Jump to content

Why we are alone...


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

What your not taking into account is ..the reason the product isn't the same ( gold) is because the process isnt the same  just similar enough to produce  our definition of gold ..the process is just a product of an earlier process ... 

Yes. The manufacture is not the same. However, the atoms of gold are all the same (identical). Among the isotopes only one is stable and represents all of the gold naturally present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes I agree, this is why I was asking Andrew what he is stating/asking and if he is arguing that abiogenisis is not repeatable. It appears, as you clearly pointed out to him, that he is changing is argument from unrepeatable process to identical outcome.

I'm not ...its because there is goal posts at either end ..There not moving ...No other system or process can produce gold again ..twice the same!  And the other end of the pitch ..nothing happens twice   not gold or you ! So why biology here or anywhere else happen again ...biology isnt a mountain or gold biology  production required more circumstance than a mountain yet we see no Mount Everest 2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

What your not taking into account is ..the reason the product isn't the same ( gold) is because the process isnt the same  just similar enough to produce  our definition of gold ..the process is just a product of an earlier process ... 

Happening twice = the same thing happening twice

 Same= exact 

Similar = not exact ....! 

No. The process (by which life arises, or by which gold veins form in the rock) will be essentially the same, but the outcome will differ somewhat from occasion to occasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes. The manufacture is not the same. However, the atoms of gold are all the same (identical). Among the isotopes only one is stable and represents all of the gold naturally present.

At what point in time will they all be exact ....I agree they have no individuality but they can never be exact 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes. The manufacture is not the same. However, the atoms of gold are all the same (identical). Among the isotopes only one is stable and represents all of the gold naturally present.

Indeed, much like, they don't taste the same

 

Just now, Andrew William Henderson said:

At what point in time will they all be exact ....I agree, they have no individuality but they can never be exact 

I've never felt the need to eat gold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 

  The same thing Happening twice = the same thing 

Same = exact

Similar = not exact 

And this depends on what that "thing" is.

If that "thing" is some kind of eye is developed, then that "thing" has happened multiple times.

Your examples have focused this down to a narrow instance of something so that the statement is true, but it's only true for those narrowly-defined instances, and you are improperly extrapolating those examples.

 

17 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 The point is no other reactions found in nature despite been logically less complex than abiology are observed ....suns don't happen twice  there resulting planetary system don't nor the resulting set of circumstance placed on it and its planets ...what magic is used to allow Abiogenesis to bypass entropy and the Lorenz effect 

Suns (i.e. stars) happen all the time. Suns similar to ours happen pretty often. There's no reason to think a star has to be exactly like our sun to support life.

Abiogenesis in no way "bypasses" entropy, and I don't see how the Lorenz effect applies. (and you have made the case for neither; just doing a Gish gallop isn't going to get you anywhere)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No. The process (by which life arises, or by which gold veins form in the rock) will be essentially the same, but the outcome will differ somewhat from occasion to occasion. 

No it will not ..gold formation is mainly a geological process that requires less circumstance , gold is a easy process as it is still been formed today  hower all the Ingredients of life  that would make a astrobiologist wee his pants is found in your garden however unlike gold  we see not even quarter attempts of an Abiogenesis 2  gold still has its mechanical and physical processes ..Abiology hasn't because its process was  too conveluted and open to more circumstance than mineral pressure in a fissure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

No it will not ..gold formation is mainly a geological process that requires less circumstance , gold is a easy process as it is still been formed today  hower all the Ingredients of life

You still can't est it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

And this depends on what that "thing" is.

If that "thing" is some kind of eye is developed, then that "thing" has happened multiple times.

Your examples have focused this down to a narrow instance of something so that the statement is true, but it's only true for those narrowly-defined instances, and you are improperly extrapolating those examples.

 

Suns (i.e. stars) happen all the time. Suns similar to ours happen pretty often. There's no reason to think a star has to be exactly like our sun to support life.

Abiogenesis in no way "bypasses" entropy, and I don't see how the Lorenz effect applies. (and you have made the case for neither; just doing a Gish gallop isn't going to get you anywhere)

 

To do it twice it would defy entrophy and if you got it at a identical position of the process with a guaranteed future enviroment exactly as it happened here ( if we knew ) the Lorenz effect shows we can predict the outcome but not the exact outcome ... your making a an assumption that basic biolgy was basic in its construction  as its construction is said to be relatively fast from the earths formation ...why would that be a starting point of the process ...an important one I agree but not as important as its postion and initial ingredients

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

To do it twice it would defy entrophy

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true.

