Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But why and how living system/s manage to reduce entropy is not explained.

Do they reduce entropy?

Think about the effects of your own life, chemically and physically:

- you breathe, taking in O2 and converting it to CO2.
- you eat, taking in food and breaking it down to release energy.
- through your entire life, you maintain a body temperature that's higher than your surroundings. You emit energy into your environment, increasing its entropy.

... so if you or anyone else is going to argue that your net effect is an overall decrease in entropy, I'm going to insist on seeing your work... with numbers to back up your claim.

 

[Polymath257]

But why and how living system/s manage to reduce entropy is not explained. Consciousness-life is not explained by any mechanism. Pointing this out brings out sarcasm or anger in ontological materialists.

Living things do NOT reduce entropy. They generate a tremendous amount of it by letting off heat and various wastes. That *far* outweighs the trivial order increase by structures made.

 

[shunyadragon]

But why and how living system/s manage to reduce entropy is not explained.

Simply the energy sources of the sun and the internal heat of the earth are huge sources of energy that resolve any potential problems of entropy. for the origins of life and evolution. Entropy is everywhere and happens in all the processes of life and non-life, so what?!?!?!?!

Consciousness-life is not explained by any mechanism. Pointing this out brings out sarcasm or anger in ontological materialists.

No anger, maybe sarcasm and ridicule, because such an argument is combination of a vain attempt at an 'argument from ignorance,' compounded by the ignorance of the failure to consider the knowledge and research ove the past 70 years plus concerning the relationship of the brain, and the mind and consciousness. Of course, all the questions concerning this relationship have not been answered, but appealing to the fallacy of the 'argument from ignorance,' does not provide a coherent response.

abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Those who teach others about empiricism should themselves adhere to that.

No problem with abiogenesis being considered a hypothesis in science, but it is a well grounded hypothesis in objective verifiable evidence, Same problem with above, appealing to the fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance' does provide a coherent response.

What kind of fossils have been found around sea vents? How does presence of fossils prove creation of life-intelligence from organic chemical moities (molecules?)?

First, an understanding science would helpful. Second, science does not PROVE hypothesis nor Theories. Third, Amino acids (the building blocks of life) exist in nature without an organic origin, Fourth, there are a number of research projects on ocean sea vents and abiogenesis. The research has determined that it is an ideal chemical environment with the natural energy source to support abiogenesis. Fifth the fossils found are the oldest one celled fossils ever found in the geologic history. I already posted threads on this, and we are drifting off topic. I may start another thread in an appropriate category and present the current research and evidence for the sea vent hypothesis for the origin of life.

 

[atanu]

Do they reduce entropy?
.

Living things do NOT reduce entropy. ...

Simply the energy sources of the sun and the internal heat of the earth are huge sources of energy that resolve any potential problems of entropy. for the origins of life and evolution....

Yes entropy overall increases. I know that. What I pointed out (and which is well known) is that life forms share in common the attribute of being entities that decrease their internal entropy at the expense of free energy obtained from its surrounding. And these systems are intelligent in some way or other.

 

[atanu]

No anger, maybe sarcasm and ridicule, because such an argument is combination of a vain attempt at an 'argument from ignorance,' ....,.

No. Mere pointing out that mechanism is not known is not 'argument from ignorance,' and cannot be cause for sarcasm, ridicule or anger.

No problem with abiogenesis being considered a hypothesis in science, but it is a well grounded hypothesis in objective verifiable evidence,

What objective verifiable evidence? Have you generated life or consciousness? Or have you proposed a verifiable mechanism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes entropy overall increases. I know that. What I pointed out (and which is well known) is that life forms share in common the attribute of being entities that decrease their internal entropy at the expense of free energy obtained from its surrounding. And these systems are intelligent in some way or other.

How are they "intelligent"? You seem to be using a strange definition of this term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes entropy overall increases. I know that. What I pointed out (and which is well known) is that life forms share in common the attribute of being entities that decrease their internal entropy at the expense of free energy obtained from its surrounding.

Since the Sun bombards us with all the free energy we need to do this, I don't see the issue. Thermodynamics is not threatened by the existence of life.

And these systems are intelligent in some way or other.

Sorry - are you trying to claim that all life is intelligent?

 

[ecco]

nm

 

[shunyadragon]

No. Mere pointing out that mechanism is not known is not 'argument from ignorance,' and cannot be cause for sarcasm, ridicule or anger.

Mechanism?!?!? I pointed out the simple fact that abiogenesis and evolution do not have a problem with entropy, because there is abundant energy sources in the sun and the internal heat of the earth. The mechanisms are chemistry. Also there are natural non-organic sources of the amino acids, the building blocks of life.

Many of the mechanisms are known simply based on chemistry.

Yes, your emphasis of pointing to unknowns, which are not in reality always true, to justify your argument is in fact an 'argument from ignorance,' and by the way with a religious agenda with no knowledge of biochemistry and geochemistry involved.

