Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

Duffman · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:04 am

Are we going into abiogenesis? Because that's something that's completely unproven, and there's no evidence to support it

Is the universe is a closed system?

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

Sorry, you are correct.

Quote:

The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 10^22 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars),[16] organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[17]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be around 10^80.

I meant to write 10 ^ 22 stars. (though it would be interesting if the number of stars actually correlated with Avagadro's number...)

But looking it up, the question is there for for atoms also, since there are only 10^80.

We are still dealing with more possible combinations, than possible attempts.

Quote:

fail understanding of abiogenesis.
before life, there was noting to synthesize chemicals... there would have been chains soo long and vast and complex it borders impossibility but this would happen under the conditions of NO life. plenty of raw chemicals. and an earth full of catalysts ie. lightning, heat from earths active volcanic joy etc. even the motion of the tide would be a catalyst enough... rock pools would become super concentrated areas full of raw chemicals constantly reaction.

Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of randomness. Did something choose to place that lightning there, or those rock pools, or the energy and the heat and the conditions? If not, than it would be random. However, if there was specific information involved in setting up these conditions, some sort of planned or organized system that put all these conditions together, then you don't have randomness. (And instead you have Design Theory, or perhaps you have choice and Choice Theory)

edit:

Quote:

and to bring up entropy is to try and string biology evolution with star evolution and formation.

Is there something to make you believe that they work differently? Is there some difference between the order and organization of hydrogen and the order and organization of carbon? Didn't Carl Sagan declare that we are all made of Star stuff?

mrducky · **Posted:** Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:27 pm

Daganev wrote:

Sorry, you are correct.

w00t!

Quote:

The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 10^22 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars),[16] organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[17]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be around 10^80.

I meant to write 10 ^ 22 stars. (though it would be interesting if the number of stars actually correlated with Avagadro's number...)

But looking it up, the question is there for for atoms also, since there are only 10^80.

We are still dealing with more possible combinations, than possible attempts.

and you are assuming an amino acid formed will stay like that always... another amino acid or acid can break it down and restart. its called a chemical reaction without life to synthesis the chemicals. they are constantly breaking down, reacting, breaking down, reacting etc. a primordial soup wouldnt be in the ocean, but probably near the land where the kinetic energy of the waves would act as a continual catalyst while concentrating various chemicals in a mixture of joy. either that or near an ocean vent, but i dislike that as the life has to begin there and there within a few moments before the current drags the chemicals away and apart.

oh and did you know many chemicals string themselves together by naturally occuring forces?

and there is always the multiverse theory that is oh so fun

btw, source please?

Quote:

fail understanding of abiogenesis.
before life, there was noting to synthesize chemicals... there would have been chains soo long and vast and complex it borders impossibility but this would happen under the conditions of NO life. plenty of raw chemicals. and an earth full of catalysts ie. lightning, heat from earths active volcanic joy etc. even the motion of the tide would be a catalyst enough... rock pools would become super concentrated areas full of raw chemicals constantly reaction.

Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of randomness. Did something choose to place that lightning there, or those rock pools, or the energy and the heat and the conditions? If not, than it would be random. However, if there was specific information involved in setting up these conditions, some sort of planned or organized system that put all these conditions together, then you don't have randomness. (And instead you have Design Theory, or perhaps you have choice and Choice Theory)

nobody "chose" to place lightning there. lightning is merely the discharge from the water vapor crystals rubbing to create charge and the ground. a catalyst greatly reduces the improbability of an extremely complex amino acid.
statistically. it is almost impossible to form bubbles (not underwater, surface bubbles). but under the set conditions they form all the time. or is it everytime i make a splash some intelligent being made me make a splash which resulted in the bubble. the kinetic energy, the temperature. the gas... all are catalysts and all catalysts can speed up certain processes.

to pull a number like 10^700 ways of forming amino acids is to not account for hundreds if not thousands of variables that would drastically cut that number down.

there is ID. and IC. i know both. and i know both well.

edit:

Quote:

and to bring up entropy is to try and string biology evolution with star evolution and formation.

