Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[SkepticThinker]

Sheesh, that is what I said, except I used a
whole lot more words.

Yours was better.

 

[Polymath257]

"But, stated as the claim that known organic chemicals and combine via natural processes to form the polymers of life and that those can spontaneously organize into spherical vesicles that reproduce, giving rise to early forms of life."

That was before life existed. What force, drive, cause, etc was involved in those vesicles becoming spherical and also reproduce?

Well, the current understanding is that the forces were the same as for any other chemical reaction: those between the molecules and atoms that are normally there. But yes the details are not yet known. We know that cycles of drying and electrical impulses are relevant. That the cell membranes are lipids is also quite relevant (lipids do form spherical vesicles spontaneously because of hydrophobic forces). Reproduction is yet another aspect of the chemistry.

 

[ecco]

ecco said:
On the other hand, since "GodDidIt" has never been a viable explanation for anything, why would we waste time looking further into it?

“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

Why quote Newton? It is common knowledge that he was as much into woo as he was into science.

In any case, you did not address my comment.

 

[Polymath257]

It's possible that in this 13.7 billion years old universe there could be other life out there billions of years older than earth itself.
It's possible that that life has knowledge billions of years ahead of us.
It's possible that that life could have beamed life cells here to see how it would evolve.
Anything is possible until it's shown to be impossible.

The main limitation to this is that the heavier elements have to be formed prior to the development of life. This requires at least one, and probably two, generations of stars. While that allows for billions of years, it does mean that life could not have existed all the way back to 13.7 billion years.

 

[Polymath257]

ecco said:
On the other hand, since "GodDidIt" has never been a viable explanation for anything, why would we waste time looking further into it?

Why quote Newton? It is common knowledge that he was as much into woo as he was into science.

In any case, you did not address my comment.

As has been noted many times, Newton was more the last of the Medieval thinkers than he was the first of the modern.

 

[We Never Know]

The main limitation to this is that the heavier elements have to be formed prior to the development of life. This requires at least one, and probably two, generations of stars. While that allows for billions of years, it does mean that life could not have existed all the way back to 13.7 billion years.

Agreed. I should have specified 3 billion years older than earth for example.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed. I should have specified 3 billion years older than earth for example.

Yes, that is at least a possibility. There is also a significant distinction to be made between the formation of life (in the sense of bacterial life) and a technological species. Remember, it took almost 4 billion years for life on Earth to bridge that gap.

 

[ecco]

i did. Both prior to, and after, I posted the source.

Sorry you don’t like it.

Here is what you posted before...

The problem with this, is.... if there is any type of ancestral lineage between the T3SS and the bacterial flagellum, it reveals a devolving of the b.f. IOW, since the b.f. is used in feeding its home prokaryotic bacteria, and the T3SS's function is to attack eukaryotes, a much-later design.....it's obvious which came first: the bacterial flagellum:

Here is the article...

"The injectisome is found in a small subset of gram-negative bacteria that have a symbiotic or parasitic association with eukaryotes. Since eukaryotes evolved over a billion years after bacteria, this suggests that the injectisome arose after eukaryotes. However, flagella are found across the range of bacteria, and the need for chemotaxis and motility (i.e., using the flagellum to find food) precede the need for parasitism. In other words, we’d expect that the flagellum long predates the injectisome. And indeed, given the narrow distribution of injectisome-bearing bacteria, and the very wide distribution of bacteria with flagella, parsimony suggests the flagellum long predates injectisome rather than the reverse. "

Can you show where the article stipulates a "devolving of the b.f."?

 

[Audie]

"But, stated as the claim that known organic chemicals and combine via natural processes to form the polymers of life and that those can spontaneously organize into spherical vesicles that reproduce, giving rise to early forms of life."

That was before life existed. What force, drive, cause, etc was involved in those vesicles becoming spherical and also reproduce?

In general, we'd say that matter behaves according to
its inherent qualities, and the forces that govern all of
matter.

A bit of a side note, but the behaviour of water is
extraordinary, and, extraordinarily complex. It is
not much to look at, and a simple little molecule.

Carbon does not look like much either, but
one of the three main divisions of chemistry is
devoted to what it can do.

All that said, your question has too many part s.

Lets try just one-reproduction.

Nobody was there, but a reasonable idea is that
in the day, there were all manner of more and less
complex organic molecules (we find amino acids
on comets, they are not that hard to make!).

There are presently 330,000,000 cubic miles of
seawater.

In that chemical reactions have a habit of occurring
pretty fast, given a lot of raw materials, space and
time, pretty much anything that could happen can
be pretty much expected to happen.

A self replicating molecule that used the abundant
"spare parts" in its environment would be a reasonable
sort of first step toward life.

There are self replicating molecules.

Keep in mind too that there is no bright line distinction
between living and non living. Such distinctions as
are made are somewhat arbitrary.

So what where how life began is going to be a fuzzy
sort of thing, even if one had it all in the lab to study.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, the current understanding is that the forces were the same as for any other chemical reaction: those between the molecules and atoms that are normally there. But yes the details are not yet known. We know that cycles of drying and electrical impulses are relevant. That the cell membranes are lipids is also quite relevant (lipids do form spherical vesicles spontaneously because of hydrophobic forces). Reproduction is yet another aspect of the chemistry.

Are lipids spherical or bilayered

 

[Audie]

Here is what you posted before...


Here is the article...



Can you show where the article stipulates a "devolving of the b.f."?

Maybe it is in the bible. He found rapidly frozen
mammoths, somehow.

