Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BlackJackal

A New Theory for the Origins of Life

Recommended Posts

Guest BlackJackal

Greetings,

 

I know that I am new here and that this topic is probably going to be meet with the usual moans and groans that this topic generally receives. However, I am convinced by my eight years of study in biology and particularly evolution that evolution as a theory is fatally flawed and science needs to explore a new path. I know that science as a whole is almost unwilling to do this because of the creationist movement but, to continue pursuing a dead end does not help either.

 

Before it is brought up by someone else, I am not a creationist myself. I don’t really know what I am, because many of the arguments for creationism are scientifically based but many more are not. The same way with evolution, it is a sound idea in some areas but in many many more it falls short. There is a severe lack of evidence for it.

 

Now my point in posting this topic is not to get into a debate over whether or not evolution or creationism are viable theories because I am hoping that the posters here will already be aware of the major holes in these theories (however, I can point out the flaws if need be). I would like to discuss possibilities of a new theory for the origins of life.

 

Any Takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that science as a whole is almost unwilling to do this because of the creationist movement but, to continue pursuing a dead end does not help either.

 

Okay, well, you got to the right place. People are not creationists either here-- okay, MOSTLY <to this I will groan> and we listen to exotic new theories.

 

We do appreciate proofs of course though ;)

 

The same way with evolution, it is a sound idea in some areas but in many many more it falls short

Any examples?

...I am hoping that the posters here will already be aware of the major holes in these theories ...

Every theory has holes, that's why it's a THEORY ;) but yes, I'm taking.

 

I'd like to hear some more. Can't promise I'll agree, but I will listen :)

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mooeypoo said, you've come to the right place. We do listen to theories on here, and although we've had some absolute twaddle, I daresay we'd all be interested in discussing this particular subject :)

 

(I have to say that I'm a creationist myself, but I'm certainly not going to get into a huge argument about it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add my bit to this thread as it is a subject that interests me. The best book I've ever read on evolution is "The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution" by Stuart Kauffman. As a very brief (and therefore inadequate) explanation of this book - he uses complexity analysis to show that life likely sprang into existence when a critical number of biochemical reactions became interconnected. Stuart Kauffman's home page is here: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BlackJackal

Iam thankful that there are people here with open minds ( This is a quality often not found when discussing origins). Basically my disenchantment with the Theory of Evolution is in the many holes that it has but mainly one big one. The Second law of Thermodynamics precludes it. And yes I do know about the whole argument that the earth is an open system with the influx of energy from the sun and all that. But even if the earth is a open system there would still need to be an energy conservation mechanism to harness the energy for life to begin. Anyways if I need to go into that more in depth I will.

 

With that being said I don’t know what the new theory would be because I don’t believe I have it in me to come up with a completely new theory. I was hoping that by brainstorming with some other people maybe just maybe a new theory might be born. I just can’t wholeheartedly support a theory that has parts that require you to just believe and I cannot believe in a scientific theory that defies scientific law.

 

Anyways this new theory would have to obey the second law of thermodynamics first and foremost but also fit in with the fossil record and genetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean to discuss things such as; Intelligent Design, Panspermia, E.T. Intervention, Cosmic Ancestry etc. or something totally new and not previously brought up?

 

I personally subscribe to creationism, though I have NO religious affiliation, for men write 'Holy' books and men are not holy. I also do not believe that it is necessary for others to believe that which I believe as I also do not have to believe that which they do either.

 

 

btw

Welcome to the Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically my disenchantment with the Theory of Evolution is in the many holes that it has but mainly one big one. The Second law of Thermodynamics precludes it. And yes I do know about the whole argument that the earth is an open system with the influx of energy from the sun and all that. But even if the earth is a open system there would still need to be an energy conservation mechanism to harness the energy for life to begin. Anyways if I need to go into that more in depth I will.

 

Please do go into more detail.

There are energy conversion mechanisms all over the place called molecules. They get excitied by radiant energy (light) and change and do all the cool things they do. Given time, certain reactions might couple so that a thermodynamically unfavored reaction is powered by a thermodynamically favored one. This is mostly how life works to build complexity and there never needs to be any violation of any thermodynamic laws.

 

 

Anyways this new theory would have to obey the second law of thermodynamics first and foremost but also fit in with the fossil record and genetics.

 

How is there a fossil record with no evolution? Why do we see evolution happening around us all the time, albeit at a slow pace for more complex organisms, but at a faster rate for simple ones, ie microbes?

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

oh, btw, creationism is not a theory. it's not even a hypothesis. a hypothesis has to be testable, once its passed a test or two, it becomes a theory. evolutionary theory has passed quite a few tests, and since most of modern biology wouldn't work without it, it's a pretty indispensible theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a pretty indispensible theory

 

yeah, as long as it doesn't rely on pure darwinism - that being random mutations and natural selection.

 

natural selection is fine so leave that alone, but the random mutations thing is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm way off in this... but doesn't creationism prompt the exact same question it is meant to answer, in that there needs to be an origin for that which created life on earth?

 

If not, I will voluntarily squeeze lemons into my eyes.

 

[edit]

 

...and then do the same to whomever says 'no.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six days of Biblical creation story by David Brower.