Is there something to make you believe that they work differently? Is there some difference between the order and organization of hydrogen and the order and organization of carbon? Didn't Carl Sagan declare that we are all made of Star stuff?

correct quote is star dust. all atoms heavier then Fe is formed from super nova, anything less heavy then Fe can be attributed to normal suns

and yes, there is a supreme difference between organisms passing on different traits through survival of the fittest and hydrogen clouds clumping together due to gravity and eventually grow to a size where the gravity increases the temperature high enough in the core to begin nuclear fusion until eventually it is all turned to helium or the source levels are too low where their outer shell will expand then collapse into usually a dwarf star... i see a difference. do you?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
edit

gah... didnt see this D:

Duffman wrote:

Are we going into abiogenesis? Because that's something that's completely unproven, and there's no evidence to support it

Is the universe is a closed system?

yes, thats why the universe will suffer heat death if is doesnt collapse.

thats why our sun will eventually stop its stable state of nuclear fusion and lose a vast amount of matter before collapsing into a dwarfy
whats more ordered... a ton of hydrogen and helium or a ton or random elements?

but earth is not a closed system. the constant heat exchange rate with the sun per day is beyond my comprehension.

and no, i wont do abiogenesis, i wont argue a case backed by nothing but smoke and uncertainty, even among those who agree on a general theory. thats why i dont argue for creationism and thats why i argue for evolution... WOAH. STEP BACK... did you see me flip that and smack you in face...

notices doofman is leader of AUA... notices doofman is bigger then ducky and sees him every day... *please dont hurt me*

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

These quotes get long so I'm just going to make this simple.

The fact that there are "extra factors" does not 'reduce' the number of combinations possible. In fact, it increases the number of combinations possible! Because now, not only do you need the correct atoms combining with the correct atoms, but you need them to be combining in the correct situation!

This means, that some combinations of atoms are never even attempted. It doesn't matter if you create them and recreate them, there are more possible combos than there are atoms.

I'm not sure what you mean by surface bubbles, (water surface bubbles? Pizza dough surface bubbles?) There are less possible combinations that will create a surface bubble, than there are molecules in the medium.

The fact that you can recreate these conditions, just shows the choices and planning that must be done to get these things to happen.

But let me get you the quote that I read that made me give the question in the first place:

Quote:

That number comes out to be one with 700 zeroes after it. In conventional math terms, it is 10^700, or 10 to the exponent power of 700. To give a sense of scale for reference, the known universe, including all forms of matter and energy, weighs on the order of 10^56 grams; the number of basic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, muons) in the known universe is 10^80; the age of the universe from our perspective of time, 10^18 seconds. Convert all the universe into microcomputers each weighing a billionth of a gram, and run each of those computers billions of times a second nonstop from the beginning of time, (to combine each possible combination ~ my edit) and we still need greater than 10^500 universes, or that much more time for even a remote probability of getting a valid result.

mrducky · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:12 am

Daganev wrote:

These quotes get long so I'm just going to make this simple.

The fact that there are "extra factors" does not 'reduce' the number of combinations possible. In fact, it increases the number of combinations possible! Because now, not only do you need the correct atoms combining with the correct atoms, but you need them to be combining in the correct situation!

This means, that some combinations of atoms are never even attempted. It doesn't matter if you create them and recreate them, there are more possible combos than there are atoms.

I'm not sure what you mean by surface bubbles, (water surface bubbles? Pizza dough surface bubbles?) There are less possible combinations that will create a surface bubble, than there are molecules in the medium.

The fact that you can recreate these conditions, just shows the choices and planning that must be done to get these things to happen.

But let me get you the quote that I read that made me give the question in the first place:

Quote:

That number comes out to be one with 700 zeroes after it. In conventional math terms, it is 10^700, or 10 to the exponent power of 700. To give a sense of scale for reference, the known universe, including all forms of matter and energy, weighs on the order of 10^56 grams; the number of basic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, muons) in the known universe is 10^80; the age of the universe from our perspective of time, 10^18 seconds. Convert all the universe into microcomputers each weighing a billionth of a gram, and run each of those computers billions of times a second nonstop from the beginning of time, (to combine each possible combination ~ my edit) and we still need greater than 10^500 universes, or that much more time for even a remote probability of getting a valid result.

please tell me where you got 10^700. ie. source link.

i highly doubt it could be a figure that high let alone find a way to get a figure that high.

