Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 2 minutes ago, exchemist said: "Biology" is just what biochemistry produces. There can be different "biologies", based on different biochemistries. For instance, there might be a different system for inheritance that didn't use a molecule like our DNA. It might involve different base pairs, or not use base pairs as a coding mechanism at all. Its metabolic biochemistry might not use ATP as a carrier of energy for reactions inside the cell. It could differ from our biology in countless ways. But, so long as it produced biochemical systems that replicated and passed on their characteristics to the next generation, you would get evolution....and then more complex life forms would come into being. As for chemical intent to become life, no, I do not suggest that. But life did arise here on Earth and there is no reason to think the conditions on the early Earth are unique in all the universe. A similar process, if not an identical one, can certainly have taken place elsewhere. No it's not it has 12 billion years of causation to get threw before it gets to anything resembling pre biotic materials ....they are all there in your garden now ...what's not is repeatable physical enviroments at particular sequential times in its entropy...are you suggesting a chemical intent to become prebiotic material that intends to become dynamic chemical reaction ...that looks lifelike ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 1 hour ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Well if it's not biolgy it's not biolgy it would just be something else...that assertion would allow you to claim any old chemical reaction life Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based. 1 hour ago, Andrew William Henderson said: It's not the same water as you couldn't have had the same heat or oxygen You didn't specify that it had to be the same water until after your argument was rebutted. 47 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Only as much as your assertion it was easy ...what from gas metal and rock ..we can make valid observations and make comparable... what did it take for worms to evolve into humans I'm not aware that worms evolved into humans. Certainly not any extant species of worm. 47 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: to what it took for universal elements to produce biology The first biology did all the work it didnt happen fast You can't possibly know if it was fast or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 Just now, swansont said: Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based. No ...simply it needs to be biology or it's not life ...besides the first biology didnt use DNA or RNA it too was a biological product ..what biological trait would you expect a non biolgical lifeform to have to consider it life ? ..curly hair or a self replicating gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 12 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: It's not personal ignorance...its based on scientific fact and reasoning I haven't seen you use scientific fact and reasoning yet in this thread 12 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: .....lesser complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice Again you have made a vague prediction. If the pattern holds, you will then move the goalposts when this is shown to be false, and you will apply a much narrower set of criteria to try and cover your error. 12 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: The same forces that stop you happening twice are the same forces that don't allow another sun the same as ours ...its why mars doesn't look like earth ..you dont look me ...or a giraffe (I hope 🙂) the planet 567000D can not produce life nor another Mount Everest.... A sun doesn't have to be the same as ours for it to be a sun. Again with the intellectually dishonest reasoning. 2 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: No ...simply it needs to be biology or it's not life ...besides the first biology didnt use DNA or RNA it too was a biological product ..what biological trait would you expect a non biolgical lifeform to have to consider it life ? ..curly hair or a self replicating gene Life would be biological, even if it were different that what was formed on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: No it's not it has 12 billion years of causation to get threw before it gets to anything resembling pre biotic materials ....they are all there in your garden now ...what's not is repeatable physical enviroments at particular sequential times in its entropy...are you suggesting a chemical intent to become prebiotic material that intends to become dynamic chemical reaction ...that looks lifelike ? The Earth formed ~4.5bn years ago. The earliest signs of life we have date from about 3.5bn years ago. So it took less than a billion years, apparently. I don't understand what point about entropy you are trying to make. The entropy of a given chemical reaction is a fixed thing. It is the same now as it was 3.5bn years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: No ...simply it needs to be biology or it's not life ...besides the first biology didnt use DNA or RNA it too was a biological product ..what biological trait would you expect a non biolgical lifeform to have to consider it life ? ..curly hair or a self replicating gene What other definition could we use ....for life other than a biology despite philosophical ideas ..biology/ life I believe is a totally unique product of its unique exsitence in a universe where uniqueness is the norm .. what intent are you placing on another uniqueness to resemble life ....why would it do it how could it do it ...why would it want to do it what's so special about life??? it doesn't do much it's more dynamic than silica but wont last as long ... life isnt special as it's only as unique as jupiter but less likley ....well to us humans it is ! 