix ).
It could be that the meaning of life is to seek nirvana, or go be a missionary and eventually go to heaven. Science's goal is not to prove or disprove that though, it is simply to explore scientific relationships.

There are patterns in nature that, when explored, can lead to answers, or at least more informed questions.

Start with Darwins finches. Ok, micro evolution. Now start looking at the fossil records and geologic timescale. Look at the patterns of magnetic inversions found in oceanic crust. Look at ancient fossils of the same species found on separate continents. Look at the relationships of populations to their environments and how that affects their behavior.

I really don't see how you can fail to see the patterns in nature, very mathematical in structure (see Hamiltons Rule). All science is attempting to do is put together the pieces, solve the patterns.

Figuring out the "meaning of life" from a biological standpoint is something that can be attempted through this process of inquiry. To do so, one must look at the survival patterns of every form of life, and in fact question what exactly it is that we define as "life". Why does a bacterium live? Why does a cockroach live? Why does a chicken live? Why do the innumerable species still undocumented by science live? Ultimately a scientific answer will have nothing to do with a spirit or a god, as science cannot approach that subject and remain science. This does not deny the existence of those, but merely provides the best possible SCIENTIFIC answer.


It's INCREDIBLY chauvenistic and anthropocentric of people to assume that the meaning of "life" only pertains to their life, and that they are the only beings worthy of a soul. You're going to think I'm horrible for saying this but: What makes a child born as a non-functioning, braindead vegetable any more worthy of heaven or hell than the family dog?

At least science can persue a systematic process of inquiry and discovery, and freely admits when it's wrong.
This is something that cannot be said for other "attempts to explain the world."
I think you'll find an important distinction between science and religion right around the realm of... belief and faith in the metaphysical. Furthermore, faith in general. I consider it possible that abiogenesis may have occured in the way it is theorized to have, but I don't blindly put faith in that hypothesis. The closest you'll find scientists (ideally, i know some take science to the level of a religion and that's unfortunate) coming to "faith" will be using assumptions to base their experiments on and make models.


*********And you can go ahead and start paying attention again right about here*******************


So I feel that you're mocking evolution and thus science, which is ironic as you're a senior member in a scientific forum. I couldn't let it pass, though I know everything I've said here has been said before in other threads, and if you ignored them then, you'll ignore them now.

Anyhow, i've said a lot and as you said "this discussion will just go
around and around like always".

[mith]

Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.....

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

If I consulted the same sources as Lynn, I'd be in trouble too. They sounds so persuasive and reasonable...except they are totally wrong and unscientific, but alas (I'm not trying to be pretentious here, it's really true) only those who know and understand physics would be able to tell the difference.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

Excepts posted below because I know there are people who are too lazy to click the link. I especially liked how the article was summarized.

# The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

# There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

# The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

# Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!

Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

[alextemplet]

This looks like a fabulously interesting discussion . . . I promise to enter it as soon as I am sufficiently not-tired to read everything in detail so that my reply shall not make me seem like a total retard.

[damien james]

Mithril with another talkorigins quote. I will have to sit down some day and read more of that site. The information seem to be very good. Also, I like your <philosophy mode> haha

On side note, Spygirl, is not necessary to equate believing in evolution to not believing in god. I think I read someone say (I can't remember who sorry) Science tells us the How, and faith tells us the Why. So you can be both spiritual and not have to go against science too!!

[David George]

deostroll
I suggest you watch Discovery or NGC

You lucky keralites I am in Chennai and all the Pay channels have been taken off! .The guess I wrote was taken from the nat geo website.

[David George]

Males were originally known to be polygamous. (No offence, but its true). But today, you see fathers are happy managing one wife and few children.

The most logical reason for this phenomenon was that males were somehow interested in fathering the offspring to maturity. In other words, it was for no other reason other than to take care of their young ones!

Well I think that fathers are happy to manage one wife because of the culture and the amount of money they earn.In arab countries rich people marry many wives.I donot think your reasons are right.Looking.scientifically
I think that males are polygamous because they prefer to mate.If they do so with different females they might increase the variation and the number of offsprings.Hence the human race can thrive well.Although many males donot realize the reasons mentioned above.

Science tells us the How, and faith tells us the Why. So you can be both spiritual and not have to go against science too!!

Thats funny the science I know is learned because humans are curious to know the reason for everything and religion is only an assumption made by humans to give satisfactory reasons for what he did not know.Although many are not satisfactory for science.I say that religion is a science followed rigidly and not changed with discoveries.But true science always changes.You adapt to the changes you survive thats life.Although there is a limit to adapt.I donot find any science when the Red sea splits up when moses ordered it to nor do I find any science when the first born son was slaughtered in egypt.All faiths tell us about love as a charecter to be possed to reach heaven or some great place.Love is only a character evolved it might be expressed or not that does not mean the person is bad.The Ten commandments says that having an eye on the neighbours donkey or anything is a sin. If the lion does not steal food from the cheetah is somebody go and feed the lion?The bible does not say the heart as an organ that pumps your blood to represent kindness and so on.the heart has nothing to do with kindness it is the brain that controls our intellectual functions.Don't tell me Jesus or Messiah or The Holy Spirit did not realize this.

[AstusAleator]

David you're expressing an important point, but I think your choice of wording (such as "only") is a bit too inflamatory.
Religion isn't "only" one thing. Do not try to defend oversimplified views of science by pidgeon-holing religion. That just makes things worse.

Having said that: I agree that the fables/myths/allegories/metaphors/etc of religions originally stemmed from scientific inquiry, but were then bogged down in dogmatic doctrine. BUT do not take this as discrediting the stories provided by religions. I believe those stories have HUGE impacts on the cultures of civilizations, and their ideologies. Literalist interpretations should be avoided, but nevertheless, there is a lesson to be learned from each and every story.

I don't doubt that a Christian Creationist would deny that it is even remotely possible that all life crawled out of a hollow log or hole in the ground, starting with coyote (native american myth), or that we all live on the back of a giant turtle or elephant (Indian(Eastern)...?). Yet they cling to literalist interpretations of their own canon, as the "word of god".
People need to step back and take a fresh look at these issues, and realize What Matters Most (WMM).
Is it your relationship with God? Or is it nitpicking and arguing over minor details, even though the message will remain the same.

Creationists need to stop feeling threatened by Evolution, and start explaining to their children how the two can exist parallel to eachother, and the importance of living according to WMM.

This perpetual argument merely causes a false dichotomy, in which people are forced into camps.

Anyway, I've regressed. The point: at any point, scientific inquiry can become religion, as faith and dogma come into play.

[alextemplet]

David, I think you're trying to take the Bible for something that it's not. It is by no means a science textbook, although it does have some value as a historical book. However, the Bible's main purpose is to make a spiritual rather than scientific or historical point. This is why there is so much in it that seems to contradict science (such as the creation story or the great flood) and even books that are completely fictitious (such as Job, Tobit, Judith, Jonah, and a few others). Religion is not meant to be a substitute for science; I know some try to use that way but that's another issue entirely. Religion is about a relationship with God; nothing more, nothing less.