Systems+Energy=Life
zoe_althrop
very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
exists without a manufacturer.
Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
system that resembles life on a low level.
Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong objections
to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there is
no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to be
able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if they
are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach to
the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
following questions:
1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
early species can occur with only those parts available.
ANSWER:
2. What is the lowest level at which scientists estimate that
replication of a biological organism can take place?
ANSWER:
3. Is the reproductive system of an organism irreducibly complex, or
can it accomplish replication, growth, and development if only half a
cell exists, or if only a quarter of the parts of a cell exist, or
only half an organism exists?
ANSWER:
4. Do all parts of the reproductive system have to be in place at the
same time for reproduction to take place, or can half a cell
replicate?
ANSWER:
5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that mean
that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A mere
"no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
ANSWER:
6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species, and
yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
process took place in the distant past?
ANSWER:
7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA present,
or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a viable
step-by-step basis.
ANSWER:
These questions are similar, but I want to be sure of where you stand
before I elaborate on where I stand.
Thanks.
----
zoe
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
[snip]
Talk about misrepresenting the positions of both myself and Howard.
(Or at least I would think you were misrepresenting what we said
if you were knowledgable enough to actually understand it.)
I most definately do _NOT_ think that biological systems can be
alive without energy. I have in no way, shape, or form
whatsoever as much as hinted that biological systems can be
alive without energy. I don't recall seeing any one saying
that life can exist without "energy."
Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
by the term "energy"? One can't define _anything_ using that
term if one does not know it is defined to be in the first place.
(And be prepared to define the terms you use to define "energy"
as well.) Also what is a "system"? If you cannot do this then
your "definition" is nothing more than word salad.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
R. Baldwin
news:3fcbf4da....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
You might also be interested in the International Society of
Artificial Life:
http://www.alife.org/
Klaus Hellnick
"Harlequin" <use...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9444E3653B2BFu...@68.12.19.6...
Welcome to the Zoe Zone.
Klaus
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
>very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
>ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
>would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
Wow. I've only been following that thread tangentially, but I can't
imagine either of them actually saying this. I can, of course, imagine
you concluding this from your bizarre comprehension disorder.
>
>The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
>background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
>to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
>that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
Are you saying you *DO* have "philosophical background?" No matter. It
seems that you have introduced another term which you most certainly
have a personal definition apart from the accepted definition: "system."
Please define.
>
>The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
>observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
>system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
>exists without a manufacturer.
It seems to me that this is trivially true by the very definition of
"artificial." (Assuming that your definition of "system" is more along
the lines of "machine.")
>
>Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
>observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
>of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
>systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
>producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
>life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
>energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
>system that resembles life on a low level.
I can't really make any sense out of this--even trying to guess what you
might actually mean by your terms. Please give some working definitions
of: "system", "energy", "artificial" and "intelligence"; and if you are
going to use them in a "formula" (you might need to define this as well)
then what are the units?
>
>Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong objections
>to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
>proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
I see no logic yet--just severe contortions of reality in an attempt to
force it to fit your religion.
[SNIP rest]
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>... all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
>of systems denote intelligence.
Ever hear of a storm system?
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ross Langerak
received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the
only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy),
I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for
intelligence.
>
> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic
system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
Why not ask "how" they came together? Astronomers have a very good
understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud of dust
and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a planetary system can
form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the "how" question more productive
than the "who" question?
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self assemble,
and concluding that because those systems don't self assemble, that no
systems can self assemble. What would you conclude if you looked only
at glasses that had milk in them?
> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I
have
> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The
presence
> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
> system that resembles life on a low level.
You seem to be implying that to produce life also requires
intelligence. In that case, systems+energy+intelligence=life. But we
can also say that systems+energy+intelligence=automobile. Is my car
alive?
You said above that "The presence of systems denote intelligence."
Why? You have provided no justification for that statement. I can
tell the difference between man-made systems and natural systems.
Doesn't that suggest that there is some inherent difference? Could
that difference be intelligence?
We know that a solar system can form without intelligence. All that
is required is a cloud of dust and gas with enough density to produce
a gravitational collapse. Why, then, does life require intelligence?
Many organisms grow and reproduce without any intelligence. Why,
then, does their origin require intelligence?
> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong
objections
> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
What logic? You've made a series of assertions without any
justification.
> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there
is
> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to
be
> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if
they
> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
>
> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach
to
> the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
> following questions:
>
> 1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
> parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
> proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
> early species can occur with only those parts available.
>
> ANSWER:
Some relatively short RNA molecules have been shown to self-replicate
in the presence of an assortment of nucleic acids. Presumably, then,
the answer would be one.
> 2. What is the lowest level at which scientists estimate that
> replication of a biological organism can take place?
>
> ANSWER:
A single molecule of RNA.
> 3. Is the reproductive system of an organism irreducibly complex,
or
> can it accomplish replication, growth, and development if only half
a
> cell exists, or if only a quarter of the parts of a cell exist, or
> only half an organism exists?
>
> ANSWER:
I don't see how you can get much smaller than a single molecule.
> 4. Do all parts of the reproductive system have to be in place at
the
> same time for reproduction to take place, or can half a cell
> replicate?
>
> ANSWER:
Is everything in place? Yup, the molecule is there.
> 5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
> interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that mean
> that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A
mere
> "no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
>
> ANSWER:
No, it simply means that the earlier organisms were simpler.
> 6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species, and
> yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
> organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
> process took place in the distant past?
>
> ANSWER:
Life four billion years ago was not like life today. It existed under
very different conditions. It didn't require all of the extra parts
that life does today because it hadn't been evolving for four billion
(that's a long time) years.
> 7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA
present,
> or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a viable
> step-by-step basis.
>
> ANSWER:
Look in any book on cell biology. Proteins are formed using an RNA
template. Obviously, RNA can carry information. Furthermore, it has
been shown that RNA can act as an enzyme, thus making DNA and
pre-existing proteins unnecessary.
> These questions are similar, but I want to be sure of where you
stand
> before I elaborate on where I stand.
Then let me explain where I stand. Abiogenesis is not part of
evolution. As you seem to understand, evolution requires
reproduction. Abiogenesis is how the first self-replicating
"organism" came into existence. Evolution didn't start until
abiogenesis was done.
Abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study. We have no rocks or
fossils from that era that we can examine. All existing life is the
result of over four billion years of evolution. Even the oldest
fossils available to us were already the result of few hundred million
years of evolution. So we have almost no direct evidence to go on.
And based upon all of this ignorance, you want to come to the firm
conclusion that the Earth and the Universe were created by an
intelligent creator.
Presumably, you want to claim that we don't know how life originated.
And since evolution requires an origin, that evolution could not have
happened. But your reasoning is bass ackwards. If evolution requires
an origin, then all of the evidence that supports evolution - the
fossils, the biochemistry, the homologous anatomy - also supports
abiogenesis. If the evidence tells us that evolution must have
happenned, and abiogenesis is required for evolution to happen, then
abiogenesis must have happened. Even if we don't know how it
happenned, it must have happened.
This is the common creationist argument, but if I have misinterpreted
your position, please feel free to elaborate.
Bobby D. Bryant
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system exists
> without a manufacturer.
Congratulations, you've just stumbled across the meaning of "artificial".
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ross Langerak
received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the
only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy),
I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for
intelligence.
>
> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic
system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
Why not ask "how" they came together? Astronomers have a very good
understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud of dust
and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a planetary system can
form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the "how" question more productive
than the "who" question?
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self assemble,
and concluding that because those systems don't self assemble, that no
systems can self assemble. What would you conclude if you looked only
at glasses that had milk in them?
> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I
have
> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The
presence
> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
> system that resembles life on a low level.
You seem to be implying that to produce life also requires
intelligence. In that case, systems+energy+intelligence=life. But we
can also say that systems+energy+intelligence=automobile. Is my car
alive?
You said above that "The presence of systems denote intelligence."
Why? You have provided no justification for that statement. I can
tell the difference between man-made systems and natural systems.
Doesn't that suggest that there is some inherent difference? Could
that difference be intelligence?
We know that a solar system can form without intelligence. All that
is required is a cloud of dust and gas with enough density to produce
a gravitational collapse. Why, then, does life require intelligence?
Many organisms grow and reproduce without any intelligence. Why,
then, does their origin require intelligence?
> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong
objections
> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
What logic? You've made a series of assertions without any
justification.
> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there
is
> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to
be
> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if
they
> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
>
> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach
to
> the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
> following questions:
>
> 1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
> parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
> proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
> early species can occur with only those parts available.
>
> ANSWER:
Some relatively short RNA molecules have been shown to self-replicate
in the presence of an assortment of nucleic acids. Presumably, then,
the answer would be one.
> 2. What is the lowest level at which scientists estimate that
> replication of a biological organism can take place?
>
> ANSWER:
A single molecule of RNA.
> 3. Is the reproductive system of an organism irreducibly complex,
or
> can it accomplish replication, growth, and development if only half
a
> cell exists, or if only a quarter of the parts of a cell exist, or
> only half an organism exists?
>
> ANSWER:
I don't see how you can get much smaller than a single molecule.
> 4. Do all parts of the reproductive system have to be in place at
the
> same time for reproduction to take place, or can half a cell
> replicate?
>
> ANSWER:
Is everything in place? Yup, the molecule is there.
> 5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
> interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that mean
> that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A
mere
> "no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
>
> ANSWER:
No, it simply means that the earlier organisms were simpler.
> 6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species, and
> yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
> organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
> process took place in the distant past?
>
> ANSWER:
Life four billion years ago was not like life today. It existed under
very different conditions. It didn't require all of the extra parts
that life does today because it hadn't been evolving for four billion
(that's a long time) years.
> 7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA
present,
> or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a viable
> step-by-step basis.
>
> ANSWER:
Look in any book on cell biology. Proteins are formed using an RNA
template. Obviously, RNA can carry information. Furthermore, it has
been shown that RNA can act as an enzyme, thus making DNA and
pre-existing proteins unnecessary.
> These questions are similar, but I want to be sure of where you
stand
> before I elaborate on where I stand.
Then let me explain where I stand. Abiogenesis is not part of
Ken Rode
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
Would you mind going to the Merriam-Webster site, looking up "system", and
letting us know which definition you are using. In this post, you are using
two or three of the available definitions. Let's define our terms so that we
can speak with some precision.
> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
What is normally asked is "How does this system operate?" By asking "who"
immediately, you are already assuming your conclusion.
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
Is it then your reasoning that natural systems are simply extensions of
artificial systems? Because you know something about artificial systems, you
therefore know that the same things are true of natural systems? You are
assuming your conclusion: you're going to have to show that this
relationship actually exists.
> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
> system that resembles life on a low level.
I don't know of any artifical system which uses the "formula" that you have
proposed. You are using "life" in some nonstandard way, and I would
appreciate a clear definition that applies to artificial systems.
When you state that "the presence of systems denote intelligence", that is
an assertion that you will also need to provide evidence for, as will your
statement that "the directing of emergy through systems also speak of
intelligence."
Here's an example. When you boil water in a kettle, you are setting up a
convection system. You provide all of the raw materials for the system, you
arrange those materials into a "proper" configuration, and you provide the
energy that drives the system. You do not personally create the system: it
emerges on its own from the initial conditions. And you do not personally
direct the energy through the system: this, too, happens on its own.
I understand that you may reject this example as it uses a natural system
that is not biological. If your hypothesis about systems denoting
intelligence is true, however, I shouldn't need to use any specific type of
system to demonstrate that.
> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong objections
> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
>
> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there is
> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to be
> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if they
> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
>
> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach to
> the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
> following questions:
I have to snip the remainder, since I do not have the necessary expertise to
be able to answer the questions.
howard hershey
zoe_althrop wrote:
> Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
What a distortion. I do not think that ANY system can be actively doing
ANYTHING without directing energy to that *active* function. There is
nothing unique to life (as a system different from other systems) wrt
its utilization of energy. Energy utilization can only indicate whether
an organism is *active*. It does nothing to tell us whether the
organism is "alive" or "dead".
The unique (or quasi-unique, since no single feature is absolutely
unique to life) suite of features that we call life does include a
genetic method of *self* reproduction and the ability to extract and
manipulate the materials and energy it needs to reproduce from its
environment. That focus on active functions means that "life" can often
only be *recognized* when the organism is actively involved in
activities related to its (or that of closely related members of its
species, as in the superorganisms we call 'bees' or 'ants') genetic
reproduction (including growth and development).
All that is important, however, is that the system have the *potential*
to self-reproduce (either itself or via the reproduction of close
relatives) its genome into subsequent generations, not whether it
actually is self-reproducing. We do not doubt that an organism is, in
every sense but the *actual* ability to reproduce, actively alive even
if circumstance (including accidental or genetic sterility) means that
it will not or cannot reproduce.
At the other extreme, seeds, spores, and other metabolically inactive
states do not mean that the inactive organism is "dead" during this
state of metabolic inactivity. Death, the loss of the *potential* to
become actively alive, is the end of any potential for life. It is,
however, not easy to distinguish, in a practical sense, whether an
organism is alive or dead, and many metabolically inactive organisms, in
fact, do 'die' in a random stochastic fashion over time (some more
slowly than others).
You need to understand the difference between a 'definition' and an
'operational definition'. A 'complementation group' is an operational
definition of a gene. It is a testable way (via genetic manipulation)
of identifying a 'gene'. That does not mean that gene always equals a
complementation group. Some tests can produce several complementation
groups that are encoded by a single gene (and the reverse can occur as
well). Yet 'complementation group' is a useful (but not perfect) way of
identifying, simply and cheaply, whether two mutations that affect, say,
coat color, are mutations in the same or in different genes.
Your definition of 'life' is, at best, an operational definition that
works much, but not all, of the time -- if you see something moving and
eating and reproducing (all of which require energy transformations and
use), it is probably alive. But just because the something is not
moving, or eating, or reproducing, doesn't mean it is an inanimate object.
> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
>
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
And living things, in contrast to all these artificial systems, DO
self-assemble via genetic reproduction and NOT ONE such living thing has
ever been seen to require a manufacturer. So your logic is that because
artificial systems seen today DO require a manufacturer and living
systems seen today DO NOT require a manufacturer that, therefore, living
systems DID require a manufacturer? Did you learn this type of
reasoning in a course in Logic? If so, you should sue your teacher.
> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life.
Systems + energy = activity. My car is a 'system' that uses 'energy' to
create activity. I don't consider my car 'alive'. By your definition,
it clearly would be 'alive' when it is running and in gear.
Neither, of course, do *you* consider a car 'alive'. So you start
adding terms that specify *which* systems you consider 'alive' when they
are 'active' and which you don't. Pretty soon, you come up with the
idea that life only exists when a *biological* organism is active. But
it is the meaning of biological that determines 'life' as a distinctive
'system' and not the energy part of the definition.
> The presence
> of systems denote intelligence.
No it doesn't, except in the fact that you need an intelligent organism
to identify the 'system'. Systems (think weather systems) certainly
exist in the absence of intelligence. But identifying and naming a
weather system as a 'system' does require an outside 'intelligence'
(namely us humans).
> The directing of energy through
> systems also speak of intelligence.
No it doesn't. See weather systems.
> The combination of the two
> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
> system that resembles life on a low level.
System + energy = activity is identically descriptive of biological
systems, other natural but not biological (e.g., weather) systems, and
artificial systems like cars. If you say system + energy = life, then
all these systems, *by that definition*, are alive. If you try to
seperate out *biological* systems from the others, you are simply not
defining what make *biological* systems unique, other than that they are
biological. And in no case is the energy a unique identifier of life.
It is all the 'hidden' ideas in the term 'biological' that uniquely
determine life.
Biological system + energy = certain observed functions (like
self-replication without a manufacturer). But that definition means
that only those biological systems that are actively performing the
functions attributed to life are alive (and they are only alive during
the time that they are performing those functions). I have some
problems with that definition (namely that some organisms appear to
retain the potential for active life while metabolically inert and some
organisms are metabolically active without engaging in the primary
function most consistently identified with living systems, imperfect
self-reproduction).
> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong objections
> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
Why? You are saying that because man-made machines can be observed to
need a manufacturer and because living things *cannot* be observed to
need a manufacturer that, therefore, living things need a manufacturer.
Is it surprising to you that you get strong objections to such logic?
>
> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there is
> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to be
> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if they
> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
And, of course, life self-reproducing early would imply that there
should be evidence of common descent from that early life form(s) if
descent with/by modification were the mechanism. Such as a nested
hierarchy of features in current organisms and a fossil record that fits
into such a nested hierarchy. Guess what.
>
> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach to
> the existence of systems in nature?
Not all 'systems', not even all 'active systems', in nature require or
involve evolutionary explanations. Surely you mean 'biological systems'
rather than just 'systems in nature'.
> Please for answers to the
> following questions:
>
> 1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
> parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
> proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
> early species can occur with only those parts available.
>
> ANSWER:
That really depends on what the first 'genetic self-replicating system'
was. For cellular DNA-based organisms (which is a relatively advanced
biological system for the ur-genotes), the minimal organism probably
would require a few hundred genes, depending on how many genes are
needed for membrane synthesis and pores and protein synthesis.
RNA-based organisms can be (indeed, must be) much simpler. If cell
membranes can be extracted from the environment without needing
synthesis (and they need not be current membranes) or if
non-membrane-based genome isolating systems are possible, considerably
fewer genes would be needed.
>
> 2. What is the lowest level at which scientists estimate that
> replication of a biological organism can take place?
>
> ANSWER:
Molecular self-replication of a genome. Some modern viruses do this
with a single enzyme and 'only' use the host for its protein synthetic
properties. If you have a ribozyme, the protein step can be skipped.
OTOH, although there are *known* ribozymes with all the functions needed
to produce a reproductive system (terminal transferase, polynucleotide
kinases, ligases, etc.)
>
> 3. Is the reproductive system of an organism irreducibly complex, or
> can it accomplish replication, growth, and development if only half a
> cell exists, or if only a quarter of the parts of a cell exist, or
> only half an organism exists?
>
> ANSWER:
What an oddly phrased question. Different organisms have wildly
different degrees of complexity in their reproductive systems. In some
cases, of course, the answer is 1) Yes. Some cells can reproduce even
if only half the cell exits (as long as the half containing the genome
remains). 2) Yes. Some cells can reproduce if only a quarter of the
parts of a cell exist (as long as the half containing the genome
remains). And 3) Certainly yes. Chop a planaria in half lengthwise and
both halves will reproduce. Chop up a starfish and a number of the parts
can reproduce. Chop twigs off a bush and stick them in the ground and
many of them (much less than half the original organism) will grow and
reproduce (or even reproduce without much growth). I can only imagine
that you were thinking of something else.
>
> 4. Do all parts of the reproductive system have to be in place at the
> same time for reproduction to take place, or can half a cell
> replicate?
>
> ANSWER:
Didn't I answer that in 3? What do you think is the difference between
these questions?
>
> 5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
> interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that mean
> that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A mere
> "no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
>
> ANSWER:
No, because the premise (the *if* part) is false.
>
> 6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species, and
> yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
> organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
> process took place in the distant past?
>
> ANSWER:
By the organism having a mechanism of reproduction that worked without
being as complex as the one currently seen. Yeast, for example, have a
reproductive system which is basically a single gene.
>
> 7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA present,
> or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a viable
> step-by-step basis.
>
> ANSWER:
For RNA, the answer is probably yes. For DNA the answer is probably no.
Because RNA has more enzymatic potential than DNA. DNA likely only
evolved as a genetic system *after* cells had evolved protein synthesis
and needed a larger genome.