 

Quote

 

and if you got it at a identical position of the process with a guaranteed future enviroment exactly as it happened here ( if we knew ) the Lorenz effect shows we can predict the outcome but not the exact outcome

Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here?

 

Quote

... your making a an assumption that basic biolgy was basic in its construction  as its construction is said to be relatively fast from the earths formation ...why would that be a starting point of the process ...an important one I agree but not as important as its postion and initial ingredients

I'm not understanding your point.

Quote

we see not even quarter attempts of an Abiogenesis 2  gold still has its mechanical and physical processes ..Abiology hasn't because its process was  too conveluted and open to more circumstance than mineral pressure in a fissure 

Asserted without evidence. (I'm sensing a pattern)

Abiogenesis might actually be relatively easy under the conditions of the the early earth. It might be that it only took a thousand years after the right conditions were met for it to occur. That's fast using the age of the earth as a scale. We just don't know. And if we don't know, you can't make a valid assertion one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

To do it twice it would defy entrophy and if you got it at a identical position of the process with a guaranteed future enviroment exactly as it happened here ( if we knew ) the Lorenz effect shows we can predict the outcome but not the exact outcome ... your making a an assumption that basic biolgy was basic in its construction  as its construction is said to be relatively fast from the earths formation ...why would that be a starting point of the process ...an important one I agree but not as important as its postion and initial ingredients

You may as well ask, why am I rubbing these sticks together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

No it will not ..gold formation is mainly a geological process that requires less circumstance , gold is a easy process as it is still been formed today  hower all the Ingredients of life  that would make a astrobiologist wee his pants is found in your garden however unlike gold  we see not even quarter attempts of an Abiogenesis 2  gold still has its mechanical and physical processes ..Abiology hasn't because its process was  too conveluted and open to more circumstance than mineral pressure in a fissure 

So now you are asserting something quite different from the OP: you are saying that abiogenesis is too improbable to occur twice.  But you have no basis for saying that. The universe is a big place and has been going for a long time. There is plenty of room, and plenty of time, for all sorts of low probability events to have come up, somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true.

 

Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here?

 

I'm not understanding your point.

Nothing in nature happens twice  ... twice  one of the SAME  

 Same = exact or it's not the same 

 Similar  = not exact 

 If a second attempt of Abiogenesis be it here or planet zog  is restricted to its initial ingredients and physical circumstances  those restrictions ( pressures) are non reputable so whatever it can produce wont be biology it's not about a different type of evolution it's only made another chemical reaction  that has it's own immediate future enviroment to contend with .it has intent or purpose or intellgence to become a similar chemical reaction found on earth ..if you can give an example of two dissimilar  chemical and physical processes that produce the same thing again ...twice ...a 2nd time ..if not let's hope extraterrestrial lifeforms are the first 🙂 you dig ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Nothing in nature happens twice  ... twice  one of the SAME  

 Same = exact or it's not the same 

 Similar  = not exact 

 If a second attempt of Abiogenesis be it here or planet zog  is restricted to its initial ingredients and physical circumstances  those restrictions ( pressures) are non reputable so whatever it can produce wont be biology it's not about a different type of evolution it's only made another chemical reaction  that has it's own immediate future enviroment to contend with .it has intent or purpose or intellgence to become a similar chemical reaction found on earth ..if you can give an example of two dissimilar  chemical and physical processes that produce the same thing again ...twice ...a 2nd time ..if not let's hope extraterrestrial lifeforms are the first 🙂 you dig ?

When did we need to eat a second attempt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

So now you are asserting something quite different from the OP: you are saying that abiogenesis is too improbable to occur twice.  But you have no basis for saying that. The universe is a big place and has been going for a long time. There is plenty of room, and plenty of time, for all sorts of low probability events to have come up, somewhere. 