15 minutes ago, swansont said: I haven't seen you use scientific fact and reasoning yet in this thread Again you have made a vague prediction. If the pattern holds, you will then move the goalposts when this is shown to be false, and you will apply a much narrower set of criteria to try and cover your error. A sun doesn't have to be the same as ours for it to be a sun. Again with the intellectually dishonest reasoning. Life would be biological, even if it were different that what was formed on earth. How....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 (edited) 29 minutes ago, exchemist said: I really do not understand why you keep repeating this falsehood: "lesser complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice " They do produce the same thing, repeatedly. If they didn't, there would be no science of chemistry. Where do you get this silly nonsense from? I agree +1 @Andrew William Henderson Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ? Edited June 29, 2021 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 15 minutes ago, exchemist said: The Earth formed ~4.5bn years ago. The earliest signs of life we have date from about 3.5bn years ago. So it took less than a billion years, apparently. I don't understand what point about entropy you are trying to make. The entropy of a given chemical reaction is a fixed thing. It is the same now as it was 3.5bn years ago. You dont understand entropy...or you assume prebiotic chemicals and materials just appeared from thin air ... your deliberately ignoring the unique physical mechanics that placed the chemicals together the quantity of available materials ..... these are unreatable due to the fluidity or stability of the enviroment and time ...if other chemical reactions can form life where is it then ...as I said earlier the chemical reactions of Jupiter's atmosphere could be considered biology in that case or do we need to stick a leg on it first ... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 11 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: What other definition could we use ....for life other than a biology despite philosophical ideas ..biology/ life I believe is a totally unique product of its unique exsitence in a universe where uniqueness is the norm .. what intent are you placing on another uniqueness to resemble life ....why would it do it how could it do it ...why would it want to do it what's so special about life??? it doesn't do much it's more dynamic than silica but wont last as long ... life isnt special as it's only as unique as jupiter but less likley ....well to us humans it is ! ! Moderator Note You need to address the questions that have been posed to you by other members, rather than continuing to quote yourself and repeat yourself over and over. Otherwise you are soapboxing, and that's not allowed in a discussion here. Especially address the non-mainstream aspects of your ideas, and support them with some kind of evidence, or be more rigorous in your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 10 minutes ago, studiot said: I agree +1 @Andrew William Henderson Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ? Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2 sun2 precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ... -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 4 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2 sun2 precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ... ! Moderator Note This was not even close to addressing the post from studiot you quoted. Please think of discussion like a conversation around a table. Studiot asked you a simple question, "Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ?" Please answer that, because what you posted... didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 6 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note You need to address the questions that have been posed to you by other members, rather than continuing to quote yourself and repeat yourself over and over. Otherwise you are soapboxing, and that's not allowed in a discussion here. Especially address the non-mainstream aspects of your ideas, and support them with some kind of evidence, or be more rigorous in your reasoning. I'm trying to answer as fast as I can ..but I have to repeat my argument to multiple replys ..it may not be mainstream but you know its built on stronger scientific hypothesis than your current understanding ..which I guess is why I'm experiencing hostility as well as a unusual amount of interest than some of the moderators posts nothing in what I claim can not be backed up by scientific fact ...besides I have answered every question I have relied too ..its just not the answer they want ....