A step-by-step description would be speculative at this time. That does
not mean that some of the possible individual steps that would be needed
are unsupported by evidence, both direct (experimental) and indirect (by
understanding the nature of current biological systems and how they work).
zoe_althrop
snip>
>I most definately do _NOT_ think that biological systems can be
>alive without energy. I have in no way, shape, or form
>whatsoever as much as hinted that biological systems can be
>alive without energy. I don't recall seeing any one saying
>that life can exist without "energy."
okay. I hear you. I will henceforth not claim that you think that
biological systems can be alive without energy.
>Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
>by the term "energy"?
well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
don't seem to be able to say what energy is. Like gravity, they can
describe what gravity does, but not what gravity is.
Maybe energy is really Howard Hershey's elan vital. Chemical elan
vital, heat elan vital, mechanical elan vital, and so on...
> One can't define _anything_ using that
>term if one does not know it is defined to be in the first place.
>(And be prepared to define the terms you use to define "energy"
>as well.)
energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
force: a causative agent that takes an object that is at rest and
sets it in motion, or that alters the motion of an object already in
motion. (That's my paraphrase of the dictionary's description of
"force" in the physics sense.)
work: (dictionary definition) transference of force from one body or
system to another, measured by the product of the force and the amount
of displacement in the line of force.
>Also what is a "system"? If you cannot do this then
>your "definition" is nothing more than word salad.
my understanding and definition of "system", in the biological sense,
is that it refers to the orderly arrangement of parts so that the
relationships and interconnectedness between the parts form an organic
whole that is recognized as life, "life" being recognized as the
capacity of the organism to reproduce, grow, develop, and respond to
stimuli (thanks to R.Baldwin for that addition).
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
>top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
>http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
that self-assembly can occur? Besides, from what info I can gather
from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not true
self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
scientist on there).
Quoting from one blurb: "One thing you can do with these is you can
control wetting interaction. In other words, you can control how
liquids spread on surfaces. You can also control how cells adhere and
how electrons tunnel across an interface. You can control how
proteins bind and how molecules grab onto DNA."
Well, now, that sure seems to be a lot of control going on for a
little bit of self-assembly.
Another blurb, "...most of today's 'workhorses' are single- or
two-component systems. However, scientist are already working on the
design of smart materials that require a much higher complexity. Our
interest is to put as many different materials together as needed in
order to create materials with new properties."
Sounds like intelligent design going on here, to me.
>You might also be interested in the International Society of
>Artificial Life:
>http://www.alife.org/
artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
>>observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
>>system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
>>exists without a manufacturer.
>
>It seems to me that this is trivially true by the very definition of
>"artificial." (Assuming that your definition of "system" is more along
>the lines of "machine.")
my definition of "system" includes machines. The same principles that
govern machines also carry through to living organisms, except that
the systems of biological organisms are light years in advance of
human-made machines.
>>Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
>>observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>>common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
>>of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
>>systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
>>producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
>>life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
>>energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
>>system that resembles life on a low level.
>
>I can't really make any sense out of this--even trying to guess what you
>might actually mean by your terms. Please give some working definitions
>of: "system",
I'll repeat:
system: "system", in the biological sense, refers to the orderly
arrangement of parts so that the relationships and interconnectedness
between the parts form an organic whole that is recognized a life,
"life" being recognized as the capacity of the organism to reproduce,
grow, develop, and respond to stimuli.
> "energy",
energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
> "artificial"
artificial: a nonbiological system (see relevant portion of
definition of system above) that is manufactured as a result of human
intelligence.
>and "intelligence";
intelligence: mental ability, as demonstrated in the ability to use
the faculty of reason in solving problems, making decisions, gathering
information, and applying that information in a goal-oriented manner.
> and if you are
>going to use them in a "formula" (you might need to define this as well)
formula: a set of symbols that express a mathematical fact,
principle, or rule.
>then what are the units?
unit 1 = system
unit 2 = energy
unit 3 = life
snip>
----
zoe
Grinder
> >Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
> >by the term "energy"?
> well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
> to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
> don't seem to be able to say what energy is.
[snip]
> energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
> the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
Energy is not a force. They are fundamentally related, but not synonymous.
Kinematically, energy is the capacity to do work, and a force applied over a
distance produces work. You can see this in first semester discussions of
gravity from the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "gravitational
force" -- two distinct, but related concepts.
There is decent agreement in the resources I've looked at -- where did you
look?
--
some general use dictionaries:
en.er.gy
3 : the capacity for doing work
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=energy
--
en·er·gy
4. Physics. The capacity of a physical system to do work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=energy&db=*
--
science/physics dictionaries:
energy [PHYSICS] The capacity for doing work.
http://www.accessscience.com/Dictionary/
--
energy : Technically defined as the "ability to do work", this concept is
traditionally thought of as difficult to grasp initially. The concept has to
do with the colloquial idea of effort (see work). Since it takes some effort
to move an object, we say a moving object has kinetic energy. Similarly, it
takes some effort to lift an object; we would like to define an energy to
associate with lifting or dropping an object --- this is the potential
energy. The "ability to do work," then is our ability to get energy out of
an object. An object loses energy by giving it to other objects. If a moving
truck hits a parked car, the car gains some energy and the truck loses some;
the truck has "done some work" on the car. (See work) (Energy is expressed
in units of joule which were named for James Prescott Joule.)
Since it is also possible to have work done by objects which are warm, heat
can be said to be a form of energy. In fact, Einstein's famous equation,
E=mc^2, expresses that mass can also be considered a form of energy,
although it is less obvious that this is the case.
http://www.mcm.edu/~christej/dictionary/dictE.html
--
Energy : Energy is the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential,
kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms.
There are, moreover, heat and work; i.e., energy in the process of transfer
from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always
designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become
thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of
mechanical energy.
All forms of energy are associated with motion. For example, any given body
has kinetic energy if it is in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or
spring, though at rest, has the potential for creating motion; it contains
potential energy because of its configuration. Similarly, nuclear energy is
potential energy because it results from the configuration of subatomic
particles in the nucleus of an atom.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/energy.html
--
Here's a description that get's into this abstraction's usefuleness, but
does not conflict with the traditional short description:
Energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics because it
is defined in such a way that the total energy of any closed physical system
is always constant (conservation of energy). It is impossible to overstate
the importance of this concept in all branches of physics from elementary
mechanics to general relativity. Energy is measured in units of mass times
velocity squared, and the MKS and cgs units of energy are the Joule and erg,
respectively. Other common units of energy include the Btu, calorie, and
kilowatt hour.
The important quantity in physics known as work, which is the product of
applied force over a distance, has units of energy. In fact, the notion that
heat is a form of energy was one of the most important developments in
classical physics and thermodynamics.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
zoe_althrop
<at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:46:54 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
>>... all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>>common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
>>of systems denote intelligence.
>
>Ever hear of a storm system?
yes. And? There are different levels of life, the biological life
form being the most advanced and sophisticated level and the absolute
standard for what is real life. Artificial systems that "come to
life" when energy is directed through them is a kindergarten-level
level of life. Storm systems is another level.
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
><res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
>>top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
>>http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
>
>why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
>that self-assembly can occur?
It isn't. However, if you read and understood those papers you would
be at a point where you could discuss self-assembly. Now, you're not
at that point.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
>the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
Energy is not a force. Try again.
Martin Crisp
(in message <3fce9247....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>):
[snip]
>> "artificial"
>
> artificial: a nonbiological system (see relevant portion of
> definition of system above) that is manufactured as a result of human
> intelligence.
So the mounds of compass termites (chambers in a beehive?) are
natural, but a sandcastle built by a child is artificial?
[snip]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
John Segerson
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
> >top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
> >http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
>
> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
> that self-assembly can occur?
Only 25 papers? Not enough. Now 26 papers, that would convince me.
> Besides, from what info I can gather
> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not true
> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
> scientist on there).
>
> Quoting from one blurb: "One thing you can do with these is you can
> control wetting interaction. In other words, you can control how
> liquids spread on surfaces. You can also control how cells adhere and
> how electrons tunnel across an interface. You can control how
> proteins bind and how molecules grab onto DNA."
>
> Well, now, that sure seems to be a lot of control going on for a
> little bit of self-assembly.
Pasteur "controlled" his experiments showing that complex life did not
spontaneously self-generate. The question in the experiment, and in all
science, is whether a confined experiment reflects the real circumstance.
>
>
> Another blurb, "...most of today's 'workhorses' are single- or
> two-component systems. However, scientist are already working on the
> design of smart materials that require a much higher complexity. Our
> interest is to put as many different materials together as needed in
> order to create materials with new properties."
>
> Sounds like intelligent design going on here, to me.
>
> >You might also be interested in the International Society of
> >Artificial Life:
> >http://www.alife.org/
>
> artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
> proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
>
> ----
> zoe
--
邢 唷��
John Wilkins
> zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> > >Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
> > >top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
> > >http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
> >
> > why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
> > that self-assembly can occur?
>
> Only 25 papers? Not enough. Now 26 papers, that would convince me.
One would have been enough...
>
> > Besides, from what info I can gather
> > from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not true
> > self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
> > scientist on there).
> >
> > Quoting from one blurb: "One thing you can do with these is you can
> > control wetting interaction. In other words, you can control how
> > liquids spread on surfaces. You can also control how cells adhere and
> > how electrons tunnel across an interface. You can control how
> > proteins bind and how molecules grab onto DNA."
> >
> > Well, now, that sure seems to be a lot of control going on for a
> > little bit of self-assembly.
>
> Pasteur "controlled" his experiments showing that complex life did not
> spontaneously self-generate. The question in the experiment, and in all
> science, is whether a confined experiment reflects the real circumstance.
>
You forget the Principle of Infectious Intelligence - if there is an
intelligent being anywhere within 10^500 km of a process, it is
intelligently guided. Since God is everywhere, everything is
intelligently guided, QED.
> >
> >
> > Another blurb, "...most of today's 'workhorses' are single- or
> > two-component systems. However, scientist are already working on the
> > design of smart materials that require a much higher complexity. Our
> > interest is to put as many different materials together as needed in
> > order to create materials with new properties."
> >
> > Sounds like intelligent design going on here, to me.
> >
> > >You might also be interested in the International Society of
> > >Artificial Life:
> > >http://www.alife.org/
> >
> > artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
> > proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
Of course it does. Human intelligence invented gods...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
zoe_althrop
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip>
>Why not ask "how" they came together?
of course. "How" is in the realm of science. However, that does not
preclude me from asking "Who", does it? The "Who" line of inquiry,
once it is established that there is indeed a "Who," would belong to
the theological arena.
> Astronomers have a very good
>understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud of dust
>and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a planetary system can
>form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the "how" question more productive
>than the "who" question?
the "how" question is more productive for the field of science. The
"Who" is more productive for the field of theology. They both have
their places.
>> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
>> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
>such
>> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
>> exists without a manufacturer.
>
>Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self assemble,
>and concluding that because those systems don't self assemble, that no
>systems can self assemble.
isn't that a logical way to go about it? If all the evidence points
to a law (no self-assembly), and there is no evidence for the opposite
of that law (self assembly), why would one make up a story out of
whole cloth in order to create evidence for the opposite of the known
law?
> What would you conclude if you looked only
>at glasses that had milk in them?
If we lived in a world where all glasses contained milk and only milk,
the evidence would be that all glasses contain milk. However, your
analogy does not match. Glasses, by their nature, can reasonably be
extrapolated to hold liquids other than milk. Systems, unlike
glasses, do not have that flexibility. Systems are specific to a
particular method of coming into existence, and there is no room,
based on what we know of artificial systems, for systems to self
assemble.
>> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I
>have
>> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The
>presence
>> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
>> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
>> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
>> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
>> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
>> system that resembles life on a low level.
>
>You seem to be implying that to produce life also requires
>intelligence. In that case, systems+energy+intelligence=life.
"systems" imply intelligence, at least from everything that is known
about artificial systems.
> But we
>can also say that systems+energy+intelligence=automobile. Is my car
>alive?
on a very low level of living, yes. It is not the same level of life
found in biological organisms because an automobile's systems are very
simple in comparison, but if you would just direct some gas through
its fuel system by turning on the ignition, then the car "comes to
life" for as long as the gas lasts, or for as long as the parts of its
system do not become defective.
>You said above that "The presence of systems denote intelligence."
>Why?
because all artificial systems denote intelligence. From this area of
reality, one can extrapolate. There is no reason to suddenly change
course and decide that any other systems of unknown origin do NOT
denote intelligence.
> You have provided no justification for that statement.
my justification is reasonable extrapolation from the known to the
unknown. Isn't that how science works?
> I can
>tell the difference between man-made systems and natural systems.
the difference is one of degree, not one of principle. Because one
system is more sophisticated than another does not mean that therefore
they originated in totally different manners.
>Doesn't that suggest that there is some inherent difference? Could
>that difference be intelligence?
the difference would be in the degree of intelligence, just as a
child's scrawly drawings are different from a Monet or Rembrandt, or a
child's rendition of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is different from a
Rachmaninoff or Gershwin composition.
There is no reason to come across a piece of complex music, author
unknown, or some masterful painting, artist unknown, and conclude that
this particular piece of music or art came about through some process
different than all other known pieces of music or art. Well, whether
you can agree or not, I see "complex music" and "masterful art" in the
systems of nature.
>We know that a solar system can form without intelligence.
how do you know it formed without intelligence? This is an
unsupported assumption. It's like looking at a computer program that
is running without intervention, and, without knowing the programmer,
you say, "we know that a computer program can run without
intelligence. Why? Because we see it running right now without any
intelligent intervention."
> All that
>is required is a cloud of dust and gas with enough density to produce
>a gravitational collapse.
this is a hypothesis, right? Tell me, how does a gravitational
collapse cause mass to fly away from other masses, and yet gravity
reasserts itself between the masses so that orbits become established?
Tell me in layman's language, not in arcane terms understood by only a
few.
> Why, then, does life require intelligence?
>Many organisms grow and reproduce without any intelligence. Why,
>then, does their origin require intelligence?
computer programs run on their own, without the intervention of
intelligence. Does this mean that their origin did not require
intelligence? Certain aboriginal natives just might consider a
running computer another natural wonder of Nature.
>> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong
>objections
>> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
>> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
>
>What logic? You've made a series of assertions without any
>justification.
call it what you wish. I consider my line or reasoning to be logical.
>> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
>> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there
>is
>> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to
>be
>> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if
>they
>> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
>>
>> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach
>to
>> the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
>> following questions:
>>
>> 1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
>> parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
>> proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
>> early species can occur with only those parts available.
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>Some relatively short RNA molecules have been shown to self-replicate
>in the presence of an assortment of nucleic acids. Presumably, then,
>the answer would be one.
okay.
>> 2. What is the lowest level at which scientists estimate that
>> replication of a biological organism can take place?
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>A single molecule of RNA.
please describe the process by which a single molecule of RNA becomes
anything more than a chain of RNA molecules.
>> 3. Is the reproductive system of an organism irreducibly complex,
>or
>> can it accomplish replication, growth, and development if only half
>a
>> cell exists, or if only a quarter of the parts of a cell exist, or
>> only half an organism exists?
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>I don't see how you can get much smaller than a single molecule.
righto.
>> 4. Do all parts of the reproductive system have to be in place at
>the
>> same time for reproduction to take place, or can half a cell
>> replicate?
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>Is everything in place? Yup, the molecule is there.
so now, are you going to tell me how, based on scientific principles,
a single RNA molecules becomes anything more than a chain of RNA
molecules? Is your proposed first common ancestor a specie called an
RNA molecule chain? How does this chain mutate to produce a more
complex system?
>> 5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
>> interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that mean
>> that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A
>mere
>> "no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>No, it simply means that the earlier organisms were simpler.
I'm looking for an explanation of how the simpler earlier organisms,
i.e., the RNA molecule chain, mutated into a more complex system.
Based on scientific principles, how can this be done?
>> 6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species, and
>> yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
>> organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
>> process took place in the distant past?
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>Life four billion years ago was not like life today. It existed under
>very different conditions. It didn't require all of the extra parts
>that life does today because it hadn't been evolving for four billion
>(that's a long time) years.
spoken with authority, I see. What is the basis for this authority?
Your interpretation of the fossil record? Your interpretation of the
meaning of similarities in life forms? Why is your interpretation any
more authoritative than the interpretation of, say, Sean Pitman?
>> 7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA
>present,
>> or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a viable
>> step-by-step basis.
>>
>> ANSWER:
>
>Look in any book on cell biology. Proteins are formed using an RNA
>template. Obviously, RNA can carry information. Furthermore, it has
>been shown that RNA can act as an enzyme, thus making DNA and
>pre-existing proteins unnecessary.
if DNA and preexisting proteins are unnecessary, why did they
supposedly develop at all? Shouldn't we all be running and
reproducing on RNA today? If DNA and preexisting proteins were
unnecessary, then your natural selection would not select for them
when they magically appeared, would it? So where did our present DNA
template come from?
>> These questions are similar, but I want to be sure of where you
>stand
>> before I elaborate on where I stand.
>
>Then let me explain where I stand. Abiogenesis is not part of
>evolution.
don't give me that lame excuse, please. You cannot take a full-blown
scenario, speculate as to the process that led to the present state of
affairs, but when questions are asked about the details of the
process, you divorce the process from the result.
> As you seem to understand, evolution requires
>reproduction.
as does the outcome of creation.
> Abiogenesis is how the first self-replicating
>"organism" came into existence. Evolution didn't start until
>abiogenesis was done.
okay, so you have your first self-replicating organism, the RNA
molecule. How did it evolve? Or is a leap of faith made from that
first assumed RNA molecule to the fully functioning systems you see
today, and you simply decide to credit RNA replication with the
present state of affairs? Not very scientific, imo.
>Abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study. We have no rocks or
>fossils from that era that we can examine. All existing life is the
>result of over four billion years of evolution. Even the oldest
>fossils available to us were already the result of few hundred million
>years of evolution. So we have almost no direct evidence to go on.
so it boils down to apologetics?
>And based upon all of this ignorance, you want to come to the firm
>conclusion that the Earth and the Universe were created by an
>intelligent creator.
wait a minute, reread that. It looks to me that, based upon all of
this ignorance, it is YOU who have come to the firm conclusion that we
have evolved.
For me, based on the evidence of how systems originate today, I come
to the firm conclusion that we were intelligently created. I think I
have more evidence going for my position than you do for yours. Do
join me over here...the view is great.
>Presumably, you want to claim that we don't know how life originated.
>And since evolution requires an origin, that evolution could not have
>happened. But your reasoning is bass ackwards. If evolution requires
>an origin, then all of the evidence that supports evolution - the
>fossils, the biochemistry, the homologous anatomy - also supports
>abiogenesis. If the evidence tells us that evolution must have
>happenned, and abiogenesis is required for evolution to happen, then
>abiogenesis must have happened. Even if we don't know how it
>happenned, it must have happened.
>
>This is the common creationist argument, but if I have misinterpreted
>your position, please feel free to elaborate.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say this is the common
creationist argument. But if you mean the first part of your last
paragraph -- no, that is not my position. That would be a two-edged
sword if I held that position, because as of yet, I cannot give you
the "how" of creation, only the evidence that intelligence is evident
in creation. But that does not mean that creation could not have
happened, just because I cannot give you the "how" right now.
Now that you have demonstrated that you cannot validate the process of
early evolution, I am not about to say that, therefore, your theory is
invalid. I am saying that just as I cannot invalidate your origins
perspective based on your inability to explain the "how of
abiogenesis, you likewise cannot invalidate my origins perspective
based on my inability to explain the "how" of creation.
