Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The creation of RNA and primitive DNA is even more likely than that. There are no forces that would pull a gear onto an axle once it got close (other than gravity and momentum), and a watch has an awful lot of moving parts to line up just right. I can understand the skepticism due to the extreme unlikelihood of all the parts of a watch falling right into place at the same time with none of them being shaken free before all are in place. Not to mention the likelihood of gears being broken in all that shaking. I am not saying it is impossible, just extremely unlikely.
I don't think using a chance construction of a watch is an example we should be using, especially since it is soooo much more unlikely than the real likelihood of RNA and simple, primitive DNA forming.
RNA and DNA have the advantage that there are organizing forces at work that pull atoms into a molecular structure once they get close and keep them together in a bond while other atoms find their place. Chance plays a role, but forces of attraction do too and there are billions and billions of interactions between atoms in a fluid and nothing but eons of time for these molecules to form. Given those circumstances, the unlikely becomes very likely. It is like buying every possible lottery ticket, your chances of winning approach inevitability.
QUESTION:
>>there are organizing forces at work that pull atoms into a molecular structure once they get close and keep them together in a bond while other atoms find their place<<
>>there are organizing forces at work that pull atoms into a molecular structure once they get close and keep them together in a bond while other atoms find their place<<
How did these "organizing forces" begin?
The organizing forces I am referring to in this context are electrostatic and have to do with atoms wanted to complete their outer electron shell by sharing valence electrons with other atoms. Here is a simple video explaining it:
I am not saying that the organizing forces are aiming to build RNA. I am saying that the organizing forces pull and bond atoms together into molecules. Molecules are a more complex organization than single atoms. For the first RNA molecule to form, the right atoms had to be in the neighborhood of each other. Heavier atoms are made in stars, especially when they go supernova.
But, if you are asking where electrostatic forces come from or why atoms can have only two electrons in their inner shell, I am not qualified to answer.
Originally Posted by MysticPhD I have a scientifically based hypothesis . . . you have none . . .
So, please elaborate on your scientifically based hypothesis? So, that I no longer have to waste either of our time knocking down shadows which apparently do not reflect your actual hypothesis. And please detail your personal experiential component.
An hypothesis is an explanation for an observation or a phenomenon. A good scientific hypothesis contains the following elements:
1. Description of the observation/phenomenon to be explained.
2. A clear, logically coherent description of the process(es) hypothesized to cause the observation/phenomenon.
3. A description of the consistency of the above descriptions with known facts and accepted theories.
a. What relevant observations/phenomena are explained?
b. What relevant observations/phenomena are not explained?
c. What observations/phenomena are incompatible with the explanation?
4. A description of how the hypothesis may be falsified.
Just a reminder that I am still waiting to read about your scientifically based hypothesis. I understand the sometimes we get busy and it may take us a few days to respond. Do you have a sense of when you might have the time to post it? No matter how long it takes I'll be waiting for it.
If as the physicists tell us in a closed system (the universe) the second law of thermodynamics applies. That is, particles tend toward a maximum even distribution or randomization and the distribution of heat (energy).
Why, then, do we have the opposite in nature? We seem to have a "purposeful" coming together of particles.
And something had to always exist, or else there would be nothing in existence. Why is there something and not nothing anyway?
Finally, what is the nature of that which was always in existence? Obviously, it would have to contain in some fashion everything else, or we'd have something springing into existence from nothing. Would that be possible?
Just because a computer plays chess doesn't mean that someone programmed it.
I've never heard of a chess-playing computer that just suddenly appeared out of the ether. The programming used to create City-Data.com was the result of an intelligent designer.
If as the physicists tell us in a closed system (the universe) the second law of thermodynamics applies. That is, particles tend toward a maximum even distribution or randomization and the distribution of heat (energy).
Why, then, do we have the opposite in nature? We seem to have a "purposeful" coming together of particles.
Although it is true that the universe as a whole is moving towards a less organized state, there is nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that prevents localized pockets of matter (galaxies, solar systems, planets, life) from becoming more organized as long as the universe on the whole is becoming less organized. And there are natural forces at work on the local level, like gravity, that pulls disparate matter together into planets, stars, and solar systems. And there are natural electro-static forces that pull disparate atoms together into molecules. And there are natural forces at work such as natural selection and genetic recombination that result in ever more complex life forms.
No god needed, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude this, because entropy is still increasing in the closed system (aka the universe).
I've never heard of a chess-playing computer that just suddenly appeared out of the ether. The programming used to create City-Data.com was the result of an intelligent designer.
>>there are organizing forces at work that pull atoms into a molecular structure once they get close and keep them together in a bond while other atoms find their place<<
How did these "organizing forces" begin?
With physics.
because positive attracts negative, and each atom has a designated number of bond it can make. for example.
Hydrogen can only make one bond, while oxygen can make 2,
this is because hydrogen is missing 1 electron and oxygen is missing 2 electrons.
each level has to be completed, first level as 2 electron then the next level has 8. Hydrogen only has 1 electron on the first level and it need another electron to fill the level of 2. Oxygen has 6 electrons in the last level and it need 2 more electrons to complete its level.
Oxygen becomes a negative atoms, while hydrogen is mostly positive, so they tend to attract each other.
We also have catalyst, that helps the chemical reaction to speed up.
Although it is true that the universe as a whole is moving towards a less organized state, there is nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that prevents localized pockets of matter (galaxies, solar systems, planets, life) from becoming more organized as long as the universe on the whole is becoming less organized. And there are natural forces at work on the local level, like gravity, that pulls disparate matter together into planets, stars, and solar systems. And there are natural electro-static forces that pull disparate atoms together into molecules. And there are natural forces at work such as natural selection and genetic recombination that result in ever more complex life forms.
No god needed, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude this, because entropy is still increasing in the closed system (aka the universe).
QUESTIONS:
>>from becoming more organized <<
1. Do they remain organized?
2. If so, and this is an orgoing happening, and unlimited time is available, wouldn't all matter be so organized by now?
3. In short, no entropy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
