Abiogenesis

[Jimmy]

In the standard BB model, there is no 'before the BB'. In some other models, there is.

But, whether or not there was, any material would have been thoroughly homogenized in going through the BB.

Mmm maybe that’s how we got milk

 

[Polymath257]

I think it took longer than a billion years for dna to form

From what?

 

[Jimmy]

From what?

Nucleotides

 

[Jimmy]

From what?

Perhaps rna

 

[Polymath257]

Nucleotides

Oh. Given nucleotides, RNA and DNA would form pretty quickly. RNA is likely to be the first genetic material.

 

[Jimmy]

Oh. Given nucleotides, RNA and DNA would form pretty quickly. RNA is likely to be the first genetic material.

Iyo

 

[Jimmy]

Yes.

Iyo

 

[setarcos]

I disagree. The evolution of everything that exists today began at the Big Bang event.

This implies intention. By intention I mean specific purpose. If the materials created inevitably could only produce certain existent matter AND couldn't produce matter that while non-existent could be produced then we could say all evolving matter with specific function had to begin its evolving journey from the Big Bang.

However, since, I'm assuming, you don't believe the Big Bang created anything with intention – even the consequent fundamental material resultant particles and forces - we cannot say anything with specific function evolved from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was an event not an existent entity that evolved.

Exploring further…while the Big Bang may have produced the components of an existent entity it did not determine what if any components would evolve any particular entity.

So what one might say. The originating components all had their origins in the Big Bang. Then what ever evolved afterwards with any of those components ipso facto evolved from the Big Bang.

However evolution by definition takes place on existent entities not events since events don’t change they happen. What of the fundamental resultant particles and forces? What about these components changed I would ask? How did they evolve? A Carbon atom didn’t evolve to eventually produce life. A carbon atom is a carbon atom is a carbon atom…no matter where you find it.

Now, we wouldn't say the evolution of the automobile began with the evolution of steal since the steal had no intention of developing the automobile. The auto may very well never have evolved and certainly not simply from steal. The steal made the auto possible but it was not a part of its evolution.

I mean what changed in steal to evolve the automobile? Unless you equate evolving with being made possible though not inevitable? And if so then we would have to consider the myriads of other components of the automobile as equally responsible for its evolution.

The plastics evolved the auto, the volatile liquids evolved the auto, the lubricants, the electricity, the glass, all evolved the auto individually. So that when we finally have something we consider an automobile we say it evolved from all of these. But then what changed in any of these things to evolve the auto? If anything would have changed then they wouldn’t fulfill their own specificity in making the automobile possible.

But did all the components evolve from each other then? If not then we have multiple lines of evolving going on not simply one evolutionary lineage of the automobile. What then do we mean by the automobile evolved from since we lose linearity in change?

We couldn't say steal since steal didn't evolve the auto without the other components. Likewise the other components. So we say the auto collectively evolved from the various components but only when the various components specifically complement each other to produce the automobile. In other words evolution has not taken place until all components have collectively defined specific change. That is the beginnings of its identifying specificity and its evolution.

That is, whatever we consider the idea of an automobile to be, however primitive, from that point on it begins its evolution - its alteration of, improved efficiency of, or transcendence from that original identifying idea since before this originating specificity nothing has changed. The linearity of evolution has been severed by indeterminacy. Evolution can only begin when change is possible and change can only happen with linear connectivity in existence.

If the material of the universe was not created (as many myths suggest) then there was no actual beginning, rather cycles of the material.

I think this is irrelevant. With no intention, the entity may be made up of specific materials but those materials didn't evolve the entity since the fundamental materials themselves didn't change. The only change was in specificity when those materials complemented each other in such a manner as to formulate a specific function.

It makes no sense to say DNA evolved from particles since it is made of particles.

Big Bang. That's when the four forces started working on the material, about 2 seconds after the event if I recall. Then the material started doing it's thing as governed by the laws of physics, including the sperm and egg than ended up as you.

Again, intention is absent. And since any particular material entity in this universe may be said to not be inevitable, one cannot say any particular fundamentally identified entity evolved from any other fundamentally identified entity. Considering those fundamentals don’t change.

That is the base upon which all of modern science is founded upon. Simply put, once science has established enough evidence to formulate “laws” of nature, it is assumed those laws will hold true again and again and again. Evolution requires change. The fundamental components of the universe do not change. Ergo, the event that cause those fundamental components to exist cannot be said to have evolved into anything. And that includes me…sperm, egg and all.

That would be an arbitrary step in the process. I'm not sure why you are trying to put a pin on the timeline as some "beginning". You might as well put a pin on the timeline when your parents had sex and you were conceived. That was a beginning. But that beginning came after many steps, each that had their own beginning in a lineage of beginnings.