But that said, I submit that I do have the edge when it comes to
origins.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
snip stuff already answered in other posts>
zoe wrote:
>> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
>> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
>> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
>> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
>
>What is normally asked is "How does this system operate?" By asking "who"
>immediately, you are already assuming your conclusion.
this is an assumption based on observation of other systems, not a
blind, wishful assumption. The conclusion is already based on
evidence of a reliable nature. If investigation produces evidence
that supports this assumption, then the conclusion is further
validated.
If there were no examples of artificial systems, it would be assuming
my conclusion to ask the "Who" question. But I have grounds for
asking that question.
On the other hand, evolutionists assume their conclusion when they
look at similarities in life forms, and without any real-life
examples, but only a just-so story, they conclude that we all came
from an RNA molecule.
>> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
>> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
>> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
>> exists without a manufacturer.
>
>Is it then your reasoning that natural systems are simply extensions of
>artificial systems?
they are reflections, not extensions.
> Because you know something about artificial systems, you
>therefore know that the same things are true of natural systems?
that's extrapolation -- a method used in science all the time, right?
> You are
>assuming your conclusion: you're going to have to show that this
>relationship actually exists.
not relationship, but similarity. The same use of the similarity
"tool" that evolutionists use in arriving at their conclusion.
>> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
>> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
>> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
>> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
>> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
>> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
>> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
>> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
>> system that resembles life on a low level.
>
>I don't know of any artifical system which uses the "formula" that you have
>proposed. You are using "life" in some nonstandard way, and I would
>appreciate a clear definition that applies to artificial systems.
what's nonstandard about artificial systems being activated by the
introduction of energy through a planned pathway devised to make that
system do work? Doing work, on the artificial level, is an elementary
start towards "life" as we know it in biological systems.
>When you state that "the presence of systems denote intelligence", that is
>an assertion that you will also need to provide evidence for,
artificial systems denote intelligence. This is concrete evidence.
Extrapolating this evidence to other systems whose manufacturers are
not known is a reasonable extrapolation. Certainly, it is better than
digressing from the line of evidence and making up a story that has no
evidence or support at all.
> as will your
>statement that "the directing of emergy through systems also speak of
>intelligence."
again, you have artificial systems as evidence for intelligence that
directs energy through systems. This is not a viewpoint based on
wishful thinking, but it is based on an reasonable extrapolation from
observation of artificial systems.
>Here's an example. When you boil water in a kettle, you are setting up a
>convection system. You provide all of the raw materials for the system, you
>arrange those materials into a "proper" configuration, and you provide the
>energy that drives the system. You do not personally create the system: it
>emerges on its own from the initial conditions. And you do not personally
>direct the energy through the system: this, too, happens on its own.
do you think that since boiling water creates a convection system that
this scenario refutes the truth that artificial systems are created by
intelligent minds? I don't quite get your point.
>I understand that you may reject this example as it uses a natural system
>that is not biological. If your hypothesis about systems denoting
>intelligence is true, however, I shouldn't need to use any specific type of
>system to demonstrate that.
it is not merely a hypothesis that artificial systems denote
intelligence. This is reality. Extrapolation from one system to
another is reasonable.
snip>
----
zoe
Ken Rode
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:56:03 +0000 (UTC), "Ken Rode"
> <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> snip stuff already answered in other posts>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> >> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> >> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> >> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
> >
> >What is normally asked is "How does this system operate?" By asking "who"
> >immediately, you are already assuming your conclusion.
>
> this is an assumption based on observation of other systems, not a
> blind, wishful assumption. The conclusion is already based on
> evidence of a reliable nature. If investigation produces evidence
> that supports this assumption, then the conclusion is further
> validated.
By "observation of other systems", I'll assume that you're referring to
artificial systems.
> If there were no examples of artificial systems, it would be assuming
> my conclusion to ask the "Who" question. But I have grounds for
> asking that question.
If natural systems are not manufactured, it would be assuming your
conclusion to ask the "Who" question. You have, as yet, presented no
evidence that natural systems are manufactured.
> On the other hand, evolutionists assume their conclusion when they
> look at similarities in life forms, and without any real-life
> examples, but only a just-so story, they conclude that we all came
> from an RNA molecule.
If you actually investigated this further, I am sure that you would find
that there is no conclusion regarding how life began as yet. At best, there
are some hypotheses, but it may be quite some time yet before we have a
confident grasp of what precisely happened. More likely, we will never know
for sure, but we will know what was possible.
> >> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> >> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> >> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> >> exists without a manufacturer.
> >
> >Is it then your reasoning that natural systems are simply extensions of
> >artificial systems?
>
> they are reflections, not extensions.
Explain yourself, please. The word "reflection" has a specific meaning in
physics which does not match your use of the term here.
> > Because you know something about artificial systems, you
> >therefore know that the same things are true of natural systems?
>
> that's extrapolation -- a method used in science all the time, right?
Extrapolation is used in science, but like all tools it has to be used
correctly. You must demonstrate that the extrapolation is reasonable. You
must demonstrate that the observed characteristics of "artificial systems"
are actually the characteristics of the more generalized case of "systems".
Here's a thought exercise. The analogy isn't perfect, but bear with me.
We have a general class of things called "fruit trees".
We have a specific class of fruit trees called "apple trees".
Here are two observations of apple trees: (1) they bear fleshy fruit,
and (2) the fruit is unsegmented.
We have another specific class of fruit trees called "orange trees".
Here are two observations of orange trees: (1) they bear fleshy fruit,
and (2) the fruit is segmented.
Here's your position:
We have a general class of things called "systems".
We have a specific class of systems called "artificial systems".
Here is an observation of artificial systems: they are manufactured.
We have another specific class of systems called "natural systems".
(I'd like to be able to report an observation here, but you're avoiding
observation of natural systems.)
Logically, if you want to be able to say that natural systems are
manufactured, you must be able to demonstrate one of two things:
(a) that manufactured-ness is a characteristic of all systems, or
(b) that natural systems are a subclass of artificial systems.
These are your two choices. You shied away from (b) above, by saying that
natural systems "reflect" artifical systems. It seems apparent that you
would prefer (a), but you haven't demonstrated it to be the case. You're
using it as an unsupported, asserted premise. What you need is to stop using
it as a premise, and actually observe it as in the example with the trees.
Observe it, and you no longer have a problem.
Here's the crux of the matter. When you say "whose manufacturers are not
known", you have already concluded that every system has a manufacturer, and
you are using that conclusion as a premise. You are taking observations
based on artificial systems, adding in your premise that every system is
manufactured, and coming to the conclusion that natural systems are
therefore manufactured.
To say that every system has a manufacturer is, in your words "digressing
from the line of evidence and making up a story that has no evidence or
support at all." There is no evidence that natural systems are manufactured.
> > as will your
> >statement that "the directing of emergy through systems also speak of
> >intelligence."
>
> again, you have artificial systems as evidence for intelligence that
> directs energy through systems. This is not a viewpoint based on
> wishful thinking, but it is based on an reasonable extrapolation from
> observation of artificial systems.
>
> >Here's an example. When you boil water in a kettle, you are setting up a
> >convection system. You provide all of the raw materials for the system,
you
> >arrange those materials into a "proper" configuration, and you provide
the
> >energy that drives the system. You do not personally create the system:
it
> >emerges on its own from the initial conditions. And you do not personally
> >direct the energy through the system: this, too, happens on its own.
>
> do you think that since boiling water creates a convection system that
> this scenario refutes the truth that artificial systems are created by
> intelligent minds? I don't quite get your point.
It wasn't about artifical systems: it was about natural systems. The
convection system is natural. You may have used artificial objects to
initiate it, but the system itself is natural. Natural systems emerge by
themselves under the right conditions.
Based on this observation, I respectfully suggest that natural systems are
not manufactured, and that "manufactured-ness" is not therefore a
characteristic of systems in general. Because of this, asking "who" about a
natural system is meaningless and misguided.
You can't just observe artificial systems, and ignore observations about
natural systems, Zoe. If you look at artificial systems in detail, what
you'll find is that artificial systems are usually constructed to take
advantage of natural systems. I think you have it exactly backwards:
artificial systems are actually "reflections" of natural systems. (I hope
that I'm using your term correctly.)
You will disagree with my statement that "natural systems emerge by
themselves under the right conditions", which I made above. To some degree,
this statement is an assertion on my part. What I should more properly have
said is that at present, observations of natural systems do not logically
lead to the requirement that those systems be manufactured. Stated another
way, manufactured-ness is not suggested by observations of natural systems.
> >I understand that you may reject this example as it uses a natural system
> >that is not biological. If your hypothesis about systems denoting
> >intelligence is true, however, I shouldn't need to use any specific type
of
> >system to demonstrate that.
>
> it is not merely a hypothesis that artificial systems denote
> intelligence. This is reality. Extrapolation from one system to
> another is reasonable.
You have not yet demonstrated that extrapolation from the artificial to the
natural is reasonable. As I've attempted to demonstrate, that's an important
step.
Ross Langerak
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:45:25 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Why not ask "how" they came together?
>
> of course. "How" is in the realm of science. However, that does
not
> preclude me from asking "Who", does it? The "Who" line of inquiry,
> once it is established that there is indeed a "Who," would belong to
> the theological arena.
You assume that there is a "who". If you ask "how" instead, that can
tell you if there is a "who".
> > Astronomers have a very good
> >understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud of dust
> >and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a planetary system
can
> >form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the "how" question more
productive
> >than the "who" question?
>
> the "how" question is more productive for the field of science. The
> "Who" is more productive for the field of theology. They both have
> their places.
Again, you assume that there is a "who", which is a waste of time if
there is no "who". If you ask "how" instead, that can tell you if
there is a "who".
> >> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> >> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
> >such
> >> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> >> exists without a manufacturer.
> >
> >Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self
assemble,
> >and concluding that because those systems don't self assemble, that
no
> >systems can self assemble.
>
> isn't that a logical way to go about it? If all the evidence points
> to a law (no self-assembly), and there is no evidence for the
opposite
> of that law (self assembly), why would one make up a story out of
> whole cloth in order to create evidence for the opposite of the
known
> law?
But you aren't looking at all systems. You are looking only at
systems that don't self assemble, and then concluding that no systems
can self assemble. If we look at a system that consists of just a
single organism, that organism can in fact self assemble. Therefore,
there are systems that can self assemble.
> > What would you conclude if you looked only
> >at glasses that had milk in them?
>
> If we lived in a world where all glasses contained milk and only
milk,
> the evidence would be that all glasses contain milk. However, your
> analogy does not match. Glasses, by their nature, can reasonably be
> extrapolated to hold liquids other than milk. Systems, unlike
> glasses, do not have that flexibility. Systems are specific to a
> particular method of coming into existence, and there is no room,
> based on what we know of artificial systems, for systems to self
> assemble.
What you have done is analogous to looking at just glasses with milk
in them, and then concluding that all glasses must have milk in them.
"Waiter, bring me ten glasses of milk. I have noticed that all of
these glasses have milk in them. Therefore, I must conclude that all
glasses have milk in them. Brilliant!"
> >> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I
> >have
> >> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> >> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The
> >presence
> >> of systems denote intelligence. The directing of energy through
> >> systems also speak of intelligence. The combination of the two
> >> producing an operating, working organism that is called
biological
> >> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> >> energy directed through the system to produce an operating,
working
> >> system that resembles life on a low level.
> >
> >You seem to be implying that to produce life also requires
> >intelligence. In that case, systems+energy+intelligence=life.
>
> "systems" imply intelligence, at least from everything that is known
> about artificial systems.
Again, you are looking at just artificial systems. Artificial systems
are man made systems. You are looking at just systems that require
intelligence, and then concluding that all systems require
intelligence.
> > But we
> >can also say that systems+energy+intelligence=automobile. Is my
car
> >alive?
>
> on a very low level of living, yes. It is not the same level of
life
> found in biological organisms because an automobile's systems are
very
> simple in comparison, but if you would just direct some gas through
> its fuel system by turning on the ignition, then the car "comes to
> life" for as long as the gas lasts, or for as long as the parts of
its
> system do not become defective.
Does my car reproduce? Isn't reproduction a fundamental
characteristic of life? To make my car run, an intelligent being must
put gas in it. Is this also a requirement of living organisms? Do
all living organisms have to be force fed by some intelligent
operator?
> >You said above that "The presence of systems denote intelligence."
> >Why?
>
> because all artificial systems denote intelligence. From this area
of
> reality, one can extrapolate. There is no reason to suddenly change
> course and decide that any other systems of unknown origin do NOT
> denote intelligence.
Again, you are looking at just a subset of what you call systems.
Obviously, there must be some characteristic of artificial systems
that allows you to distinguish them from non-artificial systems. Why
just one difference? Why not two, or three, or ten? Why can't
intelligence be one of those differences?
> > You have provided no justification for that statement.
>
> my justification is reasonable extrapolation from the known to the
> unknown. Isn't that how science works?
If we were applying the scientific method, we would look at our data -
artificial systems - and then propose a theory. In this case, your
theory is that all systems require intelligence for assembly. We
would then make a prediction that, if we look at a particular
system -preferably a system outside of our initial data set - that
system also requires intelligence for assembly. We would then test
the prediction by performing an experiment. You have not performed
that last two steps of the scientific method. You have simply looked
at the data, formed a theory, and then assumed that the theory is
correct. Science doesn't just extrapolate from the known to the
unknown, it tests the unknown to see if it agrees with the known.
In this case, we could look at a natural system and see if it requires
intelligence. Suppose we follow the growth of a tree from a seed to a
full-grown pine. What we would find is that the tree is fully capable
of growth without any intelligent interference. Therefore, we would
have to conclude that your theory is wrong. Not all systems require
intelligence for their origins.
> > I can
> >tell the difference between man-made systems and natural systems.
>
> the difference is one of degree, not one of principle. Because one
> system is more sophisticated than another does not mean that
therefore
> they originated in totally different manners.
Some man-made systems are simple, some are sophisticated. Some
natural systems are simple, some are sophisticated. Yet I can still
tell the difference. How? How do we tell the difference between
man-made systems and natural systems?
> >Doesn't that suggest that there is some inherent difference? Could
> >that difference be intelligence?
>
> the difference would be in the degree of intelligence, just as a
> child's scrawly drawings are different from a Monet or Rembrandt, or
a
> child's rendition of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is different from a
> Rachmaninoff or Gershwin composition.
Couldn't one of those degrees of intelligence be no intelligence?
> There is no reason to come across a piece of complex music, author
> unknown, or some masterful painting, artist unknown, and conclude
that
> this particular piece of music or art came about through some proces
s
> different than all other known pieces of music or art. Well,
whether
> you can agree or not, I see "complex music" and "masterful art" in
the
> systems of nature.
>
> >We know that a solar system can form without intelligence.
>
> how do you know it formed without intelligence? This is an
> unsupported assumption. It's like looking at a computer program
that
> is running without intervention, and, without knowing the
programmer,
> you say, "we know that a computer program can run without
> intelligence. Why? Because we see it running right now without any
> intelligent intervention."
Your argument is that ALL systems REQUIRE intelligence. A solar
system demonstrates that intelligence is not NECESSARY. So your
conclusion is false.
> > All that
> >is required is a cloud of dust and gas with enough density to
produce
> >a gravitational collapse.
>
> this is a hypothesis, right? Tell me, how does a gravitational
> collapse cause mass to fly away from other masses, and yet gravity
> reasserts itself between the masses so that orbits become
established?
> Tell me in layman's language, not in arcane terms understood by only
a
> few.
Conservation of angular momentum. You've seen skaters go into a spin.
To make themselves spin faster, they pull their arms in close to their
body, or close to the axis of rotation. Likewise, when a cloud of
dust and gas collapses, it is almost impossible for it to not have at
least some initial angular momentum. As the cloud collapses, it
begins to spin. Like the skater pulling her arms in, the cloud spins
faster as it continues to collapse. Most of the material collects at
the center to form a star, but farther out, a disk forms, and in that
disk, material begins to clump together to form planets. When the
process is complete, and all of the material is accounted for, angular
momentum must be conserved. The solar system must have the same
angular momentum that the dust and gas cloud had before the system
began to form.
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/origin.html
> > Why, then, does life require intelligence?
> >Many organisms grow and reproduce without any intelligence. Why,
> >then, does their origin require intelligence?
>
> computer programs run on their own, without the intervention of
> intelligence. Does this mean that their origin did not require
> intelligence? Certain aboriginal natives just might consider a
> running computer another natural wonder of Nature.
Great! You've found a system that requires intelligence for its
origin. Why does that mean that all systems require intelligence?
(Glass of milk?)
An RNA molecule is a chain of nucleotides similar to a DNA molecule
which is a double chain of nucleotides. RNA can mutate just like DNA
can mutate. During replication, one of these nucleotides can be
accidentally replaced by a different one. If the change is good,
replication will more successful. If the change is bad, the molecule
will likely be broken down into its component parts and reused. It's
just natural selection acting upon random mutation.
> >> 5. If, today, all parts of an organism's system NEED to be
> >> interconnected and present for reproduction to occur, does that
mean
> >> that slow evolving of parts of a system is an invalid concept? A
> >mere
> >> "no" is not an acceptable answer. Reasons must be given.
> >>
> >> ANSWER:
> >
> >No, it simply means that the earlier organisms were simpler.
>
> I'm looking for an explanation of how the simpler earlier organisms,
> i.e., the RNA molecule chain, mutated into a more complex system.
> Based on scientific principles, how can this be done?
Mutations may have allowed the production of enzymes that would aid in
reproduction. Or they might have allowed the RNA molecule to form a
shell around itself. Once it could form a shell it could control its
immediate environment. It could make more efficient use of its
production of enzymes and proteins. It isn't that difficult to
imagine RNA first acting as an enzyme, then producing enzymes that aid
in its reproduction, and then producing structures that aid in its
reproduction. Of course it could have used a completely different
path. As I pointed out below, the evidence is sparse. Yet as far as
we can see, there is nothing that actually prohibits the origin of
life.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
> >> 6. If reproduction is necessary for the propagation of species,
and
> >> yet, today, reproduction cannot occur in the absence of any of an
> >> organism's parts, how do scientists propose that the reproduction
> >> process took place in the distant past?
> >>
> >> ANSWER:
> >
> >Life four billion years ago was not like life today. It existed
under
> >very different conditions. It didn't require all of the extra
parts
> >that life does today because it hadn't been evolving for four
billion
> >(that's a long time) years.
>
> spoken with authority, I see. What is the basis for this authority?
> Your interpretation of the fossil record? Your interpretation of
the
> meaning of similarities in life forms? Why is your interpretation
any
> more authoritative than the interpretation of, say, Sean Pitman?
We can get a good idea of what materials must have been available on
the early Earth by looking at the other planets, moons, and comets in
our solar system, as well as interstellar clouds of dust and gas.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller+experiment
> >> 7. Can reproduction of an early species occur with only RNA
> >present,
> >> or only DNA present? If yes, how is this done? Describe a
viable
> >> step-by-step basis.
> >>
> >> ANSWER:
> >
> >Look in any book on cell biology. Proteins are formed using an RNA
> >template. Obviously, RNA can carry information. Furthermore, it
has
> >been shown that RNA can act as an enzyme, thus making DNA and
> >pre-existing proteins unnecessary.
>
> if DNA and preexisting proteins are unnecessary, why did they
> supposedly develop at all?
Because they are more efficient.
> Shouldn't we all be running and
> reproducing on RNA today?