🦖 9 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2 sun2 precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ... Yeah I do ....? On 6/28/2021 at 3:03 PM, swansont said: No, it's not. Convergent evolution wouldn't result in identical species. But you didn't say anything about the same species emerging. The claim that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " is not the same as saying some species would emerge twice. The former is very vague* and demonstrably false, while the latter is true and unsurprising, given what we know of evolution. * "nothing" covers a pretty wide range of items and phenomena. All of them, in fact. So as exchemist notes, processes repeat all the time, even if the outcomes differ. There outcomes differ because there process can not be identical or the product that began its process...if nothing covers a wide range give an example of a dissimilar natural process producing something the same ..it should be easy ! -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 27 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: You dont understand entropy...or you assume prebiotic chemicals and materials just appeared from thin air ... your deliberately ignoring the unique physical mechanics that placed the chemicals together the quantity of available materials ..... these are unreatable due to the fluidity or stability of the enviroment and time ...if other chemical reactions can form life where is it then ...as I said earlier the chemical reactions of Jupiter's atmosphere could be considered biology in that case or do we need to stick a leg on it first ... Er, well, I do have a degree in chemistry, in the course of which I learned a fair amount about chemical thermodynamics. So yeah I think I do have some understanding of the entropy of chemical systems, actually. I do not assume anything "appeared from thin air". A lot of work has been done on the likely origins of the various building blocks of life. (I've read a bit of it, but it's a fast-moving field and I don't pretend to have kept up with it all.) But you are flailing around so wildly now that it is impossible to discern what point you are really trying to make. The fact is that chemical reactions are repeatable. So your original argument that nothing in nature repeats itself is patently false. If you want to argue that life can't have arisen anywhere else, you will need a far better argument than hogwash like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 18 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: There outcomes differ because there process can not be identical or the product that began its process...if nothing covers a wide range give an example of a dissimilar natural process producing something the same ..it should be easy ! Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same" You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic. ... I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 1 minute ago, exchemist said: Er, well, I do have a degree in chemistry, in the course of which I learned a fair amount about chemical thermodynamics. So yeah I think I do have some understanding of the entropy of chemical systems, actually. I do not assume anything "appeared from thin air". A lot of work has been done on the likely origins of the various building blocks of life. (I've read a bit of it, but it's a fast-moving field and I don't pretend to have kept up with it all.) But you are flailing around so wildly now that it is impossible to discern what point you are really trying to make. The fact is that chemical reactions are repeatable. So your original argument that nothing in nature repeats itself is patently false. If you want to argue that life can't have arisen anywhere else, you will need a far better argument than hogwash like that. It's easy....why would we expect life to happen on another planet again ..when nothing else in nature is observed to ...become twice ...happen again ...appear the same from different chemicals and causations ...its not hog wash it's a diamond bullet of reality to the forehead you can not answer it despite your training....not once have you asked how I draw my conclusions but just threw the same answered questions back at me ...or another question because you couldn't dismiss my point and if you seriously believe the possibilty of extraterrestrial life your going to need more than the hog wash of probability and possibilty .... 16 minutes ago, swansont said: Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same" You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic. ... I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here. Yes it has from the start ....? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 4 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: nothing else in nature is observed to ...become twice ...happen again Still untrue, despite being repeated. 5 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Yes it has from the start ....? Then you have been really bad at framing this question Is the point you want to make is that dissimilar conditions do not give identical results? Or is it dissimilar processes? Or is it that results can never be replicated exactly? I would argue that none of these are necessarily true, or that this matters, but we need a decently-defined premise to discuss, and you haven't provided one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 Just now, swansont said: Still untrue, despite being repeated. Prove it then ..or at least give an example.....we have done atomic particles and compounds electrons and nuclei...rivers ..suns ..ecosystems .....none the same never been produced twice despite been logically easy than gas rock and metal into the first biology -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 Just now, Andrew William Henderson said: Prove it then ..or at least give an example.....we have done atomic particles and compounds electrons and nuclei...rivers ..suns ..ecosystems .....none the same never been produced twice despite been logically easy than gas rock and metal into the first biology You've been rebutted on all these. Is it really necessary to do that again? Ignorance of science isn't evidence, and your ignorance is rather profound. (and if your argument is true, I can't rebut you again, because nothing is ever observed to happen twice. Right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 