100 ! = 9.33262154 × 10^157 only...

and btw. its not pure random chance. most molecules often automatically line up especially with a catalyst. ie. heat. some chemical reaction occur at some temperatures, others occur at other temps.
if whoever got that number factors in EVERY possible combination to create amino acids not essential to the beginnings of life then...

Duffman · **Posted:** Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:51 am

mrducky wrote:

yes, thats why the universe will suffer heat death if is doesnt collapse.

thats why our sun will eventually stop its stable state of nuclear fusion and lose a vast amount of matter before collapsing into a dwarfy
whats more ordered... a ton of hydrogen and helium or a ton or random elements?

So if the universe is a closed system, then shouldn't it go into more randomness fail, instead of increasing in orderedness? Our planet is part of the universe, so this should apply here as well, no?

mrducky wrote:

most molecules often automatically line up especially with a catalyst.

Convenient, eh

mrducky wrote:

and no, i wont do abiogenesis, i wont argue a case backed by nothing but smoke and uncertainty, even among those who agree on a general theory. thats why i dont argue for creationism and thats why i argue for evolution... WOAH. STEP BACK... did you see me flip that and smack you in face...

Great, so you agree abiogenesis fails, and no, I did not see what you did thar

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

mrducky wrote:

Daganev wrote:

These quotes get long so I'm just going to make this simple.

The fact that there are "extra factors" does not 'reduce' the number of combinations possible. In fact, it increases the number of combinations possible! Because now, not only do you need the correct atoms combining with the correct atoms, but you need them to be combining in the correct situation!

This means, that some combinations of atoms are never even attempted. It doesn't matter if you create them and recreate them, there are more possible combos than there are atoms.

I'm not sure what you mean by surface bubbles, (water surface bubbles? Pizza dough surface bubbles?) There are less possible combinations that will create a surface bubble, than there are molecules in the medium.

The fact that you can recreate these conditions, just shows the choices and planning that must be done to get these things to happen.

But let me get you the quote that I read that made me give the question in the first place:

Quote:

That number comes out to be one with 700 zeroes after it. In conventional math terms, it is 10^700, or 10 to the exponent power of 700. To give a sense of scale for reference, the known universe, including all forms of matter and energy, weighs on the order of 10^56 grams; the number of basic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, muons) in the known universe is 10^80; the age of the universe from our perspective of time, 10^18 seconds. Convert all the universe into microcomputers each weighing a billionth of a gram, and run each of those computers billions of times a second nonstop from the beginning of time, (to combine each possible combination ~ my edit) and we still need greater than 10^500 universes, or that much more time for even a remote probability of getting a valid result.

please tell me where you got 10^700. ie. source link.

i highly doubt it could be a figure that high let alone find a way to get a figure that high.

100 ! = 9.33262154 × 10^157 only...

and btw. its not pure random chance. most molecules often automatically line up especially with a catalyst. ie. heat. some chemical reaction occur at some temperatures, others occur at other temps.
if whoever got that number factors in EVERY possible combination to create amino acids not essential to the beginnings of life then...

I believe that 10^700 is 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, some 500 times, to represent the possible combinations of amino acids to create a simple protein. (there are 20 basic amino acids that make up all proteins) And this is just for ONE protein. (the longest protein is 34,000 amino acids long.. I don't think I have a calculator powerful enough to tell me what that number is)

The idea of a catalyst, makes this more unlikely. Now, not only do you need the random bits in the correct order, but you need the random bits to be in the correct order while there is a catalyst...

Remember, you are arguing that these mutations or clumpings are RANDOM. Random means, "EVERY possible combination". By what process does randomness remove a possible combination? The only way to remove possible combinations, is with CHOICE. This means, that the earth/tidepools/lightning bolts, decided on some level which combinations to not even bother trying. This is the definition of NOT RANDOM.