No, because we couldn't compete with DNA.
> If DNA and preexisting proteins were
> unnecessary, then your natural selection would not select for them
> when they magically appeared, would it?
If DNA was an advantageous adaptation, then natural selection would
favor it.
> So where did our present DNA
> template come from?
RNA. In fact, RNA is still used to transfer information.
> >> These questions are similar, but I want to be sure of where you
> >stand
> >> before I elaborate on where I stand.
> >
> >Then let me explain where I stand. Abiogenesis is not part of
> >evolution.
>
> don't give me that lame excuse, please. You cannot take a
full-blown
> scenario, speculate as to the process that led to the present state
of
> affairs, but when questions are asked about the details of the
> process, you divorce the process from the result.
>
> > As you seem to understand, evolution requires
> >reproduction.
>
> as does the outcome of creation.
>
> > Abiogenesis is how the first self-replicating
> >"organism" came into existence. Evolution didn't start until
> >abiogenesis was done.
>
> okay, so you have your first self-replicating organism, the RNA
> molecule. How did it evolve? Or is a leap of faith made from that
> first assumed RNA molecule to the fully functioning systems you see
> today, and you simply decide to credit RNA replication with the
> present state of affairs? Not very scientific, imo.
RNA can store information just like DNA. RNA can act as an enzyme.
RNA can mutate. All of the components are there for evolution. We
may not know exactly how it happened, but there is no great barrier to
it happening.
> >Abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study. We have no rocks or
> >fossils from that era that we can examine. All existing life is
the
> >result of over four billion years of evolution. Even the oldest
> >fossils available to us were already the result of few hundred
million
> >years of evolution. So we have almost no direct evidence to go on.
>
> so it boils down to apologetics?
No, it just means that it is a difficult subject to study. At the
moment, no one is saying that one theory or another must be correct.
We are simply saying that we need more research. In science, that's
okay.
You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that if we don't have a
complete and thoroughly verified theory of origins right now, that we
must accept your solution.
> >And based upon all of this ignorance, you want to come to the firm
> >conclusion that the Earth and the Universe were created by an
> >intelligent creator.
>
> wait a minute, reread that. It looks to me that, based upon all of
> this ignorance, it is YOU who have come to the firm conclusion that
we
> have evolved.
You see, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis again. Our firm
conclusion that we evolved is NOT based upon the evidence, or lack
thereof, for abiogenesis. Our firm conclusion that we evolved is
based upon the evidence that we evolved. That evidence is
overwhelming.
We also have not come to a firm conclusion as to how life originated.
We have some indirect evidence and some experimental results that are
giving us some clues, but we are still searching. When we do develop
a theory, it will be based upon evidence.
You, on the other hand, have come to the firm conclusion that
abiogenesis could not have occurred. That conclusion is based upon
ignorance, not evidence.
> For me, based on the evidence of how systems originate today, I come
> to the firm conclusion that we were intelligently created. I think
I
> have more evidence going for my position than you do for yours. Do
> join me over here...the view is great.
Your position is based upon how artificial systems originate. The
best you can say, based upon your evidence, is that artificial system
require and intelligent creator.
> >Presumably, you want to claim that we don't know how life
originated.
> >And since evolution requires an origin, that evolution could not
have
> >happened. But your reasoning is bass ackwards. If evolution
requires
> >an origin, then all of the evidence that supports evolution - the
> >fossils, the biochemistry, the homologous anatomy - also supports
> >abiogenesis. If the evidence tells us that evolution must have
> >happenned, and abiogenesis is required for evolution to happen,
then
> >abiogenesis must have happened. Even if we don't know how it
> >happenned, it must have happened.
> >
> >This is the common creationist argument, but if I have
misinterpreted
> >your position, please feel free to elaborate.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say this is the common
> creationist argument.
I meant your entire argument. You are simply presenting a variation
of the design argument from analogy.
> But if you mean the first part of your last
> paragraph -- no, that is not my position. That would be a two-edged
> sword if I held that position, because as of yet, I cannot give you
> the "how" of creation, only the evidence that intelligence is
evident
> in creation. But that does not mean that creation could not have
> happened, just because I cannot give you the "how" right now.
And yet, you insist that we have a complete theory of abiogenesis
right now, or we should accept your explanation.
> Now that you have demonstrated that you cannot validate the process
of
> early evolution, I am not about to say that, therefore, your theory
is
> invalid. I am saying that just as I cannot invalidate your origins
> perspective based on your inability to explain the "how of
> abiogenesis, you likewise cannot invalidate my origins perspective
> based on my inability to explain the "how" of creation.
Again, we have no direct evidence from the first few hundred million
years of evolution. However, the evidence that we do have
overwhelmingly supports evolution.
> But that said, I submit that I do have the edge when it comes to
> origins.
Your argument has at least one fatal flaw: it rests upon the
assumption that if an artificial system requires intelligence for its
origin, that all systems require intelligence for their origins. We
know that artificial systems require intelligence because there is no
natural mechanism for producing them. They do not reproduce. They do
not evolve.
Natural systems, on the other hand, do have natural paths for their
origins. Living organisms reproduce; they mutate; and guided by
natural selection, species evolve. We may not know exactly how life
got its start, but the mechanism is there. So there is no need for
intelligence; evolution can perform the same function.
The argument that you have presented is an argument by analogy.
Artificial systems require and intelligent origin, therefore, natural
systems also require an intelligent origin. Using this analogy, what
else could we prove about this intelligence. We know that artificial
systems are produced by humans; that these humans make mistakes; and
that humans have a maximum lifespan of around a hundred years. By
your analogy, we would have to conclude that life's intelligent
designer is also a human, is fallible, and has been dead for at least
six thousand years. Are you sure you want to use an argument that
concludes that God is dead?
howard hershey
Ah! So zoe tells us her true religious beliefs. She is clearly an
animist. Cars are alive (when running). Storm systems are alive. The
wind is alive. The hills are alive (visions of zoe as Julie Andrews
float through my mind -- where is amnesia when I need it?)! [The hills,
by zoelogic, grow and develop and erode by the directed action of
various forms of energy, so as a system, they must be alive according to
zoe. And, of course, the hills alive with the sound of music.] The
spirit of the Creator is in everything and everything is alive.
But I am having some trouble reconciling this with other precepts of
zoelogic. In previous discussions, zoe has said that the sun was not
alive? And she clearly says that bacterial spores are not alive.
Neither are certain plant seeds. So I must have missed some aspect of
what zoe means by "life". I am also having some trouble determining
what *isn't* alive by zoe's definition, other than objects which only
have potential energy at the present time.
I think this discussion has some similarity to the fate of Br'er Fox's
meeting with the tar baby. Zoe started out sticking her toe to her
definition but now she is in a full frontal hug and Br'er Rabbit is
chortling.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
H,R.Gruemm
> Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
>
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
As John Wilkins said once in parodying an argument similar to yours:
"Evidence for the sand-dune maker is the sand dune. Evidence for the
high-tide-watermark-maker is the high tide water mark. Evidence for
Jack
Frost is the ice crystals on the windows. ..."
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
Sure. This is inherent in the definition of an *artificial* system.
Thus your sample is completely biased and there is no reason to extend
the claim to non-artificial systems.
> Another reason I would ask the "Who" question would be because I have
> observed that all systems, artificial or natural, seem to have a
> common formula, and that formula is systems+energy=life. The presence
> of systems denote intelligence.
And exactly why, please ?
> The directing of energy through
> systems also speak of intelligence.
If there *is* someone who directs the energy - which is the very
question under debate.
The combination of the two
> producing an operating, working organism that is called biological
> life is very similar to the combination of artificial system and
> energy directed through the system to produce an operating, working
> system that resembles life on a low level.
>
> Of course, I expect on this forum that there will be strong objections
> to such logic, and I would like to hear specifically why before I
> proceed further to work on my "Who" question.
>
> To me, it seems evident that without replication or reproduction,
> there is nothing available to evolve. Without reproduction, there is
> no population, and the line ends. So evolution-scientists need to be
> able to get their life forms reproducing as early as possible if they
> are to avoid the "creation-origin" solution.
No problem. RNA chains are imperfect replicators, and evolution is
"what happens to imperfect replicators" (Dawkins).
> So...what exactly is the reasoning behind the evolutionary approach to
> the existence of systems in nature? Please for answers to the
> following questions:
>
> 1. If systems evolved over time, then what is the least amount of
> parts required in order for a reproductive system to work? The
> proffered number of parts must demonstrate that reproduction of an
> early species can occur with only those parts available.
>
> ANSWER:
1 self-catalyzing RNA chain.
<snip rest>
regards,
HRG.
stew dean
> Harlequin wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >I most definately do _NOT_ think that biological systems can be
> >alive without energy. I have in no way, shape, or form
> >whatsoever as much as hinted that biological systems can be
> >alive without energy. I don't recall seeing any one saying
> >that life can exist without "energy."
>
> okay. I hear you. I will henceforth not claim that you think that
> biological systems can be alive without energy.
>
> >Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
> >by the term "energy"?
>
> well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
> to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
> don't seem to be able to say what energy is. Like gravity, they can
> describe what gravity does, but not what gravity is.
In abstract terms energy is that which can be used to do things. A
object suspended has potential energy in that it that if you unbound
it would fall. Chemical energy is another example as in the case of
batteries. Maybe it's best not to think too much about it.
<snip>
> >Also what is a "system"? If you cannot do this then
> >your "definition" is nothing more than word salad.
>
> my understanding and definition of "system", in the biological sense,
> is that it refers to the orderly arrangement of parts so that the
> relationships and interconnectedness between the parts form an organic
> whole that is recognized as life, "life" being recognized as the
> capacity of the organism to reproduce, grow, develop, and respond to
> stimuli (thanks to R.Baldwin for that addition).
Okay now this kind of system is formaly known as a complex systems.
There are four general types of system in the terms of how energy is
organised in a system. Static, periodic, complex and chaotic, going
from least energy to the most energy. Static means nothing is
happening, like a stone. Periodic is when something rotates between
different states, like the moon orbiting the Earth. Chaotic is when
nothing can settle in any state, like the static on a TV screen. The
most interesting kind is complex systems, also refered to as self
organising systems. These sit between periodic and chaotic systems. In
nursery tale terms complex systems are 'just right' in terms of energy
the system uses and rate of change, they are not too hot nor too cold.
In a self organising system the energy put into the system is used
organise the system to make user of the energy put into the system.
Providing there is a relatively constant level of energy the system
will continue. In human terms if we eat we live, if we don't eat,
eventually we die. If we get to hot then we die, if we get too cold,
we also die. We have to exist in a 'just right' state. You can also
see this with biological life in general. There is a set bandwidth of
tempretures life likes, this is down to the reliance on water in part.
There may be other forms of life that are reliant on other chemical
systems and have alternative bandwidths of acceptable temperature/rate
of change.
Complex systems can be seen in many forms other than life, such as
weather systems and the life of economic ecomonies. Jane Jacobs wrote
an excellent book that covered how economies where like ecosystems and
need to be balanced but are also prone to death if exposed to too many
extremes.
The self organising aspect of the systems also answers the 'who'
question with the answer 'no one'. Self organising systems also are
decentralised in nature, there is not center of control as the system
is 'emergent' - that is it is more then the sum of the parts. One
example being a wasp nest. The Queen wasp is not in charge of the
nest, she is as much a slave as any other wasp, if not more so, yet
the IQ of a wasp nest is far higher than any one wasp. It is the
basic interaction of all the wasps that create this intelligent
behavour not one point of control.
Hope that helps explain some aspects of life and systems.
Stew Dean
howard hershey
zoe_althrop wrote:
Wait a sec here, zoe. The definition of "life" you just presented in
the above does not mention the crucial component (according to zoelogic)
of "energy". Moreover, the definition asked for was a definition of
"system" that specifically *cannot* include a definition of "life".
This is necessary if you plan to then define life using the more
fundamental term "system". *Your* definition of "system", by including
"life" as part of the definition, makes the definition you give for life
(system + energy = life) a tautology (life + energy = life). You do
know that you have to define a term by using more fundamental
descriptive words, don't you?
Perhaps you can salvage this by describing "biological system" as a
"system" that has certain fundamental structures that all life (current
and, if you want to be able to recognize past living 'systems' and
'systems' that might differ from current modern life, you must think
more fundamentally than if you are only interested in identifying
current life) must have (what these structures are can be argued about).
Then you would have: biological system + energy = active life form.
Another minor point. There is this reference book (you may have heard
of it) called a dictionary. Its major function is to provide
definitions. I would suggest that you start with those definitions even
if you later have to point out places where you want to specify tighter
or looser criteria. Doing so would, of course, prevent many a
misunderstanding.
>
>
>>"energy",
>
>
> energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
> the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
I presume that you are using the word 'energy' in the sense that it is
used in physics, namely as the power of doing work. But you certainly
seem to distinguish between 'potential energy' and 'kinetic energy' and
seem to be talking only about the latter wrt life. Seeds and bacterial
spores have potential energy but not kinetic energy. And you seem to
think that these biological systems are not alive and only systems that
show kinetic energy can be alive.
>
>
>>"artificial"
>
>
> artificial: a nonbiological system (see relevant portion of
> definition of system above) that is manufactured as a result of human
> intelligence.
Actually the dictionary definition only requires that the *objects* (not
systems -- although systems can certainly be composed of objects that
are artificial) be made or contrived by art or by human skill and and
labor. This means that a cake or any prepared meal is "artificial"
despite being made of biological materials. Whether termite mounds are
'artificial' depends upon whether you use the 'contrived by art' or
'contrived by human skill and labor' part of the definition (for some
meanings of 'art').
But note that this *specifically* means that most 'living systems' are
NOT artificial by the definition requiring human manufacture. Whether
they are artificial by the 'contrived by art' definition depends upon
whether, like termite mounds, a manufacturer can be identified. That,
of course, is the question being asked. Asserting that because known
'artificial' objects/systems are (must be) manufactured by humans that
therefore objects/systems that are clearly NOT manufactured by humans
are manufactured by some unspecified something is assuming the conclusion.
>
>
>>and "intelligence";
>
>
> intelligence: mental ability, as demonstrated in the ability to use
> the faculty of reason in solving problems, making decisions, gathering
> information, and applying that information in a goal-oriented manner.
>
>>and if you are
>>going to use them in a "formula" (you might need to define this as well)
>
>
> formula: a set of symbols that express a mathematical fact,
> principle, or rule.
>
>
>>then what are the units?
>
>
> unit 1 = system
> unit 2 = energy
> unit 3 = life
Bzzt. Those are not units. And you are NOT generating a mathematical
formula, zoe. You are trying (and repeatedly failing) to generate a
valid *definition* of 'life' by refering to more fundamental terms (your
choice being 'system' and 'energy'.
The problem is that the definition you generate is sloppy and produces
some strange results that doesn't match most people's understanding of
'life'. By your definition, a running car is alive. A stopped car is
not. A growing tree is alive. A dormant seed is not. A storm is
alive. Dead calm is not. The hills are alive (as is the Grand Canyon).
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
howard hershey
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists the
>>top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
>>http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
>
>
> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
> that self-assembly can occur?
This was the *top* 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly. There
are literally thousands of papers on molecular self-assembly.
> Besides, from what info I can gather
> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not true
> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
> scientist on there).
In the biological realm *every* system -- ribosomes, flagella, Golgi
bodies, mitochondria, chromosomes, mitotic spindles, cilia, cell walls,
bacteriophage -- self-assembles. There are no outside agents
manufacturing them. A number of these systems -- flagella,
microtubules, bacteriophage, ribosomes -- self-assemble in test tubes as
well as _in vivo_. Chaparones, which assist protein folding, are
themselves assembled by the cell itself. There are NO outside agents
doing the manufacturing of proteins in cells. Neither are there
intelligent protein-manufacturing and system-manufacturing fairies or
homunculi *within* cells (working in little cell factories, ready to go
on strike for higher wages). Cells *replicate* by self-assembly.
> Quoting from one blurb: "One thing you can do with these is you can
> control wetting interaction. In other words, you can control how
> liquids spread on surfaces. You can also control how cells adhere and
> how electrons tunnel across an interface. You can control how
> proteins bind and how molecules grab onto DNA."
>
> Well, now, that sure seems to be a lot of control going on for a
> little bit of self-assembly.
Arranging the proper conditions for self-assembly is not doing the
self-assembling. There is no doubt that self-assembly of biological
materials requires the proper conditions.
In fact, that is utilized to adapt self-assembly to the researcher's end
goals. For a simple example, phage lambda coat proteins are used to
package artificially constructed DNA for injection into bacteria. This
is the self-assembly used by molecular biologists all the time. The
only role of the researcher is adding protein extracts in the proper
salt solutions together with the DNA and then incubating at the proper
temperature. The extracts themselves self-construct the pre-head
structure; this pre-head structure takes up the foreign DNA into the
head and clips off the ends; the DNA-filled head then self-assembles the
tail structure and attaches it to the head. All of this is done
*without* any outside agency activity other than providing the proper
conditions. Of course, the same thing goes on in cells in nature where
there is no human intervention *even* to that extent. The same holds
true for every other complex molecular structure in cells. Every single
one of them self-assembles in the absence of outside intelligent agency.
>
> Another blurb, "...most of today's 'workhorses' are single- or
> two-component systems. However, scientist are already working on the
> design of smart materials that require a much higher complexity. Our
> interest is to put as many different materials together as needed in
> order to create materials with new properties."
>
> Sounds like intelligent design going on here, to me.
Humans are manipulating the capacity of chemicals to self-assemble for
their own purposes. They are not doing the self-assembly themselves.
>
>
>>You might also be interested in the International Society of
>>Artificial Life:
>>http://www.alife.org/
>
>
> artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
> proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
Stick to molecular structures *within* cells. Where is there *any* such
structure that requires outside intelligent agency for its assembly?
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Harlequin
news:3fce862d....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
>
> Harlequin wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>I most definately do _NOT_ think that biological systems can be
>>alive without energy. I have in no way, shape, or form
>>whatsoever as much as hinted that biological systems can be
>>alive without energy. I don't recall seeing any one saying
>>that life can exist without "energy."
>
> okay. I hear you. I will henceforth not claim that you think that
> biological systems can be alive without energy.
>
>>Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
>>by the term "energy"?
>
> well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
> to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
> don't seem to be able to say what energy is. Like gravity, they can
> describe what gravity does, but not what gravity is.
>
> Maybe energy is really Howard Hershey's elan vital. Chemical elan
> vital, heat elan vital, mechanical elan vital, and so on...
[snip a lot including an incorrectly calling energy a force.]
I really was not trying to ask you explain why there is energy i.e.
I was not asking for any sort of fundamental physics or any theory
of everything. It is certainly true that in an absolutely fundamental
level physicists don't know what gravity, matter, energy, time, etc.,
etc., etc. are. But in operational terms we do know what all these
things are.
How would a freshman be expected to answer if asked by the professor?
(And what do the terms that freshman uses mean?)
For gravity, I would
be quite happy if something to the effect of an attractive force
between matter whose strength defends on the amount mass and decreases
with distance. If you start talking about subject of gravity then
you would need to understand Newton's equation of gravity, but you
are not discussing gravity so I would let that go. And theories as
to why gravity (or mass, etc.) exist in the first place do not
concern us at this level.
Maybe merely asking you for a definition might not have been
the only question I (and the others) should have asked.
Maybe we should have asked "Why there is a concept of energy
in the first place?" What good does this concept do? What can
we use it for? How do we use it? Unless one knows the answers
to these than energy is a worthless term and such not be used.