 

Earth is created on Sunday at midnight. Life in the form of the first bacterial cells appears on Tuesday morning around 8:00am. For the next two and a half days the microcosm evolves, and by Thursday at midnight it is fully established, regulating the entire planetary system. On Friday around 4:00pm, the microorganisms invent sexual reproduction, and on Saturday, the last day of creation, all the visible forms of life evolve.

 

Around 1:30am on Saturday the first marine animals are formed, and by 9:30am the first plants come ashore, followed two hours later by amphibians and insects. At ten minutes before five in the afternoon, the great reptiles appear, roam the Earth in lush tropical forests for five hours, and then suddenly die out around 9:45pm. In the meantime the mammals have arrived on the Earth in the late afternoon, around 5:30, and the birds in the evening, around 7:15.

 

Shortly before 10:00pm some tree-dwelling mammals in the tropics evolve into the first primates; an hour later some of those evolve into monkeys; and around 11:40pm the great apes appear. Eight minutes before midnight the first Southern apes stand up and walk on two legs. Five minutes later they disappear again. The first human species, Homo habilis, appears four minutes before midnight, evolves into Homo erectus half a minute later, and into the archaic forms of Homo Sapiens thirty seconds before midnight. The Neanderthals command Europe and Asia from fifteen to four seconds before midnight. The modern human species, finally, appears in Africa and Asia eleven seconds before the midnight and in Europe five seconds before midnight. Written human history begins around two-thirds of a second before midnight.

 

 

edit: i don't know why i posted this here, but out of all creationist nonsense ideas, i kind of like that. not in terms of contents, but the idea of squeezing 4.6 billion years of earth's history into 6 days and doing it scientifically is neat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I am convinced by my eight years of study in biology and particularly evolution that evolution as a theory is fatally flawed and science needs to explore a new path.

Evolution isn't a single theory, so I don't see how you can say it is "fatally flawed".

 

Better explanation of your position please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BlackJackal

Alright, Like I said earlier the basis here is not to discuss evolution or creationism but to come up with a new theory. But since it doesn't look like that is going to get done without first arguing against evolution so be it. As for the 2nd law it goes something like this: Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

 

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

 

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

 

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

 

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never add useful information to the genetic code (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first gaping hole I see is that Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory.

 

Also I'm not sure you understand what selection does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, Like I said earlier the basis here is not to discuss evolution or creationism but to come up with a new theory. But since it doesn't look like that is going to get done without first arguing against evolution so be it. As for the 2nd law it goes something like this: Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

 

What the hell is logical entropy'??? if you invent a concept you have to prove that it should always tend to increase. Now if your talking about organisational entropy which is complelty different, it has nothing to do with 'biological organisation' it has to do with the number of microstates that are equivalent to a macrostates.

 

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

 

You cannot use science you don't understand to disprove a theory you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell is logical entropy'???

 

Seconded. There is no "second law" for information theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansont, I`m shocked at you!

 

didn`t you know that "Logical entropy" is when the strength of an argument decays into meaninglessness (is there such a word?). but anyway, that`s what it means and you`ll see it quite regularly from 1 or 2 of the posters :)

 

 

[edit] that should make me eligable for this months "Saucer of Milk Award" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reply#15.

 

 

all or most of this sounds very very close to a book i read a while ago.

tell me, did you come up with all this stuff on your own or did you simply rip that out of the book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am beginning to think that no one here wants to discuss a new theory for the origins of life. Everyone seems to be stuck on evolution.

Maybe we just don't see how attempting to trash an established theory group using an argument that has been trounced again and again and again is a part of the process usually associated with devising "new theories".

 

You might see this as a distraction from the topic, but seeing as you didn't propose a new theory - just attacked an existing one - it really isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am beginning to think that no one here wants to discuss a new theory for the origins of life. Everyone seems to be stuck on evolution.

 

Well, you have yet to mention the detail of your new theory. Traditon dictates that we wait until you present your theory before commenting on it.

 

I could try and discuss it now, without hearing the details, but trust me when I say I assume your theory involves Ninjas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can find your definition of Logical Entropy here

 

http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/Entropy/algor.html

 

I am beginning to think that no one here wants to discuss a new theory for the origins of life. Everyone seems to be stuck on evolution.

 

That's information theory, I imagine it's relevant in genetics but of little relevance here and has no relation to what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the NO side

==================

(1) "Life is organization"

 

No more than "a car or everything else is an organization" of its components.

 

(2) "evolution of life is the increase of biological organization"

 

No. It is ( as stated further ) an increase of complexity. And this not because " raw solar heat (?) is converted into increased complexity ", but due to ever increasing availability of number of mutatable factors.

 

(3) "Influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these".

 

Influx in case of life is not just heat, translated into motion, and Life Evolution certainly does have several inherent guiding programs, all plainly scientifically verified .

 

(4) "Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing. "

 

Mutations are neither of these, but naturally occuring unavoidable events in the complex and vast systems.

 

(5) "there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present".

 

You can't be serious...

 

 

On the MAYBE yes side

===========================

* Life is a system of collecting, using and storing energy. Compare Life with Death.

 

* Earliest Life was not yet celled, and consisted of individual archaic genes most probably of RNA conformation.

 

* Genes are live organisms that underwent and are undergoing evolution, and we are now unable to "roll back their development" for evidence.

 

end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.