× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
jonatron5 jonatron5
wrote...
Posts: 15
Rep: 1 0
8 years ago Edited: 8 years ago, jonatron5
Well first and foremost I would like to state that so far to date my scientific knowledge is quite limited. Now I also know this is an extremely controversial touchy issue that I doubt if other forums of public debate could handle. NOW as such I also request we be good sceintists and leave any and all religious and phillisophical belleifs or lack thereof at the door here for the duration of this conversation.

I have been reading mostly Wikipedia articles on abiogenisis and the famous experiment that created preanimate matter from electrolosis of aerosolized vapours of ancient oceanic gases. Immediately my immediate cdoncern was that the article I was reading seemed to make it clear that theres no way to know for certain not even with ice core sampiling that what we are simulating here (in terms of water composition and atmosphere) are actually conditions as they where at the time. However this is not to say that they where wrong. Infact there is more evidence to the side of it being right then wrong. SO im willing to write that off and give it my “mostly correct seal of approval” [patent pending]  Now this only manages to create some incredibly simple nucleotides. And even the simpilliest of proteins ( to create them) or cells has a genetic code literal orders of magnitude more complex. Like if my understanding is accurate to fact, It is hypotheised that over the entirety of the oceans and the microscopic nature of these particles and the billions of years involved that by shear random chance coding pairs of nucleotide bases would accidently more or less bump into each other a chemical reaction occurs and a slightly more complex molecule now exists. Now I personally am not a fan of this theory other than the fact it has the advantage of being possible. Because it relies on random chance of assumptions size differences and time scales no human could fairly wrap there head completely around. Also I tend to reject things on the basis of being pure random chance. Because depending on who you are and what belief system your pushing you can make any set of numbers say anything you like.  Which is why it seems to me at least that there must be some intermediary mechanism that aides this proccessand links it more readily to the science of evolution. But all that aside, let us operate under the assumption that the theory is correct and valid. Then there is aanother order of magnitude jump nessarcy to go from simple chemically reactive matching base pairs, to autonomous self replicating life forms. If all of the above was met by pure proabability and a self sustaining be it incredibly simple, life form in a bubble in a tide pool formed somewhere.Then that alone is not suffiecint for the mechanism of evolution to take hold and lead to me typing this today. We also have to have the life form generate some form of self replication or reproduction wich as it turns out is incredibly complex on its own. So one article I was reading suggests that these amnio acids and coding pairs became entrapped in bubbles and as the bubbles naturally split off from one another a physical means of replication was achieved. I repsect this as a working theory but I criticize it on the grounds it is untestable ( to my knowledge). Also given that being true my feeble mind can not comprehend how a now artificialy controlled random proccsess makes its way into the genome of the life form in question. Another one I was reading suggested the phospholipid bi-layer of cell walls developed first and shielded off the center where reactions could occur independently and over time you would get a system that had some form of self-maintenance of that wall. And then over time one that would have a mechanism of procreation.  This one while more valid in my eyes once again relies on sheer brute force of enough arrangements of enough objects being in the right order when needed to be at the right time. Im an IT guy and a similar such principle exists in password cracking that being that in theory in password is crackable given enough time and enough trials by sheer systematic guessing of characters. This can be extended to random guessing of characters abeit at a much greateer amount of time and as password lenthgs increase the time it takes to crack them increases exponentially. All of this in my eyes warrants a need for another as of yet undiscovered mechanism to cut down on the sheer amount of statistical brute forcework.

Now This brings me to my second point. That of the nature of the evolution of human intelligence. Now I feel as if this is already long enough so I will keep it simple here. What selective pressures encourage intelligence over other physical means? Because it would seem that simply becoming physically faster stronger etc would be much much much simplier of an adaptation then something as complex as the human brain. And ive read all the theories about primitive man going from a herbivous to a coneverse diet and fire allowing for esasy free calories leading to increased brain growth providing a self catalising grounds of improvement success and successive generations. However I also follow the generally correct principle of the simpliest solution to a problem being the correct one, and as such in my mind I cant generate any natural selective pressures whose only end result could be greater intelligence ( because of the great multitude of animals and there respective survival strategies) either its that humans found themselves in a well rounded environment in which moving one way was a detrement in another until intelligence came along. Or once again it was sheer statistical brute force.

By now im sure you can see my problem with the brute force argument so Ill shut up and give you guys a chance to respond. Once again if you put up with, and read all of my foolishness this far you have my respect and thanks.
 Attached file 
(14.32 KB)
You must login or register to gain access to this attachment.
Read 285 times
1 Reply

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
Educator
8 years ago
Hello

Just to be clear, are we debating the validity of abiogenesis? There are many theories...
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  741 People Browsing
 112 Signed Up Today
Related Images
  
 4613
  
 945
  
 71
Your Opinion
What's your favorite funny biology word?
Votes: 156

Previous poll results: How often do you eat-out per week?