Richard P. Feynman was a Nobel Prize winning physicist, and an
extremely unconventional thinking. Someones say-so did not
matter much to him. Now before you say that applies to
yourself consider the most significant and fundamental
difference between you and him. He knew the mainstream
ideas backward and forwards and could apply them himself.
Someone fifty times as smart as Feynman was (and he was
by all accounts an extraordinary genius) is not likely to be
sucessful in generating new ideas unless he knows the
old ones extremely well. But enough about that rant and
lets go to why I bring up him up.
In his essay "Judging Books by Their Covers" he tells of
a time which was on a textbook committee.
What finally clinched it, and made me ultimatley resign was that the
following year we were going to discuss science books. I thought
maybe the science would be different, so I looked at a few of them.
The same thing happened: something would look good at first and then
turn out to be horrifying. For example, there was a book that
started out with four pictures: first there was a wind-up toy; then
there was an automobile; then they was a boy riding a bicycle; and
then there was something else. And underneath each picture it said,
"What makes it go?"
I will skip to the "answer."
I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy
makes it go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go."
For everything, "_Energy_ makes it go."
Maybe I should ask why this was so offensive to Feynman?
As for the definition of energy itself, a simple
"The capacity to do work" whould have satisified me
provided you understood what "work" in this context
means. That would have required you know what
"force" is which would in turn require you know terms
like "mass", "acceleration," "velocity," and
"momentum" mean. And of course how these terms are all
inter-related to each other. Until you understand
all of that and can apply it, "energy" for you
really is a elan vital, just as it was for the
whoever wrote that schoolbook Feynman was so
distressed about. And so long as as "energy" just
remains as something mysterious it is worthless
to try to define life or anything using it.
If you want to use "energy" in a definition of life
(or anything else) then stop, drop everything, and
learn all you can about "energy." You will need to
know how phyicists and chemists use the term and
apply it to real world situtations. You should learn
what the properties associated with energy are, etc.
You should learn something about how the concept
of energy used used in the context of living beings.
Then, and only then, come back and see if you can
use it in your definition. It is time to put the
horse before the cart and not the other way around.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
island
> "...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
> told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
> his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
> entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
> Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
> nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
> - Harlan Ellison
I love that quote. I always say that people think that their opinion is
equally valid because everybody has an @sshole... ;)
AC
> Harlequin wrote:
>
>>Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
>>by the term "energy"?
>
> well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
> to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
> don't seem to be able to say what energy is. Like gravity, they can
> describe what gravity does, but not what gravity is.
The most general definition of energy is the ability to do work. However,
you are also mixing terms here a bit. Gravity is a force.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
> proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
First of all, I wouldn't say robots are artificially intelligent. Second,
what do you mean by "Godlike"?
island
> Gravity is a force.
Per Newton anyway. Einstein said that gravity is the curvature of
space.
John Wilkins
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote :
> > Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
> > very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> > ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> > would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
> >
> > The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> > background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> > to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> > that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
>
> As John Wilkins said once in parodying an argument similar to yours:
> "Evidence for the sand-dune maker is the sand dune. Evidence for the
> high-tide-watermark-maker is the high tide water mark. Evidence for Jack
> Frost is the ice crystals on the windows. ..."
A sign that people actually *read* what I write, is when they quote
something I wrote a year ago..
Thanks Hans-Richard. I am encourage to post again for another year :-)
Earle Jones
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> Having proffered the above formula for inspection, and having received
> very little disagreement (Howard Hershey and Harlequin being the only
> ones who think that biological systems can be alive WITHOUT energy), I
> would like to concentrate now on systems as evidence for intelligence.
>
> The way I see it is, even if I had had no prior philosophical
> background, the existence of systems in nature would still prompt me
> to ask "Who put these systems together? Who devised a genetic system
> that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
>
> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> exists without a manufacturer.
[...]
*
Zoe:
Your fundamental problem is that you attempt to teach when you should be
engaged in an attempt to learn. Learn first -- teach later.
You ask the 'who' question because you approach the problem as a
religious problem. You say "Who put these systems together? Who
devised a genetic system that uses a common principle for all biological
organisms?""
You should replace your 'who' with a 'what'.
A 'who' implies some human-like source.
Try this:
"What put these systems together? What devised a genetic system
that uses a common principle for all biological organisms?"
These questions are questions for physics and biology and cosmology, not
religion.
Why the 'who', which contains within it an unspoken assumption that
'someone' (that is, a 'who') did it all? As soon as you assume that a
'who', that is a human-like entity had something to do with it, you have
answered your own question -- and answered it incorrectly.
You have demonstrated here clearly that you do not have the ability to
even approach these fundamental questions.
Learn first -- teach later.
earle
*
"These effects are to be explained by reason;
but because you are unable to assign any, you have
recourse to a Deity as your last refuge."
--Cicero (106 - 43 BC) 'On the Nature of the Gods'
H,R.Gruemm
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:54:14 +0000 (UTC),
> zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Harlequin wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe it is again time to ask what you think physicist mean
> >>by the term "energy"?
> >
> > well, looking around on the internet, I see that physicists don't seem
> > to be able to define energy. They can say what energy does, but they
> > don't seem to be able to say what energy is. Like gravity, they can
> > describe what gravity does, but not what gravity is.
>
> The most general definition of energy is the ability to do work.
As I see it, the most general definition of energy is "the generator
of time translations".
Regards,
HRG.
Andrew Arensburger
> computer programs run on their own, without the intervention of
> intelligence.
If programs really could run without assistance, I'd be out of
a job :-)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
System administration: more fun than being beaten with a sledgehammer.
R. Baldwin
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Zoe, you might try looking at the following web page, which lists
the
> >top 25 cited papers on molecular self-assembly:
> >http://www.esi-topics.com/msa/papers/a1.html
>
> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not
true
> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
> scientist on there).
As others noted, a listing of papers is not evidence. I was pointing
you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you asked.
[snip rest]
Ross Langerak
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:42:33 +0000 (UTC), postm...@hoxnet.com
(Wayne
> D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >>observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
such
> >>system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> >>exists without a manufacturer.
> >
>
> energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified,
but
> the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
Energy and force are not the same. We can tell because they have
different "units".
> > "artificial"
>
> artificial: a nonbiological system (see relevant portion of
> definition of system above) that is manufactured as a result of
human
> intelligence.
>
> >and "intelligence";
>
> intelligence: mental ability, as demonstrated in the ability to use
> the faculty of reason in solving problems, making decisions,
gathering
> information, and applying that information in a goal-oriented
manner.
>
> > and if you are
> >going to use them in a "formula" (you might need to define this as
well)
>
> formula: a set of symbols that express a mathematical fact,
> principle, or rule.
>
> >then what are the units?
>
> unit 1 = system
> unit 2 = energy
> unit 3 = life
Is this a joke? You do know what "units" are, don't you?
R. Baldwin
news:3fce9247....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:42:33 +0000 (UTC), postm...@hoxnet.com
(Wayne
> D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
>
>
> >then what are the units?
>
> unit 1 = system
> unit 2 = energy
> unit 3 = life
Zoe, the reason you received the responses you did is that in science,
"units" generally means "units of measure." This would be kilograms,
meters, seconds, joules, watts, candela, ohms, farads, etc.
Earle Jones
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:42:33 +0000 (UTC), postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne
> D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >>The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
> >>observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single such
> >>system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
> >>exists without a manufacturer.
> >
> >It seems to me that this is trivially true by the very definition of
> >"artificial." (Assuming that your definition of "system" is more along
> >the lines of "machine.")
>
> my definition of "system" includes machines. The same principles that
> govern machines also carry through to living organisms, except that
> the systems of biological organisms are light years in advance of
> human-made machines.
*
You might be surprised. Which has higher resolution, the human eye or
the typical TV camera?
earle
*
Seppo Pietikainen
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:42:33 +0000 (UTC), postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne
> D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> formula: a set of symbols that express a mathematical fact,
> principle, or rule.
>
>
>>then what are the units?
>
>
> unit 1 = system
> unit 2 = energy
> unit 3 = life
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Looks like the unbeatable CW -master made another score!
Seppo P.
Jon Fleming
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >then what are the units?
>>
>> unit 1 = system
>> unit 2 = energy
>> unit 3 = life
>
>Is this a joke? You do know what "units" are, don't you?
It's very likely she doesn't. She probably thinks "units" in this
context are "individual components".
Mitchell Coffey
Don't you recognize dimensionless numbers when you see them...
Mitchell Coffey
zoe_althrop
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
>"zoe_althrop" wrote:
snip>
>> energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
>> the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
>
>Energy is not a force. They are fundamentally related, but not synonymous.
>Kinematically, energy is the capacity to do work, and a force applied over a
>distance produces work. You can see this in first semester discussions of
>gravity from the terms "gravitational potential energy" and "gravitational
>force" -- two distinct, but related concepts.
>
>There is decent agreement in the resources I've looked at -- where did you
>look?
I looked nowhere impressive. One of the definitions for energy in the
New World Dictionary is "potential forces." That made sense to me.
And then while grazing the internet, I again noted the word "force"
and pulled it out of the following definition:
http://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/work/tsld007.htm
"Energy is the capacity to do work.
The Kinetic Energy of an object (K.E.=1/2mv2 ) is its ability to do
work by virtue of its motion. The force required to stop a moving
object has a reaction force that can do that amount of work!"
I figured that, ergo, therefore, hey presto, voila, "energy" and
"force" were being used interchangeably here. No?
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:21:54 +0000 (UTC),
>zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
>> proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
>
>First of all, I wouldn't say robots are artificially intelligent.
what are they, if not AI?
> Second,
>what do you mean by "Godlike"?
human intelligence has godlike tendencies in the sense that we are
master of our own creation, and our created items belong to us. The
robot answers to its maker, not vice versa.
Question: If you could create a robot that was almost humanlike in
its abilities, would you consider giving it freewill? Why or why not?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> formula: a set of symbols that express a mathematical fact,
>> principle, or rule.
>>
>> >then what are the units?
>>
>> unit 1 = system
>> unit 2 = energy
>> unit 3 = life
>
>Is this a joke? You do know what "units" are, don't you?
not really, not in the scientific sense. I mean, don't expect rigor
out of me.
Tell me, though, why would you ask for units for the formula,
energy+systems=Life? That "equation" is in the same category as
blue+yellow=green. Would you ask for the units for blue, yellow and
green?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
>> that self-assembly can occur? Besides, from what info I can gather
>> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not
>true
>> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
>> scientist on there).
>
>As others noted, a listing of papers is not evidence.
"As others noted"? Where? I think you're the first to say that a
listing of papers is not evidence. You, at least, understood what I
was saying.
> I was pointing
>you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you asked.
except that the blurbs to those papers talk about assisted self
assembly and controlled self assembly. Why would I want to read
further when what I am interested in is unassisted self assembly and
uncontrolled self assembly?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3fce933d....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:45:25 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
>> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> >Why not ask "how" they came together?
>>
>> of course. "How" is in the realm of science. However, that does
>not
>> preclude me from asking "Who", does it? The "Who" line of inquiry,
>> once it is established that there is indeed a "Who," would belong to
>> the theological arena.
>
>You assume that there is a "who".
it's not a baseless assumption. Many systems are known to be made by
"who" and so it is not inconsistent for the "who" question to be
triggered when other systems are encountered.
> If you ask "how" instead, that can
>tell you if there is a "who".
indeed, and it is the "how" that tells me that there is a "Who."
>> > Astronomers have a very good
>> >understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud of dust
>> >and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a planetary system
>can
>> >form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the "how" question more
>productive
>> >than the "who" question?
>>
>> the "how" question is more productive for the field of science. The
>> "Who" is more productive for the field of theology. They both have
>> their places.
>
>Again, you assume that there is a "who", which is a waste of time if
>there is no "who".
but well worth the effort if there IS indeed a "Who." If there is an
"if" to the question, then it would be wise to take the time to be
certain that there is or is not a "Who." If there is no who, the time
was not wasted, for the "if" question is resolved. But if there is a
Who, then it would be well worth investigating....unless you're afraid
of what you'd find???
> If you ask "how" instead, that can tell you if
>there is a "who".
and, again, the "how" has told me that there is a Who.
>> >> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on my
>> >> observation of all artificial systems today; that not one single
>> >such
>> >> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such system
>> >> exists without a manufacturer.
>> >
>> >Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self
>assemble,
>> >and concluding that because those systems don't self assemble, that
>no
>> >systems can self assemble.
>>
>> isn't that a logical way to go about it? If all the evidence points
>> to a law (no self-assembly), and there is no evidence for the
>opposite
>> of that law (self assembly), why would one make up a story out of
>> whole cloth in order to create evidence for the opposite of the
>known
>> law?
>
>But you aren't looking at all systems. You are looking only at
>systems that don't self assemble, and then concluding that no systems
>can self assemble. If we look at a system that consists of just a
>single organism, that organism can in fact self assemble. Therefore,
>there are systems that can self assemble.
what organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that self
assemble, please? And, remember, just because you can't see the
programmer of your computer, and yet the computer processes appear to
be running on their own, does not mean there is no programmer.
Therefore, you must not give me already-functioning systems as your
example. You must give me an example of observed self assembly of a
system -- NOT a chain of RNA or amino acids that have no function,
mind you, but a system like the circulatory system, or the nervous
system, or chemiosmosis, that sort of system self-assembling.
>> > What would you conclude if you looked only
>> >at glasses that had milk in them?
>>
>> If we lived in a world where all glasses contained milk and only
>milk,
>> the evidence would be that all glasses contain milk. However, your
>> analogy does not match. Glasses, by their nature, can reasonably be
>> extrapolated to hold liquids other than milk. Systems, unlike
>> glasses, do not have that flexibility. Systems are specific to a
>> particular method of coming into existence, and there is no room,
>> based on what we know of artificial systems, for systems to self
>> assemble.
>
>What you have done is analogous to looking at just glasses with milk
>in them, and then concluding that all glasses must have milk in them.
>"Waiter, bring me ten glasses of milk. I have noticed that all of
>these glasses have milk in them. Therefore, I must conclude that all
>glasses have milk in them. Brilliant!"
not at all. It is evident that glasses can hold other liquids, just
by the virtue of their construction. The glass analogy does not match
the systems reality.
<snip rest because I intend to go get some sleep now. Maybe we can
pick up on this some other time?>
----
zoe
R. Baldwin
Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
(F = ma). Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance (W =
integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times distance
(W = Fd). You may therefore say that work is mad;) Force and work are
not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 04:08:59 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient
evidence
> >> that self-assembly can occur? Besides, from what info I can
gather
> >> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not
> >true
> >> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of
one
> >> scientist on there).
> >
> >As others noted, a listing of papers is not evidence.
>
> "As others noted"? Where? I think you're the first to say that a
> listing of papers is not evidence. You, at least, understood what I
> was saying.
Jon Fleming made the same point, and John Segerson implied it.
>
> > I was pointing
> >you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you
asked.
>
> except that the blurbs to those papers talk about assisted self
> assembly and controlled self assembly. Why would I want to read
> further when what I am interested in is unassisted self assembly and
> uncontrolled self assembly?
>
If that is what you are interested in, it will also remain unobserved.
Chemistry research generally requires mixing reactants and reagents
under specific conditions, not hunting about in nature hoping to find
the right conditions.
> ----
> zoe
>
R. Baldwin
Blue, yellow, and green have units of nanometers or terahertz if they
are monchromatic. Otherwise, they are specified by unitless
coordinates such as (u',v') on one of the CIE charts, or in one of
several similar schemes.
Richard Uhrich
Set a 100 lb rock on your toe. Let it sit there an hour or so. How much
force is involved? How much energy?
Now lift it a foot. How much force? How much energy? (Hint: Energy =
Force * Distance if force is constant.)
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
--
"This [Bush] administration has a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We
know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"
--- Greg Theilman, former State Department intelligence analyst
Eric Rowley
> >"zoe_althrop" wrote:
> snip>
> http://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/work/tsld007.htm
No, not quite.
Energy is the capability (not necessarily used) to do
a certain amount of work whereas a force is actualy doing a certain
amount of work per time unit.
So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long it
is exerted.
Turn the crank on a well to pull up a bucket of water for one
second and you are using the same force (ignoring inertia) as if
you turn it for a minute (i's a deeep well) ;-) but in the first
case you use less energy and do less work.
Eric
<my domain is rixtele>
Andrew Arensburger
> Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
> (F = ma). Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
> velocity (a = dv/dt).
Ye ghods! I'm not sure you want to bring calculus into a
Zoethread. All those divisions of infinitesimals can only lead to 0/0
<shudder>.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
If it has feelings, it's not cooked enough!
Eric Rowley
> >
> >"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:3fce933d....@news-server.cfl.rr.com... >> On Wed, 3
> Dec 2003 16:45:25 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
> >> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>
> >> snip>
> >>
> >> >Why not ask "how" they came together?
> >>
> >> of course. "How" is in the realm of science. However, that
> does >not
> >> preclude me from asking "Who", does it? The "Who" line of
> inquiry, >> once it is established that there is indeed a "Who,"
> would belong to >> the theological arena. >
> >You assume that there is a "who".
> it's not a baseless assumption. Many systems are known to be made
> by "who" and so it is not inconsistent for the "who" question to
> be triggered when other systems are encountered.
That does not follow, I could just as easily say "Many things are
known to be made by "who" (us to be exact) and so it is not
inconsistent for the "who" question to be triggered when other
things are encountered."
But we know for a fact that many things are made by natural causes
with no "who" involved so we would be wrong to assume that all
things are made by a who.
And it would be equaly wrong to assume that all systems are caused
by "who"s.
Especially since many systems are known to self assemble.
> > If you ask "how" instead, that can
> >tell you if there is a "who".
> indeed, and it is the "how" that tells me that there is a "Who."
What, exactly, _is_ the "how" that you think points to a "who"?
Because the hows that we see working in nature seem to point to
natural causes.
> >> > Astronomers have a very good
> >> >understanding of how planetary system can form from a cloud
> >> >of dust and gas. They discovered this by asking "how" a
> >> >planetary system can form, not "who" formed it. Isn't the
> >> >"how" question more productive than the "who" question?
> >> the "how" question is more productive for the field of
> >>science. The "Who" is more productive for the field of
> >>theology. They both have their places.
> >Again, you assume that there is a "who", which is a waste of
> >time if there is no "who".
> but well worth the effort if there IS indeed a "Who." If there is
> an "if" to the question, then it would be wise to take the time
> to be certain that there is or is not a "Who." If there is no
> who, the time was not wasted, for the "if" question is resolved.
That is assuming that the question can be resolved, how would you
suggest going about doing that?
If there is no "who" then the question can never be resolved, there
could always be a "who" that can't be found.
And if there is a "who" it isn't self evident, just running around
looking for a possible "who" does appear to be a waste of time.
It would seem that the best way to resolve the question (as best we
can) would be to examine the how and see if it points to any
"who"s, so far it doesn't appear to.
> But if there is a Who, then it would be well worth
> investigating....unless you're afraid of what you'd find???
> > If you ask "how" instead, that can tell you if
> >there is a "who".
> and, again, the "how" has told me that there is a Who.
How?
I don't believe you, I don't think you're lying, I just think
you're wrong, I think that you were steered towards the "how"
you think you see by the way you think about the "who" you are
thinking of.
> >> >> The reason I would ask the "Who" question would be based on
> >> >> my observation of all artificial systems today; that not
> >> >> one single such
> >> >> system has been observed to self assemble and not one such
> >> >> system exists without a manufacturer.
> >> >Great! You are looking at only the systems that don't self
> >> >assemble, and concluding that because those systems don't
> >> >self assemble, that no
> >> >systems can self assemble.
> >> isn't that a logical way to go about it? If all the evidence
> >> points to a law (no self-assembly), and there is no evidence
> >> for the opposite of that law (self assembly), why would one
> >> make up a story out of whole cloth in order to create evidence
> >> for the opposite of the >known
> >> law?
> >But you aren't looking at all systems. You are looking only at
> >systems that don't self assemble, and then concluding that no
> >systems can self assemble. If we look at a system that consists
> >of just a single organism, that organism can in fact self
> >assemble. Therefore, there are systems that can self assemble.
> what organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that
> self assemble, please?
All of them, in the sense that the parts assemble themselves.
If you mean starting from scratch then:
What organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that
are being assembled by a god, please?
Neither will be found, the mechanisms for assembling organisms
are in place, using them is more efficient than self assembly
or waiting for a god, and any organism that relied on the old
fashioned way would be out competed in no time flat, also
conditions have changed since life started, any organic molecules
hanging around on there way to becoming assembled would be eaten
by something before they had a chance to selfassemble.
> And, remember, just because you can't see
> the programmer of your computer, and yet the computer processes
> appear to be running on their own, does not mean there is no
> programmer.
No, it is quite obvious that computers need builders/programers,
they are incapable of building or programing themselves.
Life is a different matter altogether, it builds and "programs"
itself, and although it isn't known for sure how it all got started
there are many hypotheses.
> Therefore, you must not give me already-functioning
> systems as your example. You must give me an example of observed
> self assembly of a system --NOT a chain of RNA or amino acids
> that have no function, mind you, but a system like the
> circulatory system, or the nervous system, or chemiosmosis, that
> sort of system self-assembling.
Here we go again, why o why can none of these silly scientists
duplicate hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution and/or
abiogenisis (happening planet wide with billions of
organisms/millions of tons of organic molecules) in a testtube?
Surely someone could spare their coffee break to show them
creationists?
> >> > What would you conclude if you looked only
> >> >at glasses that had milk in them?
> >>
> >> If we lived in a world where all glasses contained milk and
> only >milk,
> >> the evidence would be that all glasses contain milk. However,
> your >> analogy does not match. Glasses, by their nature, can
> reasonably be >> extrapolated to hold liquids other than milk.
> Systems, unlike >> glasses, do not have that flexibility. Systems
> are specific to a >> particular method of coming into existence,
> and there is no room, >> based on what we know of artificial
> systems, for systems to self >> assemble. >
> >What you have done is analogous to looking at just glasses with
> milk >in them, and then concluding that all glasses must have
> milk in them. >"Waiter, bring me ten glasses of milk. I have
> noticed that all of >these glasses have milk in them. Therefore,
> I must conclude that all >glasses have milk in them. Brilliant!"
> not at all. It is evident that glasses can hold other liquids,
> just by the virtue of their construction. The glass analogy does
> not match the systems reality.
It does so.
There are lots of systems that self assemble.
R. Baldwin
news:WinLMSG.3fdaa...@news.abc.se...
Work per time unit would be power, not force. Force does work per
distance unit.
>
> So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
> momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
> miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
> depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long it
> is exerted.
No, this is wrong. Think of a weight on the floor. Force is exerted
between them but no energy is used and there is no change in potential
energy.
>
> Turn the crank on a well to pull up a bucket of water for one
> second and you are using the same force (ignoring inertia) as if
> you turn it for a minute (i's a deeep well) ;-) but in the first
> case you use less energy and do less work.
You would have to ignore more than inertia for the force to be
constant. The fluid density is not uniform in the well.
R. Baldwin
news:bre9ln$oda$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevbackwards.net> wrote:
> > Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times
acceleration
> > (F = ma). Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change,
of
> > velocity (a = dv/dt).
>
> Ye ghods! I'm not sure you want to bring calculus into a
> Zoethread. All those divisions of infinitesimals can only lead to
0/0
> <shudder>.
>
I thought she gave in on that one, finally.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 04:08:59 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
><res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>zoe wrote:
>
>>> why would a mere listing of 25 cited papers be sufficient evidence
>>> that self-assembly can occur? Besides, from what info I can gather
>>> from the blurbs, it is evident that the self assembly here is not
>>true
>>> self assembly, but "assisted self assembly" (using the words of one
>>> scientist on there).
>>
>>As others noted, a listing of papers is not evidence.
>
>"As others noted"? Where? I think you're the first to say that a
>listing of papers is not evidence.
He's not.
<http://tinyurl.com/z2fu>
(<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=l35tsvo1sj6kq33hs...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en>)
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 04:08:59 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
><res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> I was pointing
>>you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you asked.
>
>except that the blurbs to those papers talk about assisted self
>assembly and controlled self assembly. Why would I want to read
>further when what I am interested in is unassisted self assembly and
>uncontrolled self assembly?
Because you don't know anything about assembly of any kind.
Grinder
> >> energy: a force (like gravity) that has not yet been identified, but
> >> the effects of which can be measured in terms of work performed.
"Grinder" wrote:
> >Energy is not a force. They are fundamentally related, but not
synonymous.
> >Kinematically, energy is the capacity to do work, and a force applied
over a
> >distance produces work. You can see this in first semester discussions
of
> >gravity from the terms "gravitational potential energy" and
"gravitational
> >force" -- two distinct, but related concepts.
> >
> >There is decent agreement in the resources I've looked at -- where did
you
> >look?
"zoe_althrop" wrote:
> I looked nowhere impressive. One of the definitions for energy in the
> New World Dictionary is "potential forces." That made sense to me.
That seems brief -- what did the whole definition say?
> And then while grazing the internet, I again noted the word "force"
> and pulled it out of the following definition:
>
> http://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/work/tsld007.htm
>
> "Energy is the capacity to do work.
That sounds familiar.
> The Kinetic Energy of an object (K.E.=1/2mv2 ) is its ability to do
> work by virtue of its motion. The force required to stop a moving
> object has a reaction force that can do that amount of work!"
>
> I figured that, ergo, therefore, hey presto, voila, "energy" and
> "force" were being used interchangeably here. No?
No. That part of the definition is *relating* energy to force, not equating
them. A simple example, below, should help to distinguish these two terms.
__
Let's say you want to get a crate of dictionaries on to that top shelf in
your garage. Another way to say this, is that you want to increase that
crate's gravitational potential energy. You will undoubtedly apply a force,
for a period of time, that increases that energy. Because energy is
conserved, that increase means that there is a decrease elsewhere -- namely
you will "burn calories" while doing this *work*.
So...
Energy: starts at a fixed value, and has been increased after your effort.
(Or, if you want to look at the energy within you, it has been decreased
after your effort.)
Force: is zero at first, increases for a period of time, then ultimately
becomes zero again.
Do those sound interchangeable?
Moreover, you can apply different forces to achieve the same increase in
potential energy. You could lift it straight up (a strong force through a
short distance,) or you could use an inclined plane (a weaker force through
a longer distance.) The increase in potential energy will remain the same,
but the forces will be different.
Does energy and force still sound interchangeable?
__
To amplify an earlier point, (though made later than my message you've
replied to here) obscuring the distinction between force an energy makes you
less able to communicate. Why would you want to do that?
Grinder
I'm not responding for the OP, but I can give you an answer to this.
__
Analyzing the units of an equation can find flaws in your thinking. For
instance, energy = force can be analyzed like this. From simple classical
kinematics:
Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity^2
(change in) Gravitational Potential Energy = Mass * AccelerationOfGravity *
(change in) Height
Force = Mass * Acceleration (Newton's 2nd Law)
Ok, given the following units for the definitions below:
Mass = kg (kilogram)
(change in) Height = m (meters)
Velocity = m/s (meters per second)
Acceleration = m/s^2 (meters per second per second)
AccelerationOfGravity = m/s^2 (same as Acceleration)
We find that:
Kinetic Energy = kg * m^2 / s^2
(change in) Potential Energy = kg * (m / s^2) * m = kg * m^2 / s^2
Both forms of energy have the same units!
Force = kg * m / s^2
Is Energy interchangeable with Force? You can see from their units ("kg *
m^2 / s^2" is not equivalent to "kg * m / s^2" -- you're one "m" off) that
they are not the same "currency".
__
I wish I had said this in my earlier post:
Saying energy is interchangeable with force is equivalent to saying that
"interest rate" is interchangeable to "principle." Each of the two terms
may be related by specific equations, but they are distinct concepts.
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
>(F = ma).
okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
And can you have acceleration without the presence of energy? If the
answer is yes to the first and no to the second question, then it
seems logical to say that force and mass and acceleration are all
descriptions of the same thing -- energy. Mass=potential energy.
Force=energy in motion. Work=energy in motion*distance. It's all
about energy.
And since all action stems from how energy is directed, used, or
configured, then it depends on the quality and sophistication of the
system as to what level of activity is produced -- the highest level
being called life. I submit that biological life is a result of a
system so advanced in its structure that when energy is directed
through it, it reproduces, grows, and develops without further
intervention.
> Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance (W =
>integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times distance
>(W = Fd).
and if the force is not constant? Do you then not have work? I'm not
following that one.
> You may therefore say that work is mad;)
I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is mad;)?
> Force and work are
>not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
>Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
>Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
okay, would it be fair to say, then, that the common denominator for
mass, force, and work is energy? And would this common denominator
extend to life?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevbackwards.net> wrote:
>> Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
>> (F = ma). Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>> velocity (a = dv/dt).
>
> Ye ghods! I'm not sure you want to bring calculus into a
>Zoethread.
why not? I'm interested in learning -- believe it or not.
> All those divisions of infinitesimals can only lead to 0/0
><shudder>.
hmmm...what is the answer to 0/0? That's even more interesting than
5/0.
----
zoe
howard hershey
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:40:39 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:3fce933d....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:45:25 +0000 (UTC), "Ross Langerak"
>>> <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> But you aren't looking at all systems. You are looking only at
>> systems that don't self assemble, and then concluding that no
>> systems can self assemble. If we look at a system that consists of
>> just a single organism, that organism can in fact self assemble.
>> Therefore, there are systems that can self assemble.
>
>
> what organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that self
> assemble, please?
Only every current living organism on earth. And presumably every
single currently extinct organism for all 3.5+ billion years that life
has existed on the earth as well.
> And, remember, just because you can't see the
> programmer of your computer, and yet the computer processes appear to
> be running on their own, does not mean there is no programmer.
So you cannot see any even hint of evidence that there is a programer in
living things either, zoe? Yet despite the complete absence of *any*
evidence of any programer, you keep asserting that there must be one. Why?
> Therefore, you must not give me already-functioning systems as your
> example. You must give me an example of observed self assembly of a
> system -- NOT a chain of RNA or amino acids that have no function,
> mind you, but a system like the circulatory system, or the nervous
> system, or chemiosmosis, that sort of system self-assembling.
The circulatory system, the nervous system of *your* body arose by
self-assembly during your embryonic development (ontology). It arose
via a step-wise process of self-assembly using only the information in
your *self* (the fertilized egg you arose from) and the environment that
cell found itself in. The information in that cell *self-replicates*
(imperfectly, of course, which is what allows evolution). Even *if*
that information had been created from scratch by some outside agent
(for which there is zero evidence), the system would certainly evolve in
the future, given the way that this self-replicating system works.
There is no evidence contrary to the idea that such evolution was
responsible for the current appearances of this information. The
evidence is entirely consistent with the idea that human information
arose by modification of information in a previously existing hominid
(most likely H. erectus).
[snip]
zoe_althrop
<uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
snip>
>Set a 100 lb rock on your toe. Let it sit there an hour or so. How much
>force is involved? How much energy?
I would say that zero percent force is involved, and 100 percent
energy is involved.
>Now lift it a foot. How much force? How much energy? (Hint: Energy =
>Force * Distance if force is constant.)
wait, don't confuse me now. R. Baldwin said that "work is force times
distance." And now you're saying that energy is "force times
distance." If both of you are right, then that means that work and
energy are interchangeable, which means that I can say that
energy=work, right?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(Eric Rowley) wrote:
snip>
>Energy is the capability (not necessarily used) to do
>a certain amount of work whereas a force is actualy doing a certain
>amount of work per time unit.
or put another way: Force is energy in action?
>So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
>momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
>miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
>depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long it
>is exerted.
length of exertion time also depends on amount of energy available to
be used? So miles would be the equivalent of energy and mph would be
the equivalent of taxing that energy source?
>Turn the crank on a well to pull up a bucket of water for one
>second and you are using the same force (ignoring inertia) as if
>you turn it for a minute (i's a deeep well) ;-) but in the first
>case you use less energy and do less work.
and if you cranked it for five minutes and collapsed in a heap of
exhaustion, then that might mean that you had only five minutes worth
of energy at your disposal? And the entropy of the universe has now
increased by five minutes worth of your spent energy?
----
zoe
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:06:26 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
>>(F = ma).
>
> okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
That is a complicated question. Not in pre-relativistic physics.
Einstein's special relativity made them the same thing.
> And can you have acceleration without the presence of energy?
You can't have _anything_ without the presence of energy.
> If the
> answer is yes to the first and no to the second question, then it
> seems logical to say that force and mass and acceleration are all
> descriptions of the same thing -- energy.
Acceleration is most definately not energy.
> Mass=potential energy.
No.
> Force=energy in motion.
No.
Work=energy in motion*distance.
No.
> It's all about energy.
I really think that you would understand mechanics better if you
completely forgot the term "energy." Until someone fully understands
the concepts that energy is based on, the term is positively misleading.
> And since all action stems from how energy is directed, used, or
> configured, then it depends on the quality and sophistication of the
> system as to what level of activity is produced -- the highest level
> being called life. I submit that biological life is a result of a
> system so advanced in its structure that when energy is directed
> through it, it reproduces, grows, and develops without further
> intervention.
This makes no sense. At least with how energy is used in science.
>> Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>>velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance (W =
>>integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times distance
>>(W = Fd).
>
> and if the force is not constant? Do you then not have work? I'm not
> following that one.
Before I answer this lets first explaine "if".
If x then y.
This does not tell us anything if x is not true. "If Bill had his head
chopped off then he is dead" is such a statement. But if Bill did not have
his head chopped off does not imply that Bill is not dead. He might died
of cancer.
If force is a constant then W=Fd. If force is not constant then work
is defined via calculus. (Actually it is aways defined via calculus, but
when force is constant it reduces to a simple multiplication.)
>> You may therefore say that work is mad;)
>
> I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is mad;)?
>
>> Force and work are
>>not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
>>Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
>>Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
>
> okay, would it be fair to say, then, that the common denominator for
> mass, force, and work is energy?
No.
> And would this common denominator
> extend to life?
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:57:58 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Set a 100 lb rock on your toe. Let it sit there an hour or so. How much
>>force is involved? How much energy?
>
> I would say that zero percent force is involved, and 100 percent
> energy is involved.
This makes no sense.
>>Now lift it a foot. How much force? How much energy? (Hint: Energy =
>>Force * Distance if force is constant.)
>
> wait, don't confuse me now. R. Baldwin said that "work is force times
> distance."
Energy is the capacity to do work.
> And now you're saying that energy is "force times
> distance." If both of you are right, then that means that work and
> energy are interchangeable, which means that I can say that
> energy=work, right?
No.
Zoe, it is time to stop being lazy. If you want to discuss physics
terms, it is time to learn physics. You will not learn physics by
putting various terms into a Google search engine. You need to go
to the library and learn the basics of physics.
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>Work per time unit would be power, not force.
this gets increasingly interesting. What if your energy source is
exhausted in five minutes when moving 100 pounds, but that same amount
of energy is exhausted in two hours in moving one ounce of material?
Then power would vary depending on both amount of energy source,
quantity of source used, and size of mass to be moved, right? So how
do you decide which is more powerful, the energy source that can move
100 pounds for five minutes, before exhaustion, or the energy source
that can keep one ounce of material moving for two hours, before
running out?
>Force does work per distance unit.
isn't time involved whenever force does work per distance unit? And
doesn't it depend on the quantity of the energy source and how much
force is used out of that reservoir, to determine how much time is
involved?
>> So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
>> momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
>> miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
>> depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long it
>> is exerted.
>
>No, this is wrong. Think of a weight on the floor. Force is exerted
>between them but no energy is used and there is no change in potential
>energy.
is this a case of a tension between two forces? The resistance of the
floor is one force and the weight of the mass is another force. If
the floor were removed, then depending on the weight of the mass
(potential energy?) the -- wait a minute, but if the floor drops, the
foot should move at the same speed as the weight on top of it, right?
So the foot is no longer going to incur any damage from the weight.
But if the foot+weight finally hits the newly-lowered floor, the floor
could be damaged? But then, again, if the foot and the floor and the
weight were all positioned together originally, then if the floor
drops, the foot and the weight will also drop at the same time, so
there would be no damage to the floor. There would be damage to a new
floor below the floor/foot/weight combo, though, right?
Who was it on this thread that said, "It's best not to think about
it?" It just might could send you a bit crazy.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
snip>
>"zoe_althrop" wrote:
>> I figured that, ergo, therefore, hey presto, voila, "energy" and
>> "force" were being used interchangeably here. No?
>
>No. That part of the definition is *relating* energy to force, not equating
>them. A simple example, below, should help to distinguish these two terms.
>__
>
>Let's say you want to get a crate of dictionaries on to that top shelf in
>your garage. Another way to say this, is that you want to increase that
>crate's gravitational potential energy. You will undoubtedly apply a force,
>for a period of time, that increases that energy. Because energy is
>conserved, that increase means that there is a decrease elsewhere -- namely
>you will "burn calories" while doing this *work*.
is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in operation?
>So...
>
>Energy: starts at a fixed value, and has been increased after your effort.
do you mean, increased OUT THERE somewhere in the unvierse? Are you
saying that spent energy is added to the rest of spent energy out
there? What would it take to unspend the energy out there?
>(Or, if you want to look at the energy within you, it has been decreased
>after your effort.)
meaning, decreased within? And if you could add them up, the energy
that was decreased would equal the energy that has increased out
there?
>Force: is zero at first, increases for a period of time, then ultimately
>becomes zero again.
>
>Do those sound interchangeable?
no. You're right, I see now that energy is not the exactly same as
force. But "force" describes the state of energy.
>Moreover, you can apply different forces to achieve the same increase in
>potential energy. You could lift it straight up (a strong force through a
>short distance,) or you could use an inclined plane (a weaker force through
>a longer distance.) The increase in potential energy will remain the same,
>but the forces will be different.
>
>Does energy and force still sound interchangeable?
no. I see your point. I will try to be more rigorous in the future.
>__
>
>To amplify an earlier point, (though made later than my message you've
>replied to here) obscuring the distinction between force an energy makes you
>less able to communicate. Why would you want to do that?
I don't want to do that. I get your point. Thanks.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
>> > I was pointing
>> >you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you
>asked.
>>
>> except that the blurbs to those papers talk about assisted self
>> assembly and controlled self assembly. Why would I want to read
>> further when what I am interested in is unassisted self assembly and
>> uncontrolled self assembly?
>>
>
>If that is what you are interested in, it will also remain unobserved.
>Chemistry research generally requires mixing reactants and reagents
>under specific conditions, not hunting about in nature hoping to find
>the right conditions.
If a hypothesis is proposed, then the scientific method is to look for
evidence that would substantiate that hypothesis, right? If you
consider that to be "hunting about in nature hoping to find the right
conditions," then that is your perspective, but I don't think
scientists view it that way.