It's not big enough ..if Abiogenesis produces biology on another planet it would be the first time two dissimilar chemical and physical reactions have made the the same thing twice ...how many singular events did it take to process gas metal and rock into a giraffe  against the amounts of singular events it took to form a worm into a giraffe .... how many ..????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Nothing in nature happens twice  ... twice  one of the SAME  

 Same = exact or it's not the same 

 Similar  = not exact 

This is getting tiresome. Repetition is not proof.

"Nothing" has to include all cases, and the only examples you can show are for very specific cases. You can't extrapolate from that to a general truth of the statement. 

 

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 If a second attempt of Abiogenesis be it here or planet zog  is restricted to its initial ingredients and physical circumstances  those restrictions ( pressures) are non reputable so whatever it can produce wont be biology

Not reputable?

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 ..if you can give an example of two dissimilar  chemical and physical processes that produce the same thing again ...twice ...a 2nd time 

I'm not required to, in order to disprove your statement. You can't limit responses to a specific avenue of proof. It's an intellectually dishonest requirement.

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

It's not big enough ..if Abiogenesis produces biology on another planet it would be the first time two dissimilar chemical and physical reactions have made the the same thing twice ...how many singular events did it take to process gas metal and rock into a giraffe  against the amounts of singular events it took to form a worm into a giraffe .... how many ..????

We can't be sure life on another planet would be based on DNA. There's no requirement for the results to be identical, other than your artificial narrowing of the answer you will accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Nothing in nature happens twice  ... twice  one of the SAME  

 Same = exact or it's not the same 

 Similar  = not exact 

Since you have been rude enough to ignore my comment and question, I will be forthright.

 

This is a complete falsehood.

Every time I burn hydrogen in oxygen I get water.

Physics and Chemistry tell me that I cannot get any thing else.

 

However you are correct that some actions cannot be repeated.

For instance If I measure the breaking load of a particular piece of rope, by breaking it, I cannot repeat that exact measurement, but only make similar ones, just as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

It's not big enough ..if Abiogenesis produces biology on another planet it would be the first time two dissimilar chemical and physical reactions have made the the same thing twice ...how many singular events did it take to process gas metal and rock into a giraffe  against the amounts of singular events it took to form a worm into a giraffe .... how many ..????

But, as I have said to you several times over now, it would not be the same thing twice. That life would most likely look different from ours, here. It would involve organisms that metabolise and reproduce, but there the similarities might end.

Your question about numbers of singular events is pointless. You will just get some telephone number or other, to set against other telephone numbers representing the number of potential worlds on which life could arise, and the time available for them to do so. That is a fruitless line of reasoning for something like this. It looks to me a lot like the notorious "Argument from Personal Incredulity".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is getting tiresome. Repetition is not proof.

"Nothing" has to include all cases, and the only examples you can show are for very specific cases. You can't extrapolate from that to a general truth of the statement. 

 

Not reputable?

I'm not required to, in order to disprove your statement. You can't limit responses to a specific avenue of proof. It's an intellectually dishonest requirement.

We can't be sure life on another planet would be based on DNA. There's no requirement for the results to be identical, other than your artificial narrowing of the answer you will accept.

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 ....if it's not biology it's not life..you can not place biolgical traits on to a exterestial chemical reaction ...the trait of intellgence is often quoted which is a niche piece of biolgical evolution  why not a digestive system or kidney....or giant goggely eyes on a green head 

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since you have been rude enough to ignore my comment and question, I will be forthright.

 

This is a complete falsehood.

Every time I burn hydrogen in oxygen I get water.

Physics and Chemistry tell me that I cannot get any thing else.

 

However you are correct that some actions cannot be repeated.

For instance If I measure the breaking load of a particular piece of rope, by breaking it, I cannot repeat that exact measurement, but only make similar ones, just as you say.

It's not the same water as you couldn't have had the same heat or oxygen ...nice try ...sorry I took a while answering 👍🌍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

It's not the same water as you couldn't have had the same heat or oxygen ...nice try ...sorry I took a while answering 👍🌍

Why not ?

I could split water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them together to get water and then split the water to get hydrogen and oxygen... in an endless cycle.

It would require (generate actually) exactly the same heat each time I did it.

And the result is exactly the same every time I do it   -  Nature is more consistent and accurate that human ropemakers.

And you still have not responded to my much longer comment, do I need to report this rule breaking to get an answer ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true.

