Creation Question?

[Spartacus Sully]

Plants alive ........

Germs alive..

Bacteria alive..

Microorganisms alive...

i tend to think of plant life as whole different thing and like to think of life occurring in some rotting fruit. but where did the plant come from like can we create a plant in a lab or is its origin also unknown?

[Stab Judah]

i tend to think of plant life as whole different thing and like to think of life occurring in some rotting fruit. but where did the plant come from like can we create a plant in a lab of is its origin also unknown?

Of course not....funny how science does that:animal:

[Mares]

Laboratory synthesis of various conditions has resulted in the ready formation of complex molecules and biochemists are confident that they are close to seeing the spontaneous production of a self-replicating molecule. If this can be achieved then through darwinisn selection we could reasonable expect life in some form to arise.



It's probably going to be unnecessary to "seed" Europa with those sorts of molecules. If we did then there's a good chance that the amino acids would end up as "food" for pre-existing complex replicators.



Untrue. There is a variety of conditions we can synthesise in experiments.



The spontaneous formation of complex carbon based molecules has been demonstrated. The trouble with these "start of life" arguments is that people unfamiliar with the science tend to focus on the wrong things (like the first cell) when we would reasonably expect the first actual metabolising life-forms to be far simpler then even the simplest existent prokaryote.

im not very well in these fields of biology but i have a suspicion wether these experiments haven't had any deliberate obvious attempts to trigger the phenomena. Such as trying to prove life on mars for example therefore we can only use what we find in mars to make a scenario and not add additional little tweaks here and there.

[Spartacus Sully]

im not very well in these fields of biology but i have a suspicion wether these experiments haven't had any deliberate obvious attempts to trigger the phenomena. Such as trying to prove life on mars for example therefore we can only use what we find in mars to make a scenario and not add additional little tweaks here and there.

saturns moon titan has amino acids or protiens that float around in its atmosphere thats created by nothing more then sun light hitting the componets of the atmosphere.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17122806
http://www.google.com/search?q=organ...ient=firefox-a

i think the real rarity is a planet that is the proper distance from the sun rotateing at the proper speed with the proper seasons the proper size with the proper moon and the proper atmosphere with the proper at the proper angle of rotation ect ect. where as i think titan has flowing rivers of methane because its so cold.

[squealpiggy]

i tend to think of plant life as whole different thing and like to think of life occurring in some rotting fruit. but where did the plant come from like can we create a plant in a lab or is its origin also unknown?

Are you actually asking whether or not plants are alive?

im not very well in these fields of biology

Chemistry. It's chemistry.

but i have a suspicion wether these experiments haven't had any deliberate obvious attempts to trigger the phenomena.

They are experiments to see what sort of conditions can produce spontaneously occurring replicating organic molecules. So yes, they are in a sense deliberate attempts to create new life.

[Spartacus Sully]

Are you actually asking whether or not plants are alive?

more like are they considered the same type of life as biological life. like if plants and cells came about at the same time or did plants come about and they allowed for biological life to come about?

[Stab Judah]

more like are they considered the same type of life as biological life. like if plants and cells came about at the same time or did plants come about and they allowed for biological life to come about?

Something like this


Single cell organism-Viruses-Bacteria-Fungi-Plants-Animals--People-Killer robots

could be a little out of order ..

Single cell organism-Viruses-Animals
Single cell organism-Bacteria-Fungi-Simple Plants

The basic timeline is a 4.5 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:

* 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),asexual reproduction
* 3 billion years of photosynthesis,Bacteria, simple plants, algae,
* 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),membrane
* 1 billion years of multicellular life,viruses
* 600 million years of simple animals,
* 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
* 550 million years of complex animals,
* 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
* 475 million years of land plants,
* 400 million years of insects and seeds,
* 360 million years of amphibians,

* 300 million years of reptiles,
* 200 million years of mammals,
* 150 million years of birds,
* 130 million years of flowers,
* 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
* 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus ****,
* 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
* 25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

[Mares]

Are you actually asking whether or not plants are alive?



Chemistry. It's chemistry.



They are experiments to see what sort of conditions can produce spontaneously occurring replicating organic molecules. So yes, they are in a sense deliberate attempts to create new life.

well, i never been fond of that either i never got high grades in chemistry, specially in biochemistry. But like i said we only know the conditions that are terrestrial to us and near us like in mars europa but we don't have a great deal of information on them either yet and we even have less information about planets on others distant stars. So this lack of information is a hinderance to making the proper experiment on conditions and enviroments and on what chemicals should be there and what should not be there how much radiation it should be exposed.

[bbos]

finally i have found a good definition.

entropy is a mathematical measurement of a change from greater to lesser potential energy.