 

[We Never Know]

In general, we'd say that matter behaves according to
its inherent qualities, and the forces that govern all of
matter.

A bit of a side note, but the behaviour of water is
extraordinary, and, extraordinarily complex. It is
not much to look at, and a simple little molecule.

Carbon does not look like much either, but
one of the three main divisions of chemistry is
devoted to what it can do.

All that said, your question has too many part s.

Lets try just one-reproduction.

Nobody was there, but a reasonable idea is that
in the day, there were all manner of more and less
complex organic molecules (we find amino acids
on comets, they are not that hard to make!).

There are presently 330,000,000 cubic miles of
seawater.

In that chemical reactions have a habit of occurring
pretty fast, given a lot of raw materials, space and
time, pretty much anything that could happen can
be pretty much expected to happen.

A self replicating molecule that used the abundant
"spare parts" in its environment would be a reasonable
sort of first step toward life.

There are self replicating molecules.

Keep in mind too that there is no bright line distinction
between living and non living. Such distinctions as
are made are somewhat arbitrary.

So what where how life began is going to be a fuzzy
sort of thing, even if one had it all in the lab to study.

That's the current hypotheses of what we can understand .

 

[ecco]

...

You didn't address these parts...

If science were to accept intelligent design, science would have to pursue investigations into the nature of the intelligent designer. How would we do that?

How can we differentiate between a literal interpretation of Genesis and LastThursdayism?

 

[Polymath257]

Are lipids spherical or bilayered

Lipids tend to form bilayered spherical vesicles in water. The molecules typically consist of a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic chain. The hydrophobic chains tend to avoid water while the hydrophilic heads tend to be attracted to water. This naturally leads to a bilayer: heads toward the water on either side with chains inside the layers. The resulting vesicles tend to be spherical because spheres are what minimize surface area for a given volume.

 

[ecco]

@Audie said: ”Goddidit is not an explanation.”

Why not? “Life originated by itself”, is?

Yes.

 

[We Never Know]

In general, we'd say that matter behaves according to
its inherent qualities, and the forces that govern all of
matter.

A bit of a side note, but the behaviour of water is
extraordinary, and, extraordinarily complex. It is
not much to look at, and a simple little molecule.

Carbon does not look like much either, but
one of the three main divisions of chemistry is
devoted to what it can do.

All that said, your question has too many part s.

Lets try just one-reproduction.

Nobody was there, but a reasonable idea is that
in the day, there were all manner of more and less
complex organic molecules (we find amino acids
on comets, they are not that hard to make!).

There are presently 330,000,000 cubic miles of
seawater.

In that chemical reactions have a habit of occurring
pretty fast, given a lot of raw materials, space and
time, pretty much anything that could happen can
be pretty much expected to happen.

A self replicating molecule that used the abundant
"spare parts" in its environment would be a reasonable
sort of first step toward life.

There are self replicating molecules.

Keep in mind too that there is no bright line distinction
between living and non living. Such distinctions as
are made are somewhat arbitrary.

So what where how life began is going to be a fuzzy
sort of thing, even if one had it all in the lab to study.

A quick turn from the topic
I've read things such as science has created human-animal hybrids. "X" animal with human organs, or blood, or etc.. IMO not only does that go against nature but also evolution.
Science does some weird things trying to push beyond what nature itself does. Who knows if its real or fake news.

 

[We Never Know]

The main limitation to this is that the heavier elements have to be formed prior to the development of life. This requires at least one, and probably two, generations of stars. While that allows for billions of years, it does mean that life could not have existed all the way back to 13.7 billion years.

IMO if we had the ability to travel within adequate time to other lifeless planets that had the ability to possibly support life, we would put life there to see how and if it could survive and evolve. We semi try that here in labs .

 

[Audie]

A quick turn from the topic
I've read things such as science has created human-animal hybrids. "X" animal with human organs, or blood, or etc.. IMO not only does that go against nature but also evolution.
Science does some weird things trying to push beyond what nature itself does. Who knows if its real or fake news.

I wonder where you read such odd things.
There are no, never can be, a human-other animal
hybrid.

Now, one can insert genes with some success, tho
putting animal genes into people is not done.

How that "goes against" either nature of evolution
would need explaining.

I'd suggest you review your topic a bit, and then
come back to say something about it.

People, btw, are constantly doing things that dont
occur naturally. See stone tools, for a start.
No flint arrowheads ever formed "naturally".

Your "quick turn" there completely ignores everything I
said. Was I wasting my time, trying to respond to you?

 

[We Never Know]

I wonder where you read such odd things.
There are no, never can be, a human-other animal
hybrid.

Now, one can insert genes with some success, tho
putting animal genes into people is not done.

How that "goes against" either nature of evolution
would need explaining.

I'd suggest you review your topic a bit, and then
come back to say something about it.

People, btw, are constantly doing things that dont
occur naturally. See stone tools, for a start.
No flint arrowheads ever formed "naturally".

Your "quick turn" there completely ignores everything I
said. Was I wasting my time, trying to respond to you?

Many strange things can be found with Google.

Agreed. Napped arrowheads don't form naturally and of course aren't life either.

You stated current understandings/hypothesis. There is nothing to add or take from it. What were you expecting?

 

[Audie]

Many strange things can be found with Google.

Agreed. Napped arrowheads don't form naturally and of course aren't life either.

You stated current understandings/hypothesis. There is nothing to add or take from it. What were you expecting?

Something more than zero I guess.
Did you learn that there are no human-animal
hybrids?