Beginnings are important. Change can only happen to things when they initially begin to exist. Likewise identifying what is changing and linearly identifying what changed from what. Do we simply say that something evolved from a particular component of a thing even though that thing is composed of many components or do we say the thing evolved from all the components composing that thing giving it specificity? When we have a change in reality causing specificity in existent things without changing those fundamental things that is not evolution. That is an event that had a beginning.

For instance, you wouldn’t say I evolved from parental sex since nothing changed in the sex act. It was an event that happened making possible change, it wasn’t the change itself. Likewise, you wouldn’t say I evolved from the sperm, or from the egg since taken by themselves no amount of change would have produced me. So, I didn’t evolve from sperm or from eggs, but from their collective interaction which taken back far enough, evolved from a beginning which itself did not evolve from preexistent things but began in an event that took place from those preexistent things.

Which leads us back to my original premise. DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang. DNA evolved from components which weren’t themselves evolved but had their beginnings in an event.

 

[F1fan]

This implies intention. By intention I mean specific purpose.

Nothing in nature suggests intention or purpose. Your way of thinking looks at a boulder that tumbles down a hill and hits a house and kills a child as intention. The boulder was stable for many decaed, but wind and rain caused erosion an d at some point the weight crushed soils and the boulder started to roll. The Big Bang, and all the physical forces and the two elements can't be said to have intended to create Christians at some point in the future. That any humans exist is just how matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Around 700 millions years ago nearly all life on earth dies off due to the earth freezing. But enough life survived in the oceans that once the envronment warmed up life rebounded. This is all natural cycles, no plan, no intention, no purpose (except what we humans desperate to be significant in a universe of billions of galaxies decide to assign in our little trailer park side of our galaxy). I suggest it is YOU implying there is intention and purpose.

If the materials created inevitably could only produce certain existent matter AND couldn't produce matter that while non-existent could be produced then we could say all evolving matter with specific function had to begin its evolving journey from the Big Bang.

Things are as they are. "What ifs" tend to be trying to find a conclusion that the facts don't allow. Do you want to understand how things are, or try to manipulate a comforting answer that aren't supported by evidence? Your choice for yourself. It won't work in an argument.

 

[setarcos]

Intention is irrelevant. I don't know why you think otherwise.

By intention I mean specificity or purpose. As in, you would say that it wasn't the purpose of the Big Bang to produce life.

Maybe you should articulate your points with more words to connect them to the topic at hand. OK, there was no intention for DNA to evolve, and perhaps its existence is contingent.

Read my post # 68 to F 1 fan.
It'll expand upon my opinion.

Why are you making this point?

To show that DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang as proposed.

Also, we don't know when in the evolution of our reality the advent of DNA became likely or inevitable. It could very well be at T=0+. It may well be that once quarks and electrons and their properties were defined by symmetry breaking that the rest was inevitable.

Inevitable perhaps, but not through evolution.

What difference does it make when or if such an event occurred, or whether it was necessary or contingent? It would just be another step in the evolution of matter and then DNA either way.

It makes a difference because events do not evolve things but rather happen to things. For instance, mutations do not evolve. They are events which take place.
Hmmm. This is interesting and arguable.
Anyway, eventually we come to a step which itself has no linear evolutionary connection to what came before itself but after the Big Bang. A thing that makes something possible does not mean it evolved that possibility even if that something evolved from that possibility.

 

[setarcos]

No. What are you trying to say?

Post #68

 

[setarcos]

Nothing in nature suggests intention or purpose.

This is arguable. Design suggests intention and purpose.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Richard Dawkins
"A Brown University biologist says the best way to communicate evolution in a religious America is to acknowledge that there is indeed a "design" in living things."
Science Daily
Just to give some independent opinions.
The argument isn't that nature suggests design...its everywhere and even scientists admit that. The argument is between
whether its simply an appearance of purpose or actually is purposeful.

Your way of thinking looks at a boulder that tumbles down a hill and hits a house and kills a child as intention. The boulder was stable for many decaed, but wind and rain caused erosion an d at some point the weight crushed soils and the boulder started to roll. The Big Bang, and all the physical forces and the two elements can't be said to have intended to create Christians at some point in the future. That any humans exist is just how matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Around 700 millions years ago nearly all life on earth dies off due to the earth freezing. But enough life survived in the oceans that once the envronment warmed up life rebounded. This is all natural cycles, no plan, no intention, no purpose (except what we humans desperate to be significant in a universe of billions of galaxies decide to assign in our little trailer park side of our galaxy). I suggest it is YOU implying there is intention and purpose.