Not any of that though all of that can be allied to diffrent situations where entropy may be occurring but the true and ultimate definition is a loss of potential energy.

so yeah

im not sure but im willing to guess that occorriding to e=mc2 2 hydrogen atoms will have more potential energy then Deuterium atom, also id be willing to guess that a Deuterium atom and a hydrogen atom have more potential energy then a he-3 isotope and im willing to guess that 2 he-3 atoms will have more potential energy then a he-4 atom and 2 h atoms.

so lets do some math we will use 1 as a constant for light so:

e= 1.0079 +1.0079 *1^2 = 2.0158 vs
e= 2.01410178 *1^2 = 2.01410178

the fusion of h to deuterium is an increase of entropy.

e= 1.0079 + 2.014 *1^2 = 3.0219
e= 3.0160293 * 1^2 = 3.0160293

the fusion of h and deuterium into he-3 is an increase of entropy

e= 3.016 + 3.016 *1^2 = 6.032
e= 4.002602 + 1.0079 +1.0079 *1^2 = 6.018402

the fusion of he-3 in to he-4 and 2 hydrogen atoms is an increase of entrop

I’d like a link for that definition please. I see your use of hydrogen and its isotopes as examples and let me give you a little clarification. Hydrogen comes in 3 different isotopes. (1-1)H has no neutrons this is the standard definition of Hydrogen as it appears in the periodic table, (2-1)H has 1 neutron and (3-1)H has 3 neutrons. (1-1)H occurs 99.985% of the time in nature, (2-1)H occurs 0.015% and (3-1)H never occurs in nature, work must be done in order to create it.
What are the implications? Nature tends to favor increase in entropy. This means that disorder is simplicity is more likely occur then order and advanced complexity. Taking this concept and applying it to the isotopes of hydrogen, the simplest form of hydrogen (1-1)H is heavily favored and (3-1)H is least likely to form in nature because of structural complexity involved in neutron capture results in decrease in entropy, and nature favors increase in entropy, not decrease. The concept holds true based on observational evidence that (1-1)H occurs 99.985% of the time, being it’s the simplest form of Hydrogen, due to decrease in entropy with each increasing neutron. (1-1)H 99.985%, (3-1)H 0%, again, the inclusion of 3 neutrons to the hydrogen results in a decrease in entropy, nature does not favor decrease in entropy, this is why (3-1)H is never found in nature.

I don’t know where you got the calculations from or perhaps you did them yourself, any rate they are completely wrong. Here are the correct calculations in terms of potential energy that exists in these isotopes.

(1-1)H= 1.0079*C^2
(2-1)H= [1.0079 + (1.675*10^(-27))]*C^2
(3-1)H= [1.0079+(1.675*10^(-27))*3)]*C^2
As you can see the numbers in terms of potential energy actually increase, which results in a decrease in entropy with each increase in neutron.
and to further nail in your proverbial coffin,
Energy of Carbon =12.01*C^2
Vs
H = 1.0079*C^2
Again a dramatic increase in potential energy meaning a decrease in entropy When H compared to C. Which proves that the sun’s core decreases in Entropy.

back to the human and the rock

the human is constantly eating and using that energy the food had potential energy then the human ate it and gained the potential energy this potential energy went towards powering that human and the potential energy is gone the system where food is converted to energy and then used to move is one of increasing entropy.

there needs to be such a system with the rock. say the rock is a piece of coal and you burn that rock in a fire place that is also a system of increasing entropy.

we would need to compare the mass for the food that we ate to calories and do the same with the coal and we can calculate the differences in entropy between the systems,

but we can do this because they are 2 systems that i have actually described instead of grouping multiple systems together and having a person guess which leads to an increase in entropy and which leads to a decrease then making an educated guess as to which does more, and then comparing that to a rock.

Humans have less entropy then a rock in terms of configurationally entropy. The important point is that in the rock there are a lot of possible way to swap atoms while leaving the object still be a rock. So if a bunch of loose atoms randomly come together to form a rock they don't have to take care of their exact position and so they have a huge number of options to assemble themselves into a rock.
However, in the human body you better not swap the liver with the heart. And you better not swap atoms at random too often. So for the same number of (different) atoms to assemble a human body there are far less possibilities to join correctly so that we would still call the result a human body.

Your food example is also flawed, when food is digested the nutrients or orderly energy is absorbed into the body to increase its orderly state, that is a decrease in entropy. Example, When meat is eaten its amino acids are fundamental building blocks for skeletal muscles. If the muscle becomes damaged (increased entropy), they body uses amino acids to repair it back to a stable, pre-damaged state.(decrease entropy). What is excreted is devoid of these building blocks, and is considered less orderly and disorganized form of matter then its initial state. As Erwin Schrodinger argues “Life withdrew orderly energy (decreased entropy) out of the environment and put disorder(increase entropy, feces) back into it.

If you want to argue on the basis of potential energy as measurement of entropy then I state that a human has more potential then that of the rock, this is blatant fact. Again, you have belied yourself.
Using this model, food when digested by a human, the body extracts its potential energy from the food and fortifies itself with more potential energy (decrease in entropy) The food excreted (feces) is of less potential energy then its initial structure. Thus a decrease in entropy was extracted to decrease the entropy of the living system. What is left of the food is an increase in entropy (poo).