There should be a bell shaped curve of attempted combinations, which contains all 10^700 options in it. Not a bell shaped curve that only contains 10^6 options.

Though I just saw another website which quoted 20^500,000 possible protein combinations. so I guess 10^700 was being generous.

mrducky · **Posted:** Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:47 am

Duffman wrote:

mrducky wrote:

yes, thats why the universe will suffer heat death if is doesnt collapse.

thats why our sun will eventually stop its stable state of nuclear fusion and lose a vast amount of matter before collapsing into a dwarfy
whats more ordered... a ton of hydrogen and helium or a ton or random elements?

So if the universe is a closed system, then shouldn't it go into more randomness fail, instead of increasing in orderedness? Our planet is part of the universe, so this should apply here as well, no?

universe? yes, heat death as i already mentioned, stable stars are becoming black holes, universe is spreading losing entropy and heat. let me repeat. heat death. :3
and not, earth is not a closed system as it gets energy from the sun. the sun is a closed system as it doesnt get energy is amounts enough to compensate and so is going to eventually go red giant before collapsing into a dwarf star.

mrducky wrote:

most molecules often automatically line up especially with a catalyst.

Convenient, eh

yessum, certain temperatures result in certain reactions. most reactions result in the same result of the same compound being formed, im not saying an entire amino acid will automatically string together. but the parts of the amino acids, the long monomers, these can form in abundance. especially without oxygen there to screw things up.

mrducky wrote:

and no, i wont do abiogenesis, i wont argue a case backed by nothing but smoke and uncertainty, even among those who agree on a general theory. thats why i dont argue for creationism and thats why i argue for evolution... WOAH. STEP BACK... did you see me flip that and smack you in face...

Great, so you agree abiogenesis fails, and no, I did not see what you did thar
: (

Daganev wrote:

I believe that 10^700 is 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, some 500 times, to represent the possible combinations of amino acids to create a simple protein. (there are 20 basic amino acids that make up all proteins) And this is just for ONE protein. (the longest protein is 34,000 amino acids long.. I don't think I have a calculator powerful enough to tell me what that number is)

so you typed up that calculation rather then find it on a site? btw, titin wouldnt be the first of proteins. and what happens to the amino acids that arent formed into proteins? they keep "growing" in chains or they break down into more simple monomers and form different amino acids. this will happen constantly, everyday, day after day. if every tide pool, every hydrothermal vent, every point a lightning bolt from zeus hits the earth. it isnt a statistical improbabilty for a protein case with simple synthesization of other compounds in the chemical world pre life.
so you 20^500 with only your current knowledge on how amino acids would string together.

The idea of a catalyst, makes this more unlikely. Now, not only do you need the random bits in the correct order, but you need the random bits to be in the correct order while there is a catalyst...

or you just need the random bits and a catalyst. the amino acids formed require temperature. once in the correct conditions they will form. it might not be the correct amino acid, but it will be an amino acid. both current scientific views have an atmosphere heavily depleted in O2 and O3. this means that the conditions for these amino strings banding together increases expotentially as they wont get oxidized.

Remember, you are arguing that these mutations or clumpings are RANDOM. Random means, "EVERY possible combination". By what process does randomness remove a possible combination? The only way to remove possible combinations, is with CHOICE. This means, that the earth/tidepools/lightning bolts, decided on some level which combinations to not even bother trying. This is the definition of NOT RANDOM.

are you seriously trying to cut me down by definition? "This means, that the earth/tidepools/lightning bolts, decided on some level which combinations to not even bother trying. " or perhaps PHYSICS JUST WONT LET SUCH A PROTEIN FORM UNDER THE GIVEN CONDITIONS.

can you form an aqueous solution at 0 kelvin? no. we are talking about young earth. young earth with a thicker atmosphere. young earth with increased volcanic activity. young earth with tide pools and lightning bolts. you cant put the stuff down, incinerate at 2 million degrees and tell it to form random life. earth was at the given conditions. and those given conditions by physics allow some combinations while not others. 2 of the proteins in our DNA require near boiling temperature, you cant have the temperature at -50 and state the wonderfully large unstatistical chance of it not forming.