Just looked in at half time. Lots of replies I see, but the score on my simple question (which is the key to whether or not a chemical outcome will repeat) remains stubbornly like the England - Germany score nil - nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 3 hours ago, studiot said: @Andrew William Henderson I am as confused as intoscience (+1) as to your thesis. I would therefore welcome your comment in this up to date research, excerpt from the book accompanying a BBC science series of the same name. Life in Colour : How animals see the world. Martin Stevens Witness Books 2021 We call them eyes ...they dont they are seperate evolved organs that help interporate reality using light sensitive cells biology already had the material to make eyes ...the comparison of eyes is the same as legs or hair they are not the same again ...a monkey with a human eye would be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartazion Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 (edited) Some people think of a possible panspermia as origin for DNA. Edited June 29, 2021 by Kartazion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, Kartazion said: Some people think of a possible panspermia. I can well imagine out of solar materials may have contributed to the process or even vital ready made compounds but the hypothesis of biology been seeded smells of intent or a purpose .and it avoids the question of how it formed here and takes it to another place ...its favoured by the exponents if intellgent design and some of its research is linked t ( it is said )to far right christian groups and churches .. not convinced are you ? 5 hours ago, Intoscience said: To the OP, Andrew, Can you clearly define what you are arguing please. The title of the thread implies a question - Why Are We alone... You then state that nothing ever happens twice (as Swansont pointed out to you). You then move on to try and defend the argument that nothing is ever created identical to anything else. ??? Are you are arguing that there is no reason to believe abiogenisis could repeat elsewhere in the observable universe, and this is why we are alone? Assuming this to be the case, then my answer would be that, I don't personally believe anything. I think we don't yet know enough to make a judgement on abiogenisis either way. As far as I'm aware, we have not been successful in replicating (based our current data and understanding) abiogenisis in the lab experimentally using the basic chemicals and environmental conditions present around 4 billion years ago. However it appears that this is what happened here on Earth, so we are confident it has happened at least once (we are good evidence), given the right conditions there is no reason to believe it may not be possible to repeat elsewhere. How rare life emerging is, how often it may occur and how complex it may become are further arguments we can extrapolate from this original one. Whatever a chemical reaction is it can not be prebiotic material until it begins the process of Abiogenesis and that Abiogenesis isn't Abiogenesis until it has produced biology... Biology is life ....another natural system can not replicate the mechanics of that to get even close ..why would it your drawing a mysterious intent on life that you can not put your finger on ..it just seems inconceivable that we( biology) are not that special to not happen again...yeah we are not special but we are totally unique as unique as our solar system ..so to consider the possibilty of extraterrestrial lifeforms seems not only anthropomorphic humanist but also lifecist...life doesn't need to exsit we are the only species of animal that can consider exsitence ... 2 hours ago, exchemist said: The Earth formed ~4.5bn years ago. The earliest signs of life we have date from about 3.5bn years ago. So it took less than a billion years, apparently. I don't understand what point about entropy you are trying to make. The entropy of a given chemical reaction is a fixed thing. It is the same now as it was 3.5bn years ago. How did it take take less than a billion years ...from when ..??? When it became a globe or as I have said before ..the next bank holiday after the co2 level reach 78.8% ...its process cannot be given a start point other than everything needed to happen first ....the planet forming was a vital part in its process but so where a monstrous number of other vital circumstance even before the birth of our star .... 2 hours ago, swansont said: Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based. You didn't specify that it had to be the same water until after your argument was rebutted. I'm not aware that worms evolved into humans. Certainly not any extant species of worm. You can't possibly know if it was fast or not. Worms ..... ! all vertebrate and non vertebrate are derived from the basic body model of a worm ...we are just tubes with different evolved bits ..! worms didnt evolve into humans we evolved from them ..there is no human DNA in a worm but there is worm dna in humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 This is like watching the Hindenburg Disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew William Henderson Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 1 minute ago, zapatos said: This is like watching the Hindenburg Disaster. Of your held beliefs and assumptions ...wheres your science ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 15 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said: Of your held beliefs and assumptions ...wheres your science ? That's kind of a wide open question. Which beliefs and assumptions of mine would you like to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts