A few questions for atheists...

[[serious]]

Anything living will do.

hydras are biologically immortal. They do not age or break down.

 

[[serious]]

It is notable that a lot of these nasty bacteria seem to be degenerated forms of good bacteria.

Source?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?

Entropy.

 

[JRBuckley]

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Qualified, "YES."

When you consider the time scale involved, "just the right time," is kind of meaningless. There could have been, and probably were, many close calls before the first self-replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) were formed and eventually led to life as we know it. There's also no saying that this happened here on Earth. Those molecules could have formed elsewhere, long before the formation of our planet, and arrived here on a comet, for example.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first? Proteins or DNA?

Quite a lot of research is looking at RNA. A 'PAH world' hypothesis has been proposed that suggests that certain PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), that self-organize into layers or 'stacks', and can attract nucleobases, could mediate RNA assembly. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Source?

The first experience I had with the practical consequences of evolutionary theory was the early and crude evolution simulator, 'Tierra', which used short self-replicating strings of C code in an artificial universe with random mutation, and death. But even in this limited simulation, if you ran it for a few hundred thousand generations (i.e. a few hours), you ended up with a mini-ecosystem that included mutual symbiotes and parasites. It suggested to me that almost any evolutionary system would produce a selection of niches for opportunists to fill, and a selection of opportunists to fill them.

I guess whether one considers parasitic symbiotes degenerate or functionally optimized depends on whether you want moral baggage with your description of evolution or not

 

[joshua 1 9]

If I were going to investigate the question, abiogenesis would be the first thing

According to dictionary dot com: "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

So do you even have a story to tell? Just what is abiogenesis?

 

[Herman Hedning]

According to dictionary dot com: "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

So do you even have a story to tell? Just what is abiogenesis?

Surely you are joking, right?

Abiogenesis or biopoiesis or OoL (Origins of Life), is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.

See, that wasn't too hard to find. Could you really not infer from context that this was the intended meaning?

ETA: Even your source of dictionary.com does have a more up-to-date definition. Did you not see that?

 

[SteveB28]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

It is possible, yes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...

Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?

Answer 1: Yes, I think it's possible.

Follow up Question 1: How do you define a "living" entity?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. As promised, here's question 2. I've also included Google's definition of homeostasis to ensure we're all talking about the same thing...

homeostasis -- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. (Google)

Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?

Answer 2: No, I don't think such an intelligence is necessary.

Follow up Question 2: If you were to look at the ocean floor, it would be a rough, uneven surface of valleys, canyons, slopes, and mountain ranges... yet the ocean surface is flat.

Is an intelligence required to maintain this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?

Answer #3: Homeostasis occurs in nature with or without life.

Follow up Question #3: so... why wouldn't it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.

Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?

Answer #4: Because "life," depending on how you define it, is only a temporary state, requiring a large number of variables to maintain itself... and those variables are not always favorable.

Follow up Question #4: The higher you build a house of cards, the more difficult it becomes, and the less it takes to bring the whole thing toppling down... why is that?

 

[[serious]]

According to dictionary dot com: "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

So do you even have a story to tell? Just what is abiogenesis?

if only there were a second definition right under that one that was relevant to this conversation...

2.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonlivingmatter.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is notable that a lot of these nasty bacteria seem to be degenerated forms of good bacteria. And because they are degenerated that can't get the nutrients they need, and therefore they have to become parasites from more complex organisms to get the nutrients. So you find things like the Mycoplasma, the simplest germ quite clearly has a degenerated genome. The leprosy germ tends to be five times smaller to benevolent germs yet have the same genome. So quite a lot of these germs are degenerated forms from once beneficial organisms.

Kinda everything the theory of evolution claims is opposite to what real life tells us.

You seem to be begging the question. You define degenerated forms of bacteria as disease causing bacteria a priori.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to dictionary dot com: "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

So do you even have a story to tell? Just what is abiogenesis?

If you go to the dictionary to get your science, it would certainly explain a lot.

 

[Loudmouth]

Entropy.

That always seemed to be a really bad answer, IMHO. Entropy can be overcome by adding energy to a system, so there is no reason why any organism would necessarily age over time, as long as they were receiving energy. Aging and death, at least in the time frames we are talking about, need a different explanation other than entropy.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That always seemed to be a really bad answer, IMHO. Entropy can be overcome by adding energy to a system, so there is no reason why any organism would necessarily age over time, as long as they were receiving energy. Aging and death, at least in the time frames we are talking about, need a different explanation other than entropy.

Then a lack of energy input balancing entropic energy dissipation, perhaps?

Maybe you're thinking too specifically about organisms reasons for succumbing to "death" and my answer is too broad(?) There are a lot of factors, obviously. For most aerobic organisms oxidation seems to be a pretty big factor in gumming up the works leading to less efficient energy utilization throughout the system resulting in the inability to overcome entropy over time.

Just my thoughts. Haven't really looked into ti very deeply.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then a lack of energy input balancing entropic energy dissipation, perhaps?

No such lack has existed in our solar system or on the Earth for 4.5 billion years.

Maybe you're thinking too specifically about organisms reasons for succumbing to "death" and my answer is too broad(?)

No, I don't think that is it.

For most aerobic organisms oxidation seems to be a pretty big factor in gumming up the works leading to less efficient energy utilization throughout the system resulting in the inability to overcome entropy over time.

That would be the same when you are 3 years old vs. 80 years old. It would be the same when you are a freshly fertilized once celled zygote or taking your last breath.

I see no reason why the body could not overcome any damage done by oxidation, nor do I see a reason why the body would need to be 100% efficient in order to keep living.

Just my thoughts. Haven't really looked into ti very deeply.

I find your comments interesting and worth discussing, so no problem. These are just the questions and comments that pop into my head.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No such lack has existed in our solar system or on the Earth for 4.5 billion years.

Not as a whole, but then animals, for instance, don't get their energy directly from the sun. They have to actively seek energy input by ingesting it.

That would be the same when you are 3 years old vs. 80 years old. It would be the same when you are a freshly fertilized once celled zygote or taking your last breath.

Yes, it would be, but, and I may be mistaken, the effects of oxidation are cummlative as is damage to genectic material and shortening of telomeres leading to copying mistakes and sometimes cancers beginning from the moment of conception. Perhaps, the overall efficiency of the system allows the organism to grow and thrive until these things overcome that efficiency and degrade enough to cause the organism to die because it can no longer sustain the chemical reactions, including tose which act to repair damage, necessary to keep it alive.

I see no reason why the body could not overcome any damage done by oxidation, nor do I see a reason why the body would need to be 100% efficient in order to keep living.

Nor do I.


I guess I think of it in terms of chemical reactions. All chemical reactions, and in this context the specific ones i'm talking about (oxidation, genetic degeneration, shortening telomeres, etc.) ultimately are governed by entropy, going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. However that's accomplished which, can sometimes seem very round-about. Such is life. Life is just a really complicated chemical reaction that "seeks" to dissipate energy and increase entropy. The specifics of that aren't relevant, in my view, to the context of OP's 4th question.