What objective verifiable evidence? Have you generated life or consciousness? Or have you proposed a verifiable mechanism?

Your making quite a demanding leap without virtually any knowledge of the science and chemistry that forms the foundation of abiogenesis and evolution, other than, of course a religious agenda against the science.

By the way what is your education background, particularly in biochemistry, genetics, geology and paleontology?

I subscribe to a on-line scientific reference source for all the scientific publications on abiogenesis. If I posted some of them would you understand the biochemisty, geochemistry, and genetics behind these research articles. I get three to ten a week. You also have the option to subscribe to the search option if you wish.

By the way the 2nd law of thermodynamics ONLY applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM in this case. The only relatively closed system that would apply here is our solar system. Abiogenesis and evolution do not represent closed systems. Like all life they depend on energy inputs from outside sources like the sun and the internal heat of the sun and the internal heat of the earth.

Could you explain this article, and understand the research involved? It deals with one of the chemical mechanisms in abiogenesis. Why is this mechanism important? Thermal polymerization is an interesting process, and the question is can you explain this, and the environment where this is known to take place.

From: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720031104
The role of phosphates in chemical evolution.
Author and Affiliation:
Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)
Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.
Publication Date: Jan 01, 1971
Document ID:
19720031104
(Acquired Dec 04, 1995)
Accession Number: 72A14770
Subject Category: CHEMISTRY
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
Publication Information: SEE A72-14751 04-04
Publisher Information: Netherlands
Meeting Information: 3rd Chemical evolution and the origin of life; Third International Conference; April 19-25, 1970; Pont-a-Mousson; France

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But why and how living system/s manage to reduce entropy is not explained.

Why is this a mental roadblock for you? When the wind whips up dust, the entropy of the dust is reduced. When water evaporates to form a cloud, the water's entropy is reduced. Local reductions in entropy happen literally all the time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes entropy overall increases.

O course it does when considering the whole solar system, which is the closest thing to a closed system we have to deal with,

I know that. What I pointed out (and which is well known) is that life forms share in common the attribute of being entities that decrease their internal entropy at the expense of free energy obtained from its surrounding. And these systems are intelligent in some way or other.

The natural nature of our existence utilized the energy of our natural surrounds the sun and the internal heat of the earth without any specific source that you may describe as intelligent. This is simple science. You have basically answered your own question, but the simple basic science concludes that an intelligent source is not necessary the utilization of free energy from the surroundings.

 

[atanu]

Mechanism?!?!? I pointed out the simple fact that abiogenesis and evolution do not have a problem with entropy, because there is abundant energy sources in the sun and the internal heat of the earth. The mechanisms are chemistry. Also there are natural non-organic sources of the amino acids, the building blocks of life.

Many of the mechanisms are known simply based on chemistry.

Yes, your emphasis of pointing to unknowns, which are not in reality always true, to justify your argument is in fact an 'argument from ignorance,' and by the way with a religious agenda with no knowledge of biochemistry and geochemistry involved.

Yes. Mechanism is required. Chemical evolution does not generate consciousness and life.

Your making quite a demanding leap without virtually any knowledge of the science and chemistry that forms the foundation of abiogenesis and evolution, other than, of course a religious agenda against the science.

By the way what is your education background, particularly in biochemistry, genetics, geology and paleontology?

I am a geochemist. I have published papers in AAPG and Organic Geochemistry. I have personally studied differences in biomarkers in rocks through ages. But I have not seen any of these chemicals say "I".

It is a big leap to say that chemical evolution suddenly leads to creation of an intelligence. We have not seen it. First, it was thought that primordial soup was the source. We had that idea for about 80 years. Then came hydrothermal vents. Some chemists pointed out the anomaly of sodium/potassium balance and suggested hot springs at certain locations as more likely sources.

Observations of honeycomb like cellular structure, electrical potential across these cells, biomarkers indicating organisms in such sediments are not evidences indicating that intelligent life evolved here. There are scientists who have other theories such as life arriving from Mars or elsewhere. And there are philosophers and scientists who have proposed that intelligence is the fundamental property of the universe.

Thank you for pointing out to me academic resources for abiogenesis research. Let me also point out to you a cross-section of views from physics, biology, psychology, and philosophy that do not agree to eliminative materialism. I hope that so-called science lovers will be really open.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/
http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Your brain does not process information and it is not a computer | Aeon Essays
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf
Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think
Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia
The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'

I do not expect you to seriously read any one of the above. These are here to show to readers with open mind that the view of Eliminative Materialism is not the only one view in scientific circles.

...

For me the awareness of existence here and now is the truth.. peace and moksha. No one, not even God, can disprove the awareness of "I exist". Using that awareness some try to create it at some past. It is imagination. The awareness is here and now. No theology is required.

