There is no God, get over it!

[Gruss-ly]

Even if you look at the simplest single-celled organism, such as a primitive virus, that cell is still an amazingly sophisticated structure, with complexity existing at many different levels.

A virus is not a single-celled organism. It is simpler even than that... just nucleic acid wrapped in protein...

 

[rockyy]

Quantum mechanics

Interesting thread. Although evolution provides a very good explanation for how life develops once has been established, I don’t know that it’s the panacea that it’s made out to be; Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass....

it could be that...but there's a helluva lot of interesting ass talk these days. I saw a new documentary a while ago that seems to put all the creationist theories down (basically) to a quantum mechanics equation. It does the same with god, or the paranormal, and even what the buddhists call karma. it's called 'What the bleep...'

anybody seen it ... 'What the bleep...'?

 

[aznboi9]

A virus is not a single-celled organism. It is simpler even than that... just nucleic acid wrapped in protein...

Thank you for the clarification.

it could be that...but there's a helluva lot of interesting ass talk these days. I saw a new documentary a while ago that seems to put all the creationist theories down (basically) to a quantum mechanics equation. It does the same with god, or the paranormal, and even what the buddhists call karma. it's called 'What the bleep...'

anybody seen it ... 'What the bleep...'?

I saw it while it was in theatres, last summer I believe. The movie certainly was a brain tickler; what did you think of it? And yes, it does seem like a lot of people are using Quantum Theory to justify a lot of things these days.

Even though I studied it in university, I’ll admit that I’m no expert with respect to Quantum Mechanics and its philosophical applications as my classes were focused on its relevance to the field my degree was in. However, I must confess that I remain skeptical about how a lot of people use QM in their arguments and am still unconvinced that they are using its principles correctly, or at least they seem to be stretching its applications a bit farther than they should.

But I've been wrong before.

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...they seem to be stretching its applications a bit farther than they should. ..

guilty.

 

[Valium]

Interesting thread. Although evolution provides a very good explanation for how life develops once has been established, I don’t know that it’s the panacea that it’s made out to be; I think that one of its weaknesses is being able to explain how life can begin in the first place. Even if you look at the simplest single-celled organism, such as a primitive virus, that cell is still an amazingly sophisticated structure, with complexity existing at many different levels. There is still a huge gap between going from inorganic molecules and atoms to a single cell that is very difficult to account for based on chance alone.

When I was in university, I remember one of my Biochemistry professors talking about how the focus was on self-replicating molecules as a proposal to bridge this gap. He was working on self-replicating RNA, but I believe that the focus is now on self-replicating proteins. But even this is a very wide chasm to bridge, at least in my opinion. Organic molecules are relatively difficult to synthesis in the laboratory, where we are working with highly purified materials and tightly controlled conditions that typically don’t occur in nature. And that’s just for an amino acid. A protein is typically tens to hundreds of amino acids long, Even if you wanted to make a protein of just ten amino acids, you first need to synthesize the amino acid, and not just a few amino acids, but most likely thousands or even millions of them as the chance of side reactions occurring would be, I would think, quite high given that, in the natural world, you are working in conditions with high levels of contaminants and impurities that can interfere with the synthesis. And then have the amino acids brought close enough together so that a condensation reaction can occur and they can join together. In a small reaction vessel, sure, this is very possible, but in a natural environment we’re probably dealing lakes or oceans. Even a small puddle would be a very large area for small molecules to traverse and meet up. And they have to stay joined and not be separated via a hydrolytic reaction. This event would have to occur not once, but several times in order to produce a somewhat functional protein. Actually, it would probably have to occur at an even higher frequency as the chances of the first protein formed having the right sequence of amino acids to produce functional capabilities is unlikely. Also, that function needs to relate to self-replication. And that’s just one protein.

Modern experiments in abiotic synthesis have shown that it is possible to create amino acids as well as fatty acids, nucleic acids and simple proteins in laboratory settings. These experiments are done using conditions that are thought to have existed on primordial earth. The atmosphere was thought to contain mostly methane, ammonia and water vapor, which combined with electrical energy from lighting creates a reducing environment in which simple organic compounds (amino acids) could form relatively easily. After millions of years the lakes, oceans, or even just puddles would become enriched with a variety of simple organic compounds. Based on the hydrophobic nature of some of the amino acids they would tend to aggregate into larger complexes thereby significantly increasing the frequency of chemical reactions. Sure none of this is going to happen overnight, but over billions of years it doesn’t seem so impossible.

Even if you wanted to make a protein of just ten amino acids, you first need to synthesize the amino acid, and not just a few amino acids, but most likely thousands or even millions of them as the chance of side reactions occurring would be, I would think, quite high given that, in the natural world, you are working in conditions with high levels of contaminants and impurities that can interfere with the synthesis.

The same can be said for any chemical reaction: There are always impurities present so there will always be side reactions and unexpected byproducts but that doesn’t necessarily prevent the reaction from occurring. The amino acids and proteins themselves may be nothing more than byproducts of another chemical reaction. Actually the contaminants and side reactions are critical to later stages of evolution as they could be a source of genetic mutations which are responsible for the evolution of species.

Then there’s the cell membrane need to contain such a protein and I do remember reading a paper showing that self-assembling membranes can occur; but again, this is in laboratory conditions and you still need to synthesize the hundreds, thousands or millions of phospholipids to produce such a structure.

It’s likely that the first simple “organisms” did not have cell membranes, but that that occurred much later in the evolutionary scheme of things. Once it is possible to account for all the building blocks needed to produce a cell membrane then the rest is just rearrangement and reorganization through simple chemical reactions. Modern viruses can alter their composition in a matter of years resulting in strains resistant to antibiotics, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to assume that the same could happen with primitive organisms. Keep in mind that the time frame is billions of years. I think it is difficult to fathom just how long that is because the human life span is so short that we really cannot make the comparison. It’s like trying to comprehend how long a nanosecond is (it’s one billionth of a second for those who are curious).

It just seems the sequence of events require to produce life from non-living material is so improbable, to say that it can occur by chance, even over billions of years, is almost as irrational as saying “Creation exists because the Bible says so”.

I would disagree. The odds of winning the lottery are in the millions:1 but given enough time (ie:millions of days) you should win, statistically speaking. The theory of evolution is definitely not perfect, there are probably more unanswered questions than there are answers. However, it is only a model to explain the evidence that has been gathered, and like all models it has to be adapted when new evidence is found. At least evolution attempts to address some of the facts concerning our origins, which is more than can be said for the creationist theory.

It is clear that mankind does not have sufficient knowledge of the universe to answer once and for all where we came from, so until that time would you rather believe the facts or do you really think that we are all just the product of some superior, all knowing God. I for one can’t stand the thought that anyone is superior to me...

 

[Valium]

Even though I studied it in university, I’ll admit that I’m no expert with respect to Quantum Mechanics and its philosophical applications as my classes were focused on its relevance to the field my degree was in. However, I must confess that I remain skeptical about how a lot of people use QM in their arguments and am still unconvinced that they are using its principles correctly, or at least they seem to be stretching its applications a bit farther than they should.

Well said! Quantum Mechanics is just a creation of mankind so its principles shouldn't be used in an attempt to explain all of the unknown phenomena in the universe. Are we so naive to think that we have mastered all the knowledge in the universe and can account for all possible variables. I think not!

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...It is clear that mankind does not have sufficient knowledge of the universe to answer once and for all where we came from...

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
- Jack Handy

 

[rockyy]

... am still unconvinced that they are using its principles correctly, or at least they seem to be stretching its applications a bit farther than they should.

it's sort of a catch ... i dunno...sometimes I think QM and astro physics is just very clever fiction...

I dont see the need to reduce spiritual-based faith to mathematics. Those who want to do that don't seem to really need god...they're just engaging in metaphysical speculation. Not everybody needs god. Anybody who has ever fallen into some of life's deeper pitholes probably do, like those plane wreck survivors who were stranded in the Andes for three months and had to eat each other...I think some of them claimed to see god while they were up there....drug addicts and alcoholics and the like also seem to need god....and at the other end of the spectrum, some of life's biggest achievers - pro athletes, billionaires - seem to have some kind of faith based belief system.

Most guys ... like Lizard King I guess... just don't need it. Einstein didn't. Spiritual leaders like to point to comments made by einstein about god, but i dont think he thought very deeply about it. He may have speculated a bit...i think he said something to the effect that he couldn't believe there was no higher mind or intelligence controlling the universe.

The really needy and the really ambitious seem to need to believe in something they can't see. Proving the existence of god is beside the point for them.