None of this reflects what I was arguing for. Perhaps intention was a poor choice of word and a trigger for you and others. If you actually read my post with an open mind I make no argument for sentient purpose. I'm suggesting we look at intention/purpose as inevitable function in this case.
I actually am suggesting that's not the case. I'm suggesting that if we take the Big Bang as an event without intention then it did not nor could not have evolved DNA.
This just goes to show how strongly our current world views can color how we "impartially" debate an issue in order to seek the truth of a matter.

"What ifs" tend to be trying to find a conclusion that the facts don't allow. Do you want to understand how things are, or try to manipulate a comforting answer that aren't supported by evidence? Your choice for yourself. It won't work in an argument.

What pray tell does this have to do with my argument? The whole things about dealing with the way things appear to be.
We had a Big Bang, DNA, definitions of evolution etc. What is your point here?
People need to get over their hang ups on God or no God, supernatural or no supernatural, blah blah blah...and simply address the arguments in a respectful and constructive manner.
I think you stopped thinking about my argument the moment you misinterpreted the word "intention". And you know what, that's my bad. I should have been more clear.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GODS EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE! Not every argument has to be about the supernatural. Sheesh.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By intention I mean specificity or purpose. As in, you would say that it wasn't the purpose of the Big Bang to produce life.

I wrote, "Intention is irrelevant. I don't know why you think otherwise." I still don't see an answer there. I assumed that by intent you mean designed with or having a purpose. I don't see how specificity apples here. Do you mean that a mind is specifying something?

Read my post # 68 to F 1 fan.
It'll expand upon my opinion.

You wrote, "DNA didn't have to evolve...did it?" I asked you to flesh in that comment - put in enough words that your intended meaning was clear. What is the right number of words? That number in which adding more words adds little or no additional clarity, and from which deleting words leads to ambiguity. Try that test on that comment. Is anything unclear requiring additional description? Can any of the words be deleted or substituted with something less wordy without the introduction of undesirable ambiguity?

To show that DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang as proposed.

Do you think you've done that?

Inevitable perhaps, but not through evolution.

More mystery. What exactly are you saying?

It makes a difference because events do not evolve things but rather happen to things. For instance, mutations do not evolve. They are events which take place.

I wrote, "What difference does it make when or if such an event occurred, or whether it was necessary or contingent? It would just be another step in the evolution of matter and then DNA either way." I don't see an answer in your words.

 

[F1fan]

This is arguable. Design suggests intention and purpose.

You seem to be confusing order with design. How matter behaves according to the laws of physics causes order, and that order has design. This doesn't mean any of it was intentional. If you threw a plate of spaghetti against a wall and somehow it looked like what appears to be Jesus, was that your intention? Did you throw the plate with an intention for form a picture, or was it just a pattern that looks familiar to some humans?

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Richard Dawkins
"A Brown University biologist says the best way to communicate evolution in a religious America is to acknowledge that there is indeed a "design" in living things."
Science Daily
Just to give some independent opinions.
The argument isn't that nature suggests design...its everywhere and even scientists admit that. The argument is between
whether its simply an appearance of purpose or actually is purposeful.

There is design in the order of the universe. Whether it is intended hasn't been shown to be the case. That is the flaw in your argument, no demonstrable intention, and no actor that does the designing.

All this intelligent design nonsense has many fatal and self-defeating elelments. Let's be honest, the ONLY reason people argue for ID is to smuggle in their idea of a god into the conversation. OK, I'll let you introduce this to being the designer of all that exists, and has intentions that, let's be honest again, is about some religious ideology. So the question I ask IDers is this: since your God designed everything, and with intention, what is the purpose of children being born with genetic faults that cause cancers and defects?

None of this reflects what I was arguing for. Perhaps intention was a poor choice of word and a trigger for you and others.

We aren't idiots, we understand what theists are trying to do.

If you actually read my post with an open mind I make no argument for sentient purpose.

I understand how all this works. The most difficult claims are not mentioned, and there's a huge trapesty of words that try to set the table for a God. Why else would you be trying to argue for intention in nature? If there were facts that were being followed it would be part of science already. But there aren't facts. Theists use subtle language to introduce semi-plausible ideas, and if there is no pushback the discussions evolve into more religious tones. Tricky language is a warning sign.

I'm suggesting we look at intention/purpose as inevitable function in this case.
I actually am suggesting that's not the case. I'm suggesting that if we take the Big Bang as an event without intention then it did not nor could not have evolved DNA.

Why not? DNA came about due to how matierials behave according to the laws of physics. It's all working like clockwork. Nature is just doing it's thing. Abiogenesis is highly probable explanation as to how organic chemicals formed, and from these basic chemicals protein molecules formed.

Explain what WOULD have happened if there was no intention as you are suggesting is necessary. Offer us a plausible alternative.