...

 

[atanu]

Why is this a mental roadblock for you? When the wind whips up dust, the entropy of the dust is reduced. When water evaporates to form a cloud, the water's entropy is reduced. Local reductions in entropy happen literally all the time.

My dear friend. Wind, dust, or nature do not say 'We reduced entropy'. It is your intelligence that determines that such happens. We are the seers. The idea that chemicals evolved to become organised structures that started generating intelligence is 'hypothesis' and not fact.

I am not saying anything more. No mental roadblock. No theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Mere pointing out that mechanism is not known is not 'argument from ignorance,' and cannot be cause for sarcasm, ridicule or anger.



What objective verifiable evidence? Have you generated life or consciousness? Or have you proposed a verifiable mechanism?

Oh my. You do not even appear to understand what it means when one says that a concept is still in the hypothetical stage. There are several proposed mechanisms. None of them by themselves gives a full explanation. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage. If a full explanation existed then it would have moved on to the theoretical stage.

The hypothetical stage means that it is a work in progress.

 

[atanu]

Mechanism?!?!?
...
Your making quite a demanding leap without virtually any knowledge of the science and chemistry that forms the foundation of abiogenesis and evolution, other than, of course a religious agenda against the science....

Could you explain this article, and understand the research involved? ...

From: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720031104
The role of phosphates in chemical evolution.
Author and Affiliation:
Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)
Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.
Publication Date: Jan 01, 1971
..
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
..

I am sufficiently perturbed by your level of study. You are pointing to a 1971 conference proceeding abstract to prove that life-intelligence arose from chemicals?

I am reproducing the abstract below for every one to read:

Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)
Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.​

...

Do you mean to say that a mechanism of polymerisation of inorganic orthophosphates also explains creation of life and consciousness?

 

[atanu]

No science on your part, and you flunked high school physics.

Your religious agenda takes precedence over any education you may have had.

Really?

See above post. Discuss science without insulting. You may wish to read the links that I provided with peaceful mind.

 

[gnostic]

I think that anyone who don’t really understand something specific in science, to ask question instead of making faulty assumptions and argue with everyone from position of ignorance.

If you don’t understand entropy, then ask.

If you don’t understand something specifics about evolution, then ask.

If you don’t understand should entropy have any impact on the evolutionary mechanisms...well, you get it, just ask.

 

[atanu]

I think that anyone who don’t really understand something specific in science, to ask question instead of making faulty assumptions and argue with everyone from position of ignorance.
If you don’t understand entropy, then ask.
If you don’t understand something specifics about evolution, then ask.
If you don’t understand should entropy have any impact on the evolutionary mechanisms...well, you get it, just ask.

Surely. Tell me the mechanism of evolution of consciousness and our subjective experiences from orthophosphate polymerisation.

Why only angry retorts and insults follow when someone points out that study of science from the outset does not include the conscious individual that studies?

The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'

Or why we cannot evaluate dispassionately the argument that an evolved intelligence need not be suited for determining truth?

Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia

Or why cannot we accept that there are alternate views to eliminative materialism within physics, as below?

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf

Or why is reluctance to even consider that there are scientists and philosophers who wish to investigate the idea that consciousness is fundamental aspect of existence?

http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Or do we do not want to even consider the critical opinion of a respected biologist/paleontologist regarding neo Darwinism?

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

...

I know TOE. I have myself seen evolution of living forms under microscope and in chemicals in extracts of sediments through ages Permian to Recent. But I do not think that there is evidence of creation of life-consciousness from inert chemicals. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Am I wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

...

Do you mean to say that a mechanism of polymerisation of inorganic orthophosphates also explains creation of life and consciousness?

It is a reference for research on abiogenesis. which is one of hundreds of different research articles from scientific research on the mechanisms processes, and chemistry of life from non-life chemicals. You have to life evolving before consciousness, which is different topic I may address in a different thread.

You did not answer the questions I asked concerning the research paper.

This post and others reflect your religious agenda and you have failed to post any actual scientic papers on abiogenesis.

In this reference Thomas Nagel is philosopher and not a scientist, and he did not address the issue of the science of abiogenesis.
The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'

I have seen this reference before: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

Off topic and does not address the science of abiogenesis nor actually evolution. It is written by Stephen Gould concerning his philosophy, and not the science, because he is not a scientist in the biological fields.

Your references actually do not address the topic.

 

[atanu]

... It is written by Stephen Gould concerning his philosophy, and not the science, because he is not a scientist in the biological fields.
...

Gould was not a scientist in the biological fields?

Dod.

You did not answer the questions I asked concerning the research paper.

It is not a full paper. It is an abstract of a submission in a conference of 1971. And I answered that a proposed mechanism of polymerisation of orthophosphates does not explain creation of consciousness from those chemicals.

...

Can I expect you to read the links I provided and discuss on actual points they raise?