Laws of genetics

[rossum]

I understand that biology has not yet came up with the how of matter without life developing life. Is that accurate?

The origin of matter is not the province of biology. That is cosmology and stellar physics.

To what degree have the figured out the ultimate Chicken and Egg questions? That is, what came first the parts of DNA or DNA?

Neither. RNA almost certainly came first. DNA can store information but not catalyse chemical reactions. Proteins can catalyse chemical reactions but not store information. RNA can both store information (though not as well as DNA) and catalyse chemical reactions (though not as well as proteins). RNA is a Jack-of-all-trades and can perform both functions, though not as well as the two specialists.

What is the position of the manner in which things reproduced before DNA?

They reproduced using RNA. Google “ribozymes” and “RNA World”

rossum

 

[Marie1234]

Maria (Clairvoyant)

Clairvoyant, since you read my mind, yes. I was trying to ask that.

You are a saint.

THANKS!!!

I understand that biology has not yet came up with the how of matter without life developing life. Is that accurate?

To what degree have the figured out the ultimate Chicken and Egg questions? That is, what came first the parts of DNA or DNA?

What is the position of the manner in which things reproduced before DNA?

One last elementary question: is postulate before hypothesis?

Haha I’m glad I could answer your question!

Do you mean can scientists explain how matter formed at all? Like how something formed from nothing? Nope there is no explanation for that, other than God

Or do you mean has science been able to describe how life formed out of non-life? There are many hypothesis and theories, but none have been proven. They can kind of see how life evolved from simpler life forms, but how it all began? How basic elements came together to form basic cell components? No, there’s no definite answer. People hypothesize, saying how electricity/lightening played a part in it all, or some kind of “spontaneous” generation/reproduction occurred, but it’s just a guessing game at this point.

There’s the primordial soup theory:

“Primordial soup” is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the “primordial soup” theory of Oparin and Haldane in its “mature form” as follows:[1]

The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup...[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup)

(RNA came before DNA.) This suggests the parts of DNA came first and eventually formed DNA. Does this answer your question? Feel free to ask me more if I didn’t answer is sufficiently. Any other questions?

I have a question if you don’t mind? You mentioned something about working in a lab? What’s your occupation?

Oh and yes, postulate is before hypothesis.

 

[Marie1234]

One of the common creationist pieces of misinformation is this misunderstanding of the Second Law.

Go into your kitchen and put some oil and water into a glass. Mix then thoroughly so they are chaotically mixed up. That is chaos. Now leave the glass undisturbed overnight. The oil and water will separate naturally so they are no longer chaotically mixed but re-ordered in two separate layers, the oil on top of the water. That is order. Order has naturally emerged from chaos. You may not be able to unstir the milk from your coffee, but you can unstir the oil from your water. You are being fed grossly incomplete information bout the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here is another piece from a creationist source. It is an absolute classic of the genre:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Scientists certainly know about it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discover for themselves what the creationist here is talking about.

Notice also that the piece, correctly, does not talk about “chaos” or “disorder”, but entropy. Unless you know how to calculate entropy, you are not going to have a correct understanding of the 2LoT.

rossum

Yes I understand the Law well.

Yes of course we started our simple…I’m not denying evolution. It’s pretty obvious and I am far from a Creationist. But you can’t deny the natural law that everything decomposes to “disorder” without an outside force involved…

And yes as you are frantically stirring that mix, that is not “chaos” that’s an outside force influencing the otherwise repelling mixture to mix. When the force stops, they separate into there natural order or “disorder”.

In this senario, YOU are the one creating the mixture. When you leave, the mixture separates. Same as when the body, soul and God are all working together, and then the soul leaves and the heart stops beating…the force is gone that made the “mixture” come together. THe body then begins to decompose into it’s natural state of elements. It goes back to the “equilibrium” of non-life and basic particles. —to disorder.

 

[rossum]

Yes of course we started our simple…I’m not denying evolution. It’s pretty obvious and I am far from a Creationist. But you can’t deny the natural law that everything decomposes to “disorder” without an outside force involved…

You are incorrect. Even without an external energy source, entropy can decrease. Energy within a closed system can decrease entropy in part of the system while increasing entropy in another part of the system by a greater amount.

Remember also that the Earth is not a closed system, it has a large external energy source supplying it with a great deal of energy. Enough energy to account for the observed temporary decrease in entropy due to life. Life is only temporary; entropy will take over at death.

Did you solve the mystery of the large outside energy source? Here it is again:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

rossum

 

[Marie1234]

You are incorrect. Even without an external energy source, entropy can decrease. Energy within a closed system can decrease entropy in part of the system while increasing entropy in another part of the system by a greater amount.

Remember also that the Earth is not a closed system, it has a large external energy source supplying it with a great deal of energy. Enough energy to account for the observed temporary decrease in entropy due to life. Life is only temporary; entropy will take over at death.

Did you solve the mystery of the large outside energy source? Here it is again:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

rossum

No, it’s that it spontaneously evolves toward a thermodynamic equilibrium. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m trying to say…

Yes, evolution would not be possible, unless there was an outside source (God). Evolution clearly did happen…so, that means that there is a God who counteracted the basic natural laws of the universe in order to create life, and increasingly complex forms of life. There was a source that was OUTSIDE our basic natural laws that did this. There is no other explanation.

There clearly is an “outside source”–God. But many scientists do not say it because science exists to explain and understand the natural world. This is the point where science, philosophy, and religion meet. Scientists resist crossing the boundary, thus they do not have an explanation, and never will.

 

[rossum]

No, it’s that it spontaneously evolves toward a thermodynamic equilibrium. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m trying to say…

Yes, evolution would not be possible, unless there was an outside source (God). Evolution clearly did happen…so, that means that there is a God who counteracted the basic natural laws of the universe in order to create life, and increasingly complex forms of life. There was a source that was OUTSIDE our basic natural laws that did this. There is no other explanation.

There clearly is an “outside source”–God. But many scientists do not say it because science exists to explain and understand the natural world. This is the point where science, philosophy, and religion meet. Scientists resist crossing the boundary, thus they do not have an explanation, and never will.

I am sorry, you are missing my point.

You can find that creationist source on the web by searching for, “Creationist almost discovers the Sun”. The “giant outside source of energy” is the Sun; no need to invoke God. The amount of energy the Sun (name removed by moderator)uts into the Earth’s systems is ample to drive the relatively small decrease in entropy required for life.

Yes, that decrease is only temporary: life on Earth will end when the Sun burns out. Until that time, the energy flow from the Sun, through the Earth’s surface, and on out into space is ample to drive the entropy changes required.

The creationists understanding of the 2LoT is faulty. They often use words like “disorder”, while failing to do the correct calculations of entropy. As I showed with the oil and water example, entropy and disorder are not synonyms. The oil/water mix has a lower entropy than the separated oil and water, hence the natural separation of the two over time increases entropy in the combined system though it decreases disorder.

Entropy is not an intuitive concept, it has to be learned. It does not simply equate to “disorder”. Entropy is an extensive quantity measured in Joules per degree Kelvin; disorder does not have such a precise definition.

The Second Law is part of physics, and physics is an exact science, requiring exact calculations. Hand waving is not physics.

rossum