 

Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here?

 

I'm not understanding your point.

Asserted without evidence. (I'm sensing a pattern)

Abiogenesis might actually be relatively easy under the conditions of the the early earth. It might be that it only took a thousand years after the right conditions were met for it to occur. That's fast using the age of the earth as a scale. We just don't know. And if we don't know, you can't make a valid assertion one way or the other.

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  to what it took for universal elements to produce biology  The first biology did all the work   it didnt happen fast ...what point of its process was the start ..the first bank holiday after co2 was 88.9 %...???  Its process must start  in the formation of our galaxy if not the cosmic start .. its process remains unknown but what we do know by logical deduction that those happenings where more than a dozen ..

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why not ?

I could split water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them together to get water and then split the water to get hydrogen and oxygen... in an endless cycle.

It would require (generate actually) exactly the same heat each time I did it.

And the result is exactly the same every time I do it   -  Nature is more consistent and accurate that human ropemakers.

And you still have not responded to my much longer comment, do I need to report this rule breaking to get an answer ?

Yeah but nature hasn't the same control of heat or ingredients....its like developing amino acids in a lab with hindsight of what they are made of and how they may be constructed ....nature did it once but time and circumstance dont allow it second time  ...besides the point is about disimilar complex processes producing the same thing twice .  .if we dont see   a Tin2 happening again  why would biolgy 2 happen ?

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But, as I have said to you several times over now, it would not be the same thing twice. That life would most likely look different from ours, here. It would involve organisms that metabolise and reproduce, but there the similarities might end.

Your question about numbers of singular events is pointless. You will just get some telephone number or other, to set against other telephone numbers representing the number of potential worlds on which life could arise, and the time available for them to do so. That is a fruitless line of reasoning for something like this. It looks to me a lot like the notorious "Argument from Personal Incredulity".  

Why would that be a requirement....biology only needs to do that mostly when its evolved for 3.5 billion years ...you have to be biology to do most of those  biolgical things you mentioned .......the first ever biology was as much as biolgy as a goat is ...are you suggesting that what ever chemical reaction there is a chemical intent to become life ? Are we likely to find exteratestial lifeforms with beer bellys ... or big noses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 

Why would that be a requirement....biology only needs to do that mostly when its evolved for 3.5 billion years ...you have to be biology to do most of those  biolgical things you mentioned .......the first ever biology was as much as biolgy as a goat is ...are you suggesting that what ever chemical reaction there is a chemical intent to become life ? Are we likely to find exteratestial lifeforms with beer bellys ... or big noses 

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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  to what it took for universal elements to produce biology  The first biology did all the work   it didnt happen fast ...what point of its process was the start ..the first bank holiday after co2 was 88.9 %...???  Its process must start  in the formation of our galaxy if not the cosmic start .. its process remains unknown but what we do know by logical deduction that those happenings where more than a dozen ..

Yeah but nature hasn't the same control of heat or ingredients....its like developing amino acids in a lab with hindsight of what they are made of and how they may be constructed ....nature did it once but time and circumstance dont allow it second time  ...besides the point is about disimilar complex processes producing the same thing twice .  .if we dont see   a Tin2 happening again  why would biolgy 2 happen ?

Why would that be a requirement....biology only needs to do that mostly when its evolved for 3.5 billion years ...you have to be biology to do most of those  biolgical things you mentioned .......the first ever biology was as much as biolgy as a goat is ...are you suggesting that what ever chemical reaction there is a chemical intent to become life ? Are we likely to find exteratestial lifeforms with beer bellys ... or big noses 

It's not personal ignorance...its based on scientific fact and reasoning .....lesser  complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice ...so how could a dissimilar but logically more complex of a reaction produce life twice .....

 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....

 I'm not dealing in numbers of chances or probability  if I did  I'm sure the number of events that took biology to form gas metal and rock is more than  all the stars ....easy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

It's not personal ignorance...its based on scientific fact and reasoning .....lesser  complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice ...so how could a dissimilar but logically more complex of a reaction produce life twice .....

 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....

 I'm not dealing in numbers of chances or probability  if I did  I'm sure the number of events that took biology to form gas metal and rock is more than  all the stars ....easy !

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.