This just goes to show how strongly our current world views can color how we "impartially" debate an issue in order to seek the truth of a matter.

Oh the irony. Hello religion. Do you not think your views aren't influenced by religion?

What pray tell does this have to do with my argument? The whole things about dealing with the way things appear to be.

That's science. Your approach isn't science. You want to add "intention and purpose". These aren't facts.

People need to get over their hang ups on God or no God, supernatural or no supernatural, blah blah blah...and simply address the arguments in a respectful and constructive manner.

You first.

I think you stopped thinking about my argument the moment you misinterpreted the word "intention". And you know what, that's my bad. I should have been more clear.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GODS EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE! Not every argument has to be about the supernatural. Sheesh.

I'm not convinced. It could be that you are telling yourself this, but your pattern of argumentation is very similar to what IDers and creationists do. You aren't following facts. You have a belief about intention (why?) and you are trying to create an argument. That's creationism. Science gathers the evidence and forms a conclusion. As I noted what does the observation of children born with defects tell you about intetnion being behind DNA and life in general?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post #68

That was just word salad. It would be nice if you had ideas supported by evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Which leads us back to my original premise. DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang. DNA evolved from components which weren’t themselves evolved but had their beginnings in an event.

Your last two sentences contradict.

DNA didn't evolve from the BB? You make it sounds as if people are claiming that there was the Big Bang that was a singularity that expanded into clouds of helium, hydrogen, and DNA.

We know the steps that occurred over billions of years before the elements were forged in stars, then molecules formed, then chemicals, etc. Inorganic chemicals are believed to have become organic chemicals given certain envoronments. These are the building blocks of life. But all these steps happened after the BB, and in a lineage of changes in a dynamic universe. This is what you seem to be admitting in your last sentence, so I can't understand your confusion.

 

[Jimmy]

Your last two sentences contradict.

DNA didn't evolve from the BB? You make it sounds as if people are claiming that there was the Big Bang that was a singularity that expanded into clouds of helium, hydrogen, and DNA.

We know the steps that occurred over billions of years before the elements were forged in stars, then molecules formed, then chemicals, etc. Inorganic chemicals are believed to have become organic chemicals given certain envoronments. These are the building blocks of life. But all these steps happened after the BB, and in a lineage of changes in a dynamic universe. This is what you seem to be admitting in your last sentence, so I can't understand your confusion.

No one knows what space was like pre big bang

 

[F1fan]

No one knows what space was like pre big bang

Irrelevant to knowing what has happened since.

 

[Jimmy]

Irrelevant to knowing what has happened since.

Not quite

 

[Ella S.]

This is arguable. Design suggests intention and purpose.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Richard Dawkins
"A Brown University biologist says the best way to communicate evolution in a religious America is to acknowledge that there is indeed a "design" in living things."
Science Daily
Just to give some independent opinions.
The argument isn't that nature suggests design...its everywhere and even scientists admit that. The argument is between
whether its simply an appearance of purpose or actually is purposeful.

None of this reflects what I was arguing for. Perhaps intention was a poor choice of word and a trigger for you and others. If you actually read my post with an open mind I make no argument for sentient purpose. I'm suggesting we look at intention/purpose as inevitable function in this case.
I actually am suggesting that's not the case. I'm suggesting that if we take the Big Bang as an event without intention then it did not nor could not have evolved DNA.
This just goes to show how strongly our current world views can color how we "impartially" debate an issue in order to seek the truth of a matter.

What pray tell does this have to do with my argument? The whole things about dealing with the way things appear to be.
We had a Big Bang, DNA, definitions of evolution etc. What is your point here?
People need to get over their hang ups on God or no God, supernatural or no supernatural, blah blah blah...and simply address the arguments in a respectful and constructive manner.
I think you stopped thinking about my argument the moment you misinterpreted the word "intention". And you know what, that's my bad. I should have been more clear.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GODS EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE! Not every argument has to be about the supernatural. Sheesh.

It seems to me like you're misusing the word "intention" to refer to natural teleology and you're using "evolution" in a way that has little or nothing to do with biological or chemical evolution, yet this is in response to another user who is attacking "intention" used to refer to a subjective state of mind and "evolution" in its scientific sense.

I think this confusion is mostly on your part. I mean, I think I understand where you're coming from and I can understand why it seems clear to you, but the social context you said it in adds layers of implications that the literal meaning of your words do not necessarily make. You have to keep the context in mind when you go into a conversation which, believe me, is something I've struggled with enough myself.

That contextual obfuscation includes when you compare evolution, which is a natural and unguided process, to the creation of the automobile, which is an artificial and guided one. In the context of an argument between creationism and evolution, that sounds like you're advocating for creationism, which implies the existence of God as the one designing life.

I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that is how it comes across.