There should be a bell shaped curve of attempted combinations, which contains all 10^700 options in it. Not a bell shaped curve that only contains 10^6 options.

Though I just saw another website which quoted 20^500,000 possible protein combinations. so I guess 10^700 was being generous.

i require source... because i swear if they include the statistical chance of carbon bonding with a hydrogen instead of an oxygen the whole number is redundant and you need to find a different site. it is well known that creationist sites steal material off each other, even if that material is false and has been debunked multiple times. and if the site doesnt provide HOW they came across such a number then it is merely opinion and then im allowed to state it is a 1.0 probability ponies were the first life forms and they breathed out oxygen

i personally know duffman is christian, curiousity compels me, what denomination are you?

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

My information is from a thing called a book. You know, those things that have paper and bindings?

Sorry, I have no website to quote you. But you seem to really not be understanding the point here.

Maybe you'll understand better if I use reverse sources, so lets try this:

There was an experiment in 1954 where they were able to create the amino acids "randomly." Except there is a problem with that experiment. After further testing, the ratios of elements were off. So then they found an experiment in 1953 where the ratios were correct. But you still have a problem, because only select elements were used. Which means, the scientist made a choice about which elements to place in the bottle. Instead of dealing with all possible combination, instead certain elements were chosen, and only a subset of all possible combination was worked on.

You can pick any sort of "random event" that you want. It really doesn't matter what it is. At some point before that random event, choices are made to limit the possible number of outcomes.

Take this website for example:
http://www.pixelmonkeys.org/#faq

They have a section where it can create an image based on random pixel generation. However, in order to be able to do this, they have to create rules and choices of when to keep or discard a pixel. (i.e. a match) A choice has to be made of which to keep and which to discard. Otherwise, it will take more time than there is in the universe to generate such an image.

Without choices, randomness can't produce anything.

This is so obvious to most cosmologists, that Multiple Universe theory is now taken as a given.

Quote:

One reason this is plausible is that there are many other places and times in which we can imagine finding ourselves. But when applying the strong principle, we only have one Universe, with one set of fundamental parameters, so what exactly is the point being made? Carter offers two possibilities: First, we can use our own existence to make "predictions" about the parameters. But second, "as a last resort", we can convert these predictions into explanations by assuming that there is more than one Universe, in fact a large and possibly infinite collection of universes, something that is now called a multiverse ("world ensemble" was Carter's term), in which the parameters (and perhaps the laws of physics) vary across universes. The strong principle then becomes an example of a selection effect, exactly analogous to the weak principle. Postulating a multiverse is certainly a radical step, but taking it could provide at least a partial answer to a question which had seemed to be out of the reach of normal science: "why do the fundamental laws of physics take the particular form we observe and not another?"

I liked the way Stephen Hawking asked it better "What is it the breathes fire into the equations?"

Meaning, the only way to account for the events that happen in our universe, is to postulate other universes. Or in other words, "The idea of choices being made for the creation of the universe go against my beliefs and I'd rather create some fictitious reality than to accept what is staring me in the face."

Infact, the theory that such events require limiting factors and choices, even lead to a prediction:

Quote:

The nucleosynthesis of carbon-12

Fred Hoyle invoked anthropic reasoning to make a remarkable prediction of an astrophysical phenomenon. He reasoned from the prevalence on earth of life forms whose chemistry was based on carbon-12 atoms, that there must be an undiscovered resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus facilitating its synthesis in stellar interiors via the triple-alpha process. He then calculated the energy of this undiscovered resonance to be 7.6 million electron-volts.[36][37] Willie Fowler's research group soon found this resonance, and its measured energy was close to Hoyle's prediction.

If you prefer to believe that randomness can create these events, and you are happy with assuming the 10^500 multiple universes required for random events to take place, then so be it. But it sounds like a giant leap of faith to me.

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

mrducky wrote:

i personally know duffman is christian, curiousity compels me, what denomination are you?

What difference does it make? We are talking about science here, not religion. (you do know they are two completely separate things right?) I'm not aware of any science based denominations yet, but if I had to make one up, I think I'd call myself an "Information theoryist."

Evolution