So, using your perspective, if the hypothesis says that systems can
self assemble, then you have to hunt about in nature in hopes of
finding substantiation for such a hypothesis. If there is no
evidence, then the hypothesis must be discarded. Why has the
hypothesis of abiogenesis not been discarded?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
snip>
R. Baldwin wrote:
>>>As others noted, a listing of papers is not evidence.
>>
>>"As others noted"? Where? I think you're the first to say that a
>>listing of papers is not evidence.
>
>He's not.
>
><http://tinyurl.com/z2fu>
>(<http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=l35tsvo1sj6kq33hs...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en>)
my apology. You did say that a mere listing is not evidence.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> Tell me, though, why would you ask for units for the formula,
>> energy+systems=Life? That "equation" is in the same category as
>> blue+yellow=green. Would you ask for the units for blue, yellow and
>> green?
>
>Blue, yellow, and green have units of nanometers or terahertz if they
>are monchromatic.
okay, applying that to my systems+energy=life equation, then "systems"
would not correspond to monochromatic color.
Pure blue would have only one wavelength, whereas systems would have
several interrelating parts that, without them, the system would not
function in the way it presently does.
Energy, though, would correspond to "monochromatic" in that energy, if
it could be identified and defined correctly, would be pure in
whatever state it is finally identified and defined to be.
Life would not be monochromatic since, like systems, it can be found
in so many varied forms and functions.
Rephrasing then, systems+energy=life is in the same category as
blue-wavelengths+pure yellow=green-wavelengths, where wavelengths
refer to the range of wavelengths that make up a particular recognized
color.
Is that better?
----
zoe
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:57:58 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Set a 100 lb rock on your toe. Let it sit there an hour or so. How
much
> >force is involved? How much energy?
>
> I would say that zero percent force is involved, and 100 percent
> energy is involved.
You have it backwards. There is 100 lb of force and zero energy.
>
> >Now lift it a foot. How much force? How much energy? (Hint: Energy
=
> >Force * Distance if force is constant.)
>
> wait, don't confuse me now. R. Baldwin said that "work is force
times
> distance." And now you're saying that energy is "force times
> distance." If both of you are right, then that means that work and
> energy are interchangeable, which means that I can say that
> energy=work, right?
Work is a form of energy, but not all energy is work. Potential energy
is not work.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:06:26 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times
acceleration
> >(F = ma).
>
> okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
Yes, if you are discussing nuclear physics or objects traveling near
the speed of light. For Newtonian physics and most chemistry, that
does not matter.
> And can you have acceleration without the presence of energy?
In a friction-free environment, a constant force on an object would
produce constant acceleration without the application of energy. In
the practical world, at least a small amount of energy is needed in
near-frictionless cases to overcome the energy lost in heat and sound.
> If the
> answer is yes to the first and no to the second question, then it
> seems logical to say that force and mass and acceleration are all
> descriptions of the same thing -- energy. Mass=potential energy.
> Force=energy in motion. Work=energy in motion*distance. It's all
> about energy.
No, force and acceleration are not energy. They have different units
of measure.
mass kilograms
velocity meters per second
acceleration meters per second squared
force kilogram-meters per second squared
(Newtons)
energy kilogram-meters squared per second squared.
While you can express a particle's mass in terms of energy (usually
given in electron-volts), that is not a helpful construct in classical
physics, most chemistry, or any kind of biology. A particle's rest
mass and relativistic mass are approximately the same in these
situations, and the error between them is not worth introducing the
Lorentz transformations.
Force is not energy in motion. Force is mass times acceleration.
Work is not energy in motion * distance. Work is a form of energy.
>
> And since all action stems from how energy is directed, used, or
> configured, then it depends on the quality and sophistication of the
> system as to what level of activity is produced -- the highest level
> being called life. I submit that biological life is a result of a
> system so advanced in its structure that when energy is directed
> through it, it reproduces, grows, and develops without further
> intervention.
No system does anything useful without energy consumption. Life is
that which reproduces, grows, develops, and responds to stimuli. The
fact that it consumes energy is a trivial consequence of the second
law of thermodynamics.
>
> > Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
> >velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance
(W =
> >integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times
distance
> >(W = Fd).
>
> and if the force is not constant? Do you then not have work? I'm
not
> following that one.
If the force is constant you have to calculate the integral, which is
not as simple as multiplying force times distance. You don't have work
if the object doesn't move (no work is done by gravity acting on your
couch as it rests on the floor).
>
> > You may therefore say that work is mad;)
>
> I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is
mad;)?
mass times acceleration times distance. My little joke.
>
> > Force and work are
> >not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
> >Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
> >Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
>
> okay, would it be fair to say, then, that the common denominator for
> mass, force, and work is energy? And would this common denominator
> extend to life?
No, force and work have different units of measure. The common
demoninator in those units is seconds squared, but the numerator is
different.
Living things convert and use energy. So do many non-living things.
Many simple chemical reactions result in an energy transfer to or from
the environment.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
zoe_althrop
(Eric Rowley) wrote:
snip>
Ross Langerak wrote:
>> >You assume that there is a "who".
>
>> it's not a baseless assumption. Many systems are known to be made
>> by "who" and so it is not inconsistent for the "who" question to
>> be triggered when other systems are encountered.
>
>That does not follow, I could just as easily say "Many things are
>known to be made by "who" (us to be exact) and so it is not
>inconsistent for the "who" question to be triggered when other
>things are encountered."
except that a question addressed to "things" is not as focused as a
question addressed to "systems." "Thing" is so broad that it would be
inconsistent for the "who" question to be asked at this level. But
"system" is more explicitly defined, with properties that are found in
all artificial systems made by "who." A "thing" might raise questions
as to if it were deliberately made or formed through natural
happenstance of nature's forces. A "system" is never observed to form
through the natural happenstance of nature's forces. Therefore, the
"who" question is relevant to systems and irrelevant to "things."
>But we know for a fact that many things are made by natural causes
>with no "who" involved so we would be wrong to assume that all
>things are made by a who.
again, you cannot claim that because systems are already running in
nature without a who in sight, that this is evidence that there is no
Who. An uninitiated native from some part of the world that has no
computers, might be excused for thinking that a computer program runs
all by itself without the input of any intelligence. He has had no
experience with programmers or programming. But an educated person
like yourself is not excused for thinking that because systems are up
and running in nature, that, therefore, there is no Who.
>And it would be equaly wrong to assume that all systems are caused
>by "who"s.
all artificial systems that we know of so far are caused by who's.
Extrapolation to natural systems is reasonable and scientific,
especially if there is no evidence of self-assembling systems in
nature. (Already assembled systems that appear to further self
assemble do not qualify as self-assembling from scratch.)
>Especially since many systems are known to self assemble.
where have you seen a circulatory system assemble, or a nervous
system? Where have you seen a chemiosmosis process self assemble in
nature? Where have you seen a cell form and begin to replicate from a
string of RNA molecules or a string of amino acids?
What systems do you have in mind that are known to self assemble from
scratch?
>> > If you ask "how" instead, that can
>> >tell you if there is a "who".
>
>> indeed, and it is the "how" that tells me that there is a "Who."
>
>What, exactly, _is_ the "how" that you think points to a "who"?
observation of what it takes to put an artificial system together
leads to the conclusion that no artifcial system can self assemble.
There is always a who behind them. Observation of similar systems in
nature -- ADP to ATP, for instance, following the principles of a
battery -- should logically lead to the conclusion that there is also
a Who involved. There is no reason to stop following the path of
reasoning that says that systems are always created by a who. Why
would you reason correctly for one set of systems, but change course
for another set of systems? What causes the sudden resistance to
carrying the line of reasoning through to nature? Dislike of a who?
Fear of a who? Disinterest in a who? Because if there is a Who ( and
there is) then the evolutionist theory of self-assembly goes out the
window?
>Because the hows that we see working in nature seem to point to
>natural causes.
a native from the jungles, who has no idea of how the computer works,
might be forgiven for thinking that a computer operation is due to
natural causes. But then, again, a native from the jungles might look
at the miraculous behavior of a computer and conclude that there is a
god behind it. And he wouldn't be wrong.
snip>
>> >Again, you assume that there is a "who", which is a waste of
>> >time if there is no "who".
>
>> but well worth the effort if there IS indeed a "Who." If there is
>> an "if" to the question, then it would be wise to take the time
>> to be certain that there is or is not a "Who." If there is no
>> who, the time was not wasted, for the "if" question is resolved.
>
>That is assuming that the question can be resolved, how would you
>suggest going about doing that?
by examining the evidence, admitting that it is not unreasonable to
conclude a Who, and then making the decision to work with the
conclusion by moving from the field of science to the field of
theology where the search for truth begins. I submit to you that the
Bible is the best source of truth about Who.
>If there is no "who" then the question can never be resolved, there
>could always be a "who" that can't be found.
if there is no "Who" I would expect to find chaos, not order,
confusion, not organization. Since I do not find this, then I think
the question of "If there is no who" is resolved.
>And if there is a "who" it isn't self evident, just running around
>looking for a possible "who" does appear to be a waste of time.
nothing could be more self evident than the Who who personally
presented Himself in human form, walked and talked with humans, and
gave them irrefutable proof that He was God. It is up to you to
believe the eyewitnesses and start interacting with this God, or you
can refuse to believe. That is about all the freewill that we have
left to us anymore -- to believe and accept Jesus as God or to refuse
Him and remain as you are.
There's a reason why I say: That's about all the freewil that we have
left anymore. But that's another discussion.
>It would seem that the best way to resolve the question (as best we
>can) would be to examine the how and see if it points to any
>"who"s, so far it doesn't appear to.
for me, it points clearly to Who. To you, so far, it does not. I've
chosen to exercise what freewill I have left to accept and believe in
this Who, and I've discovered that my freewill has an increasing
amount of room in which to operate. I invite you to use what freewill
you have left to move from rejection to acceptance. It's a worthwhile
journey, once you begin.
>> But if there is a Who, then it would be well worth
>> investigating....unless you're afraid of what you'd find???
>
>> > If you ask "how" instead, that can tell you if
>> >there is a "who".
>
>> and, again, the "how" has told me that there is a Who.
>
>How?
by extrapolating from what I observe that it takes to put artificial
systems together.
>I don't believe you, I don't think you're lying, I just think
>you're wrong,
fair enough. I appreciate the high road you've taken.
>I think that you were steered towards the "how"
>you think you see by the way you think about the "who" you are
>thinking of.
do you think that the "how" I see is all in my mind when it comes to
artificial systems? My conclusions on that score are not influenced
by preconceived notions. This is common knowledge. Artificial
systems always have a creator.
And if I had never been introduced to the God of the Bible, I would
hope that I would still ask the who question, only because it is a
reasonable question to ask.
snip>
>> what organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that
>> self assemble, please?
>
>All of them, in the sense that the parts assemble themselves.
>If you mean starting from scratch then:
>
>What organism do you have to proffer that contains systems that
>are being assembled by a god, please?
the systems I am talking about have already been assembled by God, so
it would be useless to ask me to present systems that are presently
being assembled by God. They have already been set in motion, just as
my computer program has already been put together and set in motion by
an intelligence at some time in the past.
>Neither will be found,
self-assembly will not be found. But already-running systems are in
abundant supply.
> the mechanisms for assembling organisms
>are in place, using them is more efficient than self assembly
>or waiting for a god, and any organism that relied on the old
>fashioned way
what is this old-fashioned way?
> would be out competed in no time flat, also
>conditions have changed since life started, any organic molecules
>hanging around on there way to becoming assembled would be eaten
>by something before they had a chance to selfassemble.
so abiogenetic evolution is a thing of the past, you're saying?
That's kind of convenient, isn't it?
>> And, remember, just because you can't see
>> the programmer of your computer, and yet the computer processes
>> appear to be running on their own, does not mean there is no
>> programmer.
>
>No, it is quite obvious that computers need builders/programers,
>they are incapable of building or programing themselves.
why the abrupt change in the line of reasoning?
>Life is a different matter altogether, it builds and "programs"
>itself,
evidence for this building and self programming, please? You can't
say, well, we are here today, so that is evidence. You wouldn't like
it if I said, well, we are here today, so that is evidence for a
Creator, would you? You would want more evidence. My evidence is in
the fact that man-made systems do not self assemble, so why should I
switch gears and decide that even though man-made systems do not self
assemble, any other similar systems in nature must have
self-assembled?
> and although it isn't known for sure how it all got started
>there are many hypotheses.
right, and God as the Creator is one of the hypotheses. Please make
room for it on your table, lest you be accused of prejudice.
>> Therefore, you must not give me already-functioning
>> systems as your example. You must give me an example of observed
>> self assembly of a system --NOT a chain of RNA or amino acids
>> that have no function, mind you, but a system like the
>> circulatory system, or the nervous system, or chemiosmosis, that
>> sort of system self-assembling.
>
>Here we go again, why o why can none of these silly scientists
>duplicate hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution and/or
>abiogenisis (happening planet wide with billions of
>organisms/millions of tons of organic molecules) in a testtube?
>
>Surely someone could spare their coffee break to show them
>creationists?
if you have a hypothesis, you must be able to support it. If you
can't because you don't have the ability to support it, then it is an
unsupportable hypothesis and should be dropped.
I am giving you a hypothesis that intelligence is behind nature. I
can support that hypothesis with the evidence that systems always
bespeak intelligence.
snip>
----
zoe
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:19:44 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Work per time unit would be power, not force.
>
> this gets increasingly interesting. What if your energy source is
> exhausted in five minutes when moving 100 pounds, but that same
amount
> of energy is exhausted in two hours in moving one ounce of material?
> Then power would vary depending on both amount of energy source,
> quantity of source used, and size of mass to be moved, right? So
how
> do you decide which is more powerful, the energy source that can
move
> 100 pounds for five minutes, before exhaustion, or the energy source
> that can keep one ounce of material moving for two hours, before
> running out?
Power measures the rate at which energy is delivered. Its most common
unit of measure is the Watt. Your electricity bill is based on the
number of kilowatt-hours (energy units) you used. A kilowatt-hour is
60,000 Joules.
An energy storage device (say, a battery) has a given amount of
energy, in Joules, stored up. You can delivery the energy from the
source fast or slow. If you use more watts, the stored energy is
consumed faster.
For example, if you run your radio on your car battery, it will last a
long time because it needs only a few watts. If you run your
headlamps, it will not last a long time because they need more watts.
The battery starts with the same number of Joules regardless.
Generally the power does not vary with the energy source, but depends
on the load.
>
> >Force does work per distance unit.
>
> isn't time involved whenever force does work per distance unit? And
> doesn't it depend on the quantity of the energy source and how much
> force is used out of that reservoir, to determine how much time is
> involved?
No, time is not involved. Work = force times distance regardless of
time. You don't put force in a reservoir. You can store energy in a
reservoir.
>
> >> So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
> >> momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
> >> miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
> >> depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long
it
> >> is exerted.
> >
> >No, this is wrong. Think of a weight on the floor. Force is exerted
> >between them but no energy is used and there is no change in
potential
> >energy.
>
> is this a case of a tension between two forces? The resistance of
the
> floor is one force and the weight of the mass is another force.
Tension is force in a material, and may or may not involve movement.
In the case of a weight on the floor, the force exerted by the floor
equals the force of gravity acting on the weight, so there is no
movement. The forces are balanced.
> If
> the floor were removed, then depending on the weight of the mass
> (potential energy?) the -- wait a minute, but if the floor drops,
the
> foot should move at the same speed as the weight on top of it,
right?
> So the foot is no longer going to incur any damage from the weight.
> But if the foot+weight finally hits the newly-lowered floor, the
floor
> could be damaged? But then, again, if the foot and the floor and
the
> weight were all positioned together originally, then if the floor
> drops, the foot and the weight will also drop at the same time, so
> there would be no damage to the floor. There would be damage to a
new
> floor below the floor/foot/weight combo, though, right?
If the floor dropped, the weight would drop with it. If you pulled the
floor out from under the weight, it would drop and gain kinetic energy
equal to the loss in potential energy.
R. Baldwin
> R. Baldwin wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> > I was pointing
> >> >you in the direction of papers that discuss the questions you
> >asked.
> >>
> >> except that the blurbs to those papers talk about assisted self
> >> assembly and controlled self assembly. Why would I want to read
> >> further when what I am interested in is unassisted self assembly
and
> >> uncontrolled self assembly?
> >>
> >
> >If that is what you are interested in, it will also remain
unobserved.
> >Chemistry research generally requires mixing reactants and reagents
> >under specific conditions, not hunting about in nature hoping to
find
> >the right conditions.
>
> If a hypothesis is proposed, then the scientific method is to look
for
> evidence that would substantiate that hypothesis, right? If you
> consider that to be "hunting about in nature hoping to find the
right
> conditions," then that is your perspective, but I don't think
> scientists view it that way.
Scientists would have no problem with the proposition that, if they
mix a few common reactants and reagents in a lab environment, the same
mixture can happen outside the lab without their help.
>
> So, using your perspective, if the hypothesis says that systems can
> self assemble, then you have to hunt about in nature in hopes of
> finding substantiation for such a hypothesis. If there is no
> evidence, then the hypothesis must be discarded. Why has the
> hypothesis of abiogenesis not been discarded?
That is the opposite of my perspective. If chemists come up with
molecules that self-assemble, then molecules can self-assemble,
period. Whether the chemist mixed the reactants and reagents is
irrelavent.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:18:23 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> Tell me, though, why would you ask for units for the formula,
> >> energy+systems=Life? That "equation" is in the same category as
> >> blue+yellow=green. Would you ask for the units for blue, yellow
and
> >> green?
> >
> >Blue, yellow, and green have units of nanometers or terahertz if
they
> >are monchromatic.
>
> okay, applying that to my systems+energy=life equation, then
"systems"
> would not correspond to monochromatic color.
>
> Pure blue would have only one wavelength, whereas systems would have
> several interrelating parts that, without them, the system would not
> function in the way it presently does.
>
> Energy, though, would correspond to "monochromatic" in that energy,
if
> it could be identified and defined correctly, would be pure in
> whatever state it is finally identified and defined to be.
>
> Life would not be monochromatic since, like systems, it can be found
> in so many varied forms and functions.
I really don't get what you mean.
>
> Rephrasing then, systems+energy=life is in the same category as
> blue-wavelengths+pure yellow=green-wavelengths, where wavelengths
> refer to the range of wavelengths that make up a particular
recognized
> color.
>
> Is that better?
Good lord, no! Spectra are additive. If you have mix two monochromatic
spectra, you get a spectrum with two wavelengths.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
AC
zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:36 +0000 (UTC), AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:21:54 +0000 (UTC),
>>zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> artificial intelligence, as demonstrated in robots, would support my
>>> proffer that human intelligence has godlike tendencies.
>>
>>First of all, I wouldn't say robots are artificially intelligent.
>
> what are they, if not AI?
Machines. They are no smarter than your computer or a lightswitch. They
aren't really smart at all, in the sense that we would usually apply to
humans and other higher animals. I'm assuming here you don't believe
intelligence is simply the ability to perform pre-programmed actions.
>
>> Second,
>>what do you mean by "Godlike"?
>
> human intelligence has godlike tendencies in the sense that we are
> master of our own creation, and our created items belong to us. The
> robot answers to its maker, not vice versa.
The robot is a device that simply does what it is programmed. That
programming may be flexible enough to permit it to react to a limited range
of changing circumstances. Does your toaster oven answer to you?
>
> Question: If you could create a robot that was almost humanlike in
> its abilities, would you consider giving it freewill? Why or why not?
