Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat does a blue whale have to do with abiogenesis? In case you missed it, the first living things were bacteria (still the most successful life form on this planet), not blue whales. And bacteria is far less complex than many non-living things.
Your comparisons are totally idiotic. I could respond and say that a blue whale is far more complex than a spec of dust.
But one thing is certain: a live plant is more complex than a dead one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you were to compare equal mass ratios?
What does a blue whale have to do with abiogenesis? In case you missed it, the first living things were bacteria (still the most successful life form on this planet), not blue whales. And bacteria is far less complex than many non-living things.
The point I was making was that you were not comparing equal ratios.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerStay on topic (though since life begin in the ocean it would have a little to do with abiogenesis, moron).
What does the ocean have to do with abiogenesis?
The issue is that your implied claim that life is more complex than non-life is plainly false. If you wish to dispute that, explain to me why a bacteria is more complex than the Sun. Or why "mass ratios" are relevant to this discussion.
EDIT: Mass ratios would be "useful" if they had some relevance to the discusssion (which is starting to be a monologue since you are ducking the point raised). Since they don't, they are not "useful".
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd I've already covered that. Sure, you can't resurrect the dead, but what does that prove? The earliest life would have been incredibly simple, far easier to evolve than the resurrection of complex systems (which no-one except you seems to think abiogenesis is about)
But dead people can't. That is the point you are willfully ignorant of.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo what? The entire universe does not teem with life. As far as we know, life only evolved in very localised backwaters. You've already admitted that in some environments entropy can decrease with an input of energy. Your entire argument boils down to "I don't want it to be true, my mummy told me it wasn't".
But the universe is, according to Scotty, and the earth is inside the universe.
Originally posted by no1marauderLife beginning in the oceans is only an assumption.
Stay on topic (though since life begin in the ocean it would have a little to do with abiogenesis, moron).
The issue is that your implied claim that life is more complex than non-life is plainly false. If you wish to dispute that, explain to me why a bacteria is more complex than the Sun. Or why "mass ratios" are relevant to this discussion. ...[text shortened]... nologue since you are ducking the point raised). Since they don't, they are not "useful".
There are some thoughts that life may have started deep in rocks, or even on another planet - say Mars.
Originally posted by amannionBut a fairly convincing one nevertheless. Cells typically have a solute similar in composition to seawater (although not always concentration, our cells are about 1/3 seawater strength). Water is absolutely necessary for metabolism and life. Finally, water is pretty good at absorbing UV-B, which would have been a pre-requisite for life evolving.
Life beginning in the oceans is only an assumption.
Originally posted by scottishinnzTrue, however the early history of the Earth (at the time of abiogenesis) may have been dominated by cataclysmic impacts which would have vaporised oceans and made life's formation problematic at the least.
But a fairly convincing one nevertheless. Cells typically have a solute similar in composition to seawater (although not always concentration, our cells are about 1/3 seawater strength). Water is absolutely necessary for metabolism and life. Finally, water is pretty good at absorbing UV-B, which would have been a pre-requisite for life evolving.
Life can survive and indeed thrive in the absence of large bodies of water - though not, of course, without water at all.
And while I agree, the oceans probably are the sensible place to consider the place of origin, there are alternative possibilities.
Originally posted by amannionIt's a theory, not an assumption. And the most likely one based on the knowledge we now have though like any scientific theory the discovery of further evidence might cause a reassessment.
Life beginning in the oceans is only an assumption.
There are some thoughts that life may have started deep in rocks, or even on another planet - say Mars.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is far from certain. Can you define complexity? By my understanding of the word, the dead one will usually be more complex. It also contradicts your claims that everything becomes more disorderly as disorder is more complex than order.
But one thing is certain: a live plant is more complex than a dead one.
It is quite irrelevant where life started. dj2becker is claiming that if a biochemist puts the right mix of chemicals in a test tube and stirs and life is formed then the 2nd law of thermodynamics will have been violated. His only basis for such a claim seems to be that he claims that it is impossible for anything to get more complicated, such as compounds reacting to form larger compounds. He knows this to be false but has a hard time admitting it as it might cause his whole religion to crumble.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that life developed from complex (ocean) to less complex (bacteria)?
Stay on topic (though since life begin in the ocean it would have a little to do with abiogenesis, moron).
The issue is that your implied claim that life is more complex than non-life is plainly false. If you wish to dispute that, explain to me why a bacteria is more complex than the Sun. Or why "mass ratios" are relevant to this discussion. ...[text shortened]... nologue since you are ducking the point raised). Since they don't, they are not "useful".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat makes you think that life is simple? If it is so simple why can't you make it in the lab?
And I've already covered that. Sure, you can't resurrect the dead, but what does that prove? The earliest life would have been incredibly simple, far easier to evolve than the resurrection of complex systems (which no-one except you seems to think abiogenesis is about)