If it was human like, then I would consider that it likely already had free
will (whatever that might mean). If you are asking if I intentionally went
out and made a machine capable of emulating or producing human-like
intelligence, then I'd have to say I'd be awfully nervous about giving it
free reign (ala Terminator's Skynet). You don't make a car without brakes.
But I don't really consider the machines we build to be evidence of any
god-like ability? If being a tool-user is a Godlike attribute, then I'd
have to say chimpanzees have Godlike powers. Would you accept that?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Abner Mintz
> okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
Mass can be converted to energy, and energy to mass. However,
this does not make them the same thing. Diamond can be converted
to pencil lead, and vice versa, but they're not the same thing.
> And can you have acceleration without the presence of energy?
You can have acceleration without a *change* in energy (I can't
think of any system without *any* energy). You can also have
energy without acceleration. Thus, it's pretty clear that
they're not the same thing.
> Mass=potential energy.
No. Potential energy is energy that is not the result of
motion (and kinetic energy is energy that is the result of motion).
> Force=energy in motion.
No, a force is something that causes an acceleration (a change
in velocity).
>> Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>>velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance (W =
>>integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times distance
>>(W = Fd).
> and if the force is not constant? Do you then not have work?
No, then the work is the integral of force over distance; force
times distance is solution for work for constant force.
Perhaps this will help: If you have a car going at a constant
velocity (for example, 60 miles/hr west), then you can find
the distance it went by multiplying the velocity times the time,
d = vt (for example, in 3 hours the car went 60 miles/hour west
* 3 hours = 180 miles west). If the car went at a varying
velocity (the velocity was variable, not constant), this simplistic
equation no longer works, and you have to somehow add up the
varying velocity times time, so (using calculus) d = the integral
of velocity over time (d = integral v dt).
Constant velocity is simpler than varying velocity, so you can
use the simpler equation to find the solution for distance.
Same for varying force vs. constant force for finding work.
> I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is mad;)?
He meant W = Fd, F = ma, so W = (ma)d = mad by (substitution).
> > Force and work are
> >not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
> >Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
> >Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
> okay, would it be fair to say, then, that the common denominator for
> mass, force, and work is energy?
Not according to physics. Physics uses these terms in very
different ways, and trying to reduce them all to energy would
result in failing a physics class in short order.
Richard Uhrich
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:57:58 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
> <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Set a 100 lb rock on your toe. Let it sit there an hour or so. How much
>>force is involved? How much energy?
>
>
> I would say that zero percent force is involved, and 100 percent
> energy is involved.
No. 100 lb force; 0 lbf * ft.
And where did you get %?
>
>
>>Now lift it a foot. How much force? How much energy? (Hint: Energy =
>>Force * Distance if force is constant.)
No answer?
>
>
> wait, don't confuse me now. R. Baldwin said that "work is force times
> distance." And now you're saying that energy is "force times
> distance." If both of you are right, then that means that work and
> energy are interchangeable, which means that I can say that
> energy=work, right?
"Energy is the capability to do work." But energy=work only in the
special sense that a certain of amount of work requires at least that
much energy be expendeed. If a massive amount of energy is avaiable but
unused, no work is done.
force is not enrgy
work is not energy
energy can be used to do work
>
> ----
> zoe
>
--
"This [Bush] administration has a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We
know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"
--- Greg Theilman, former State Department intelligence analyst
H,R.Gruemm
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3fdb929a.164844003@news-
> server.cfl.rr.com:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:06:26 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> > <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> >>Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
> >>(F = ma).
> >
> > okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
>
> That is a complicated question. Not in pre-relativistic physics.
> Einstein's special relativity made them the same thing.
Beg to differ. The term which arises from rest mass is a
*contribution* to the total energy; that doesn't make mass the same
thing as energy. Rest mass is a relativistic invariant *); energy,
being the time-time component of a 4-dimensional tensor is not (the
other components contain stress, pressure, momentum etc.).
IMHO, mass and energy are *not* interchangeable, despite the
popularizations of Einstein's famous formula.
*) isn't changed by transitions to another reference system.
Regards,
HRG.
Cubist
[massive snippage]
> all artificial systems that we know of so far are caused by who's.
> Extrapolation to natural systems is reasonable and scientific...
So... what you're saying here is: Because all systems created by
humans need a 'who' to create them, all systems *not* created by
humans need a 'who' to create *them*, too.
Do you see a problem in that reasoning, Zoe?
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
><arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>R. Baldwin <res0...@nozirevbackwards.net> wrote:
>>> Zoe, in classical Newtonian physics, force is mass times acceleration
>>> (F = ma). Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>>> velocity (a = dv/dt).
>>
>> Ye ghods! I'm not sure you want to bring calculus into a
>>Zoethread.
>
>why not? I'm interested in learning -- believe it or not.
You're not going to learn calculus here. Take a course if you want.
>> All those divisions of infinitesimals can only lead to 0/0
>><shudder>.
>
>hmmm...what is the answer to 0/0? That's even more interesting than
>5/0.
Sometimes it's undefined. Sometimes there is an answer, but what the
answer is depends on the situation.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Jon Fleming
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>If the force is constant you have to calculate the integral, which is
>not as simple as multiplying force times distance.
er, ITYM "If the force is NOT constant you have to calculate the
integral ..."
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>Mass=potential energy
No. Mass is energy that could be manifested in a form that we more
directly recognize as energy, and if you were making up new
terminology you might call that "potential energy", but the phrase
"potential energy" already means something else.
Please don't make up terminology without announcing that you are
making it up. I recommend that you _ASK_ what terminology is used
_BEFORE_ making up your own and confusing everybody.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:12:56 +0000 (UTC), "Grinder"
><gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>"zoe_althrop" wrote:
>
>>> I figured that, ergo, therefore, hey presto, voila, "energy" and
>>> "force" were being used interchangeably here. No?
>>
>>No. That part of the definition is *relating* energy to force, not equating
>>them. A simple example, below, should help to distinguish these two terms.
>>__
>>
>>Let's say you want to get a crate of dictionaries on to that top shelf in
>>your garage. Another way to say this, is that you want to increase that
>>crate's gravitational potential energy. You will undoubtedly apply a force,
>>for a period of time, that increases that energy. Because energy is
>>conserved, that increase means that there is a decrease elsewhere -- namely
>>you will "burn calories" while doing this *work*.
>
>is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in operation?
No. In the problem as he stated it, there's no thermodynamic aspect.
In the simplistic but still useful calculations we're talking about
here, if you take the crate _off_ the top shelf and put it back on the
floor, you get all the energy (that it took to lift it up to the
shelf) back. The 2LoT says that, in the real world, you _don't_ get
all that energy back.
>>So...
>>
>>Energy: starts at a fixed value, and has been increased after your effort.
>
>do you mean, increased OUT THERE somewhere in the unvierse?
No, in the crate.
> Are you
>saying that spent energy is added to the rest of spent energy out
>there?
No, he's not.
>What would it take to unspend the energy out there?
Meaningless.
>>(Or, if you want to look at the energy within you, it has been decreased
>>after your effort.)
>
>meaning, decreased within? And if you could add them up, the energy
>that was decreased would equal the energy that has increased out
>there?
The energy increased in the crate, the energy in you decreased. We
can often say (without introducing a serious error) that the two
energies are approximately equal. Thermodynamics says that whatever
lost energy (you) lost more energy than was put into the other thing
(the crate). The difference between the two energies turned into
heat, and warmed up the room a teensy weentsy eentsy bit.
That little bit of heat _did _turn into "spent energy out there". And,
before you ask, it would take a miracle to "unspend" it. That's
another thing thermodynamics tells us; crudely put, "spent energy" is
spent forever. Unfortunately, you have no idea of what energy is
spent and what energy is not spent.
<snip>
Grinder
> >> I figured that, ergo, therefore, hey presto, voila, "energy" and
> >> "force" were being used interchangeably here. No?
"Grinder" wrote:
> >No. That part of the definition is *relating* energy to force, not
equating
> >them. A simple example, below, should help to distinguish these two
terms.
> >__
> >
> >Let's say you want to get a crate of dictionaries on to that top shelf in
> >your garage. Another way to say this, is that you want to increase that
> >crate's gravitational potential energy. You will undoubtedly apply a
force,
> >for a period of time, that increases that energy. Because energy is
> >conserved, that increase means that there is a decrease elsewhere --
namely
> >you will "burn calories" while doing this *work*.
"zoe_althrop" wrote:
> is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in operation?
If you like, you can account for energy "degradation" in elevating a crate
of dictionaries. Up to this point, I've left it out to focus on the
distinction between energy and force.
> >So...
> >
> >Energy: starts at a fixed value, and has been increased after your
effort.
> do you mean, increased OUT THERE somewhere in the unvierse? Are you
> saying that spent energy is added to the rest of spent energy out
> there? What would it take to unspend the energy out there?
Nope -- I'm referring to the crate's gravitational potential energy. You
don't ever "spend" energy, you just convert it. See below.
> >(Or, if you want to look at the energy within you, it has been decreased
> >after your effort.)
>
> meaning, decreased within? And if you could add them up, the energy
> that was decreased would equal the energy that has increased out
> there?
Yes. This is the "conservation of energy," that makes "energy" such a
useful abstraction.
Potential Energy of the Crate (PE) + Zoe's Energy (ZE) = 0
This equation shows that any increase in potential energy must be balanced
by a corresponding decrease in your energy. If you want to make it a bit
more realistic, you should include a term for frictional loss:
PE + ZE + Heat = 0
Basicially, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require Heat > 0. Heat has
units of energy, just like PE and ZE.
> >Force: is zero at first, increases for a period of time, then ultimately
> >becomes zero again.
> >
> >Do those sound interchangeable?
>
> no. You're right, I see now that energy is not the exactly same as
> force. But "force" describes the state of energy.
They're not even close to the same thing, even if they are often *closely
related*.
> >Moreover, you can apply different forces to achieve the same increase in
> >potential energy. You could lift it straight up (a strong force through
a
> >short distance,) or you could use an inclined plane (a weaker force
through
> >a longer distance.) The increase in potential energy will remain the
same,
> >but the forces will be different.
> >
> >Does energy and force still sound interchangeable?
> no. I see your point. I will try to be more rigorous in the future.
> >__
> >
> >To amplify an earlier point, (though made later than my message you've
> >replied to here) obscuring the distinction between force an energy makes
you
> >less able to communicate. Why would you want to do that?
> I don't want to do that. I get your point.
I'm not trying to bust you -- I swear. By knowing what the words that you
use mean, you will be better equipped to say what you mean. You've remarked
that that would be seen as an advantage by you. For my part, I'm interested
in what you have to say, and hope this will help you do so.
> Thanks.
You are welcome.
Grinder
> >Energy is the capability (not necessarily used) to do
> >a certain amount of work whereas a force is actualy doing a certain
> >amount of work per time unit.
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> or put another way: Force is energy in action?
I hope Eric won't be bothered if I say his remark is mistaken. Your
restatement is not correct, in any meaningful way that I understand. (As a
side note, "action" is also a defined physics term.)
> >So that's two differances, potential vs actual and total vs
> >momentary, think of the later as the difference between miles and
> >miles per hour, the amount of energy needed to exert a force
> >depends not only on how strong the force is but on for how long it
> >is exerted.
> length of exertion time also depends on amount of energy available to
> be used? So miles would be the equivalent of energy and mph would be
> the equivalent of taxing that energy source?
I'm sorry, I'm not really following the metaphor anymore -- I suspect it has
been wrecked by Eric's initial mistatement.
> >Turn the crank on a well to pull up a bucket of water for one
> >second and you are using the same force (ignoring inertia) as if
> >you turn it for a minute (i's a deeep well) ;-) but in the first
> >case you use less energy and do less work.
> and if you cranked it for five minutes and collapsed in a heap of
> exhaustion, then that might mean that you had only five minutes worth
> of energy at your disposal?
True enough.
> And the entropy of the universe has now
> increased by five minutes worth of your spent energy?
Basically, yes. Anytime you *convert* energy, some of it ends up in its
lowest form -- heat.
R. Baldwin
news:piqotvk7q3qgn0mok...@4ax.com...
Yes, thank you. The missing word must have split off on another
packet. Or something like that. Doh!
Harlequin
news:5662bb3.03121...@posting.google.com:
I really did not want to talk about rest masses versus
relativistic masses since that is likely only to further
confuse and mislead Zoe. Clearly if you define mass as the
rest mass, energy and mass are not interchangable. Am I
wrong in thinking that the relativistic masses and energy
are two different ways of looking at the same thing? I know
that particle physicists often measure masses of subatomic
particles in terms of energy.
zoe_althrop
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
snip>
zoe asked:
>>hmmm...what is the answer to 0/0? That's even more interesting than
>>5/0.
>
>Sometimes it's undefined. Sometimes there is an answer, but what the
>answer is depends on the situation.
you mean, like if the situation is one in which the question is: How
many times can zero be divided by zero, the answer will be
"Undefined"?
And if the situation is one in which the question is asked: "What
happens to zero if you divide it by zero, the answer will be "zero"?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
zoe asked:
>> Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
>
>That is a complicated question. Not in pre-relativistic physics.
>Einstein's special relativity made them the same thing.
I can't speak for pre-relativistic physics or Einstein's special
relativity, but creation theory holds that mass and energy are
interchangeable. I took it for granted that this was a given in the
field of science, that is why I asked the above question.
Creation theory, as far as I understand it, holds that it is the
interchangeability of mass and energy that makes the process of
creation possible.
snip>
>> If the
>> answer is yes to the first and no to the second question, then it
>> seems logical to say that force and mass and acceleration are all
>> descriptions of the same thing -- energy.
>
>
>Acceleration is most definately not energy.
please note that I said that acceleration is a DESCRIPTION of energy,
not that it is energy itself.
>> Mass=potential energy.
>
>
>No.
okay, I'll try that again. Mass=organized energy.
After reading a little more, though, I would now describe potential
energy as the descriptive word used for "mass that is positioned to do
work" (i.e., to fall, or be thrown, or placed in motion). Mass that
is positioned to do work would be considered to have stored energy or
potential energy.
Are we any closer to communication now?
>> Force=energy in motion.
>
>No.
isn't force=mass*acceleration? And isn't mass=organized energy (since
mass and energy are interchangeable)? Therefore, I would submit that
mass*acceleration is the same as energy in motion. And if
mass*acceleration is force, then force can be energy in motion.
Indeed, now that I think about it (beware chezwattage), the atomic
particles in mass are themselves in motion, aren't they? Wouldn't
that motion create a force, weak though it may be, due to the
acceleration of these atomic particles bouncing off of each other?
Maybe it is this force that contributes to the effect known as
gravity?
>Work=energy in motion*distance.
>
>No.
well, isn't work the same as force acting on an object to cause
displacement? If so, I think that it fits the above if you substitute
"energy in motion" for "force," and if you substitute "distance" with
displacement.
>> It's all about energy.
>
>I really think that you would understand mechanics better if you
>completely forgot the term "energy."
actually, I am not trying to do mechanics here. I am just trying to
communicate my perspective on creation, which means explaining my
terms. If you understand what my terms mean, then you will understand
what I am trying to say. I do not expect any of my terms to be used
in any context other than to understand what I mean by creation.
> Until someone fully understands
>the concepts that energy is based on, the term is positively misleading.
have scientists dropped the use of the term "energy" from their work?
snip>
>>> Acceleration is the time derivative, or rate of change, of
>>>velocity (a = dv/dt). Work is the integral of force over distance (W =
>>>integ F dx). Where the force is constant, work is force times distance
>>>(W = Fd).
>>
>> and if the force is not constant? Do you then not have work? I'm not
>> following that one.
>
>Before I answer this lets first explaine "if".
>
>If x then y.
>
>This does not tell us anything if x is not true. "If Bill had his head
>chopped off then he is dead" is such a statement. But if Bill did not have
>his head chopped off does not imply that Bill is not dead. He might died
>of cancer.
>
>If force is a constant then W=Fd. If force is not constant then work
>is defined via calculus. (Actually it is aways defined via calculus, but
>when force is constant it reduces to a simple multiplication.)
okay, I see what you're saying. You're not saying that no work is
done when force is not constant, but that when it is constant, then
you can use the simpler formula of force times distance. Did I get it
this time?
>>> You may therefore say that work is mad;)
>>
>> I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is mad;)?
>>
>>> Force and work are
>>>not interchangeable. Work is in units of energy (Joules or
>>>Watt-seconds in SI units, or kg-m^2/s^). The units of force are
>>>Newtons (kg-m/s^2) in SI units.
>>
>> okay, would it be fair to say, then, that the common denominator for
>> mass, force, and work is energy?
>
>No.
I am using "common denominator" in the sense of "shared
characteristic." Whether you talk about mass or force or work, there
is a common denominator or shared characteristic for all three
descriptions -- energy.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
snip>
>IMHO, mass and energy are *not* interchangeable, despite the
>popularizations of Einstein's famous formula.
mass and energy appear not to be interchangeable because we humans
don't know how to do it. Creation theory would hold that an
Intelligence far in advance of ours knows how to interchange energy
and mass. Hence the ability to create.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(Abner Mintz) wrote:
>zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
>
>Mass can be converted to energy, and energy to mass. However,
> this does not make them the same thing.
I don't think I said they were the same thing. When energy is
converted to mass, then the result is mass, not energy. When mass is
converted to energy, the result is energy, not mass. So, no, I am not
saying that they are the same thing. I am saying that they are
interchangeable.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> okay -- accepted. Aren't mass and energy interchangeable, though?
>
>Yes, if you are discussing nuclear physics or objects traveling near
>the speed of light. For Newtonian physics and most chemistry, that
>does not matter.
it does matter, though, if I want to discuss creation theory. Since
it is scientifically possible for mass and energy to interchange, I
would therefore proffer this as a law of creation -- the converting of
energy into mass. And the mechanism here would be intelligence.
snip>
> In
>the practical world, at least a small amount of energy is needed in
>near-frictionless cases to overcome the energy lost in heat and sound.
>
>> If the
>> answer is yes to the first and no to the second question, then it
>> seems logical to say that force and mass and acceleration are all
>> descriptions of the same thing -- energy. Mass=potential energy.
>> Force=energy in motion. Work=energy in motion*distance. It's all
>> about energy.
>
>No, force and acceleration are not energy.
Grinder made that clear to me. As a result, I will make an effort to
use the terms carefully. But please note that I didn't actually say
above that force IS energy. I said it is energy in motion. "Force"
is just a descriptive word for what energy is doing. Neither did I
say that acceleration is the same as energy. "Acceleration" is a
descriptive word for what energy is doing.
> They have different units
>of measure.
>
> mass kilograms
> velocity meters per second
> acceleration meters per second squared
> force kilogram-meters per second squared
>(Newtons)
> energy kilogram-meters squared per second squared.
these units of measure should clue me in as to exactly what energy is
doing, right? If the units of measure are in kilograms, we know we're
talking about energy organized as mass, for instance, and so on?
>While you can express a particle's mass in terms of energy (usually
>given in electron-volts), that is not a helpful construct in classical
>physics, most chemistry, or any kind of biology. A particle's rest
>mass and relativistic mass are approximately the same in these
>situations, and the error between them is not worth introducing the
>Lorentz transformations.
okay, but would you allow me to address the understanding of
mass=energy for purposes of explaining creation?
snip>
>> > You may therefore say that work is mad;)
>>
>> I didn't follow this one, either. What do you mean by "work is
>mad;)?
>
>mass times acceleration times distance. My little joke.
actually, that's a neat way to remember it. No joke.
snip>
----
zoe