Humans lose energy faster and don't last as long so the entropy of a human is greater than that of a rock.

I would also wonder how you would rate a rock as being of greater complexity than a liquid. What standard of complexity are you actually using here?

A human uses orderly energy and converts it to kinetic energy, in turn it also gains orderly energy from food.

Compare a frame of ordered complexity between a rock and a human. In terms of configuration entropy, human has less, in terms of potential energy human has more. This concludes that living organisms is more ordered structurally more complex then the random bonds of silicon dioxide (rock) thus less entropy.

The entropy of fusion is the increase in entropy when melting a substance. This is always positive since the degree of disorder increase in the transition from an organized crystalline solid to the disorganized structure of a liquid. This is rudimentary chemistry, if you lack even the elementary understanding how the hell are you going to argue the earth’s entropy is offset by the increase of entropy in heliosphere? Your in way over your head.

Basically when u fuse anything together together it always increases the entropy.
And atoms potential energy is based on the charge and the mass of the nucleus, it is a given that when atoms are fused atoms it increases their mass so more mass/charge means more potential. xD

By your logic, Au(gold) is less structurally complex and more disordered then H(hydrogen), this is a contradiction of reality.

When you make a bond, energy is released (increase in entropy), this is called bond energy. But the resultant is more stable and increases in structural complexit and order, which results in decreased entropy. Just as the sun’s core is fusing hydrogen into helium into carbon, the core decreases in entropy but the energy released by that bond is an increase in entropy (Heliosphere expelling heat and light).

[Spartacus Sully]

I’d like a link for that definition please. I see your use of hydrogen and its isotopes as examples and let me give you a little clarification. Hydrogen comes in 3 different isotopes. (1-1)H has no neutrons this is the standard definition of Hydrogen as it appears in the periodic table, (2-1)H has 1 neutron and (3-1)H has 3 neutrons. (1-1)H occurs 99.985% of the time in nature, (2-1)H occurs 0.015% and (3-1)H never occurs in nature, work must be done in order to create it.
What are the implications? Nature tends to favor increase in entropy. This means that disorder is simplicity is more likely occur then order and advanced complexity. Taking this concept and applying it to the isotopes of hydrogen, the simplest form of hydrogen (1-1)H is heavily favored and (3-1)H is least likely to form in nature because of structural complexity involved in neutron capture results in decrease in entropy, and nature favors increase in entropy, not decrease. The concept holds true based on observational evidence that (1-1)H occurs 99.985% of the time, being it’s the simplest form of Hydrogen, due to decrease in entropy with each increasing neutron. (1-1)H 99.985%, (3-1)H 0%, again, the inclusion of 3 neutrons to the hydrogen results in a decrease in entropy, nature does not favor decrease in entropy, this is why (3-1)H is never found in nature.

not sure the point of this either way in the sun or any star its 2 h-1 atoms that become a h-2 atom those 2 h-2 atoms become a he-3 then 2 he-3 atoms become a he-4 atom and 2 h-1 atoms.

I don’t know where you got the calculations from or perhaps you did them yourself, any rate they are completely wrong. Here are the correct calculations in terms of potential energy that exists in these isotopes.

(1-1)H= 1.0079*C^2
(2-1)H= [1.0079 + (1.675*10^(-27))]*C^2
(3-1)H= [1.0079+(1.675*10^(-27))*3)]*C^2
As you can see the numbers in terms of potential energy actually increase, which results in a decrease in entropy with each increase in neutron.
and to further nail in your proverbial coffin,
Energy of Carbon =12.01*C^2
Vs
H = 1.0079*C^2
Again a dramatic increase in potential energy meaning a decrease in entropy When H compared to C. Which proves that the sun’s core decreases in Entropy.

Im not sure that your even demonstrating nuclear fusion in your calculations and could you also explain where your getting 1.675*10^(-27) and how that fits in e=mc^2? what does h-3 have anything to do with anything?

mainly explain the presence of 1.675*10^-27 as part of e=mc^2? NVm i see thats the approximate mass of a proton so you multiplying to create the number that im just copying and pasting from wiki.

I can explain my calculations because they are correct

see in e=mc^2 you can replace c^2 with 1 as a constant as long as i do it in all the equations im comparing. the M would be the atomic mass.

in this equation
e= 1.0079 +1.0079 *1^2 = 2.0158 vs
e= 2.01410178 *1^2 = 2.01410178

first we have energy = mass of h-1 + mass of h-1 * 1^2

so the initial state is 2.0158 what ever units of energy

e= 2.01410178 *1^2 = 2.01410178

second we have energy = atomic mass of h-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) *1^2

so the final state is 2.01410178 what ever units of energy SOOOOO obliviously there is more energy inside 2 atoms of h-1 then there is inside one atom of h-2

Next we have
e= 1.0079 + 2.014 *1^2 = 3.0219
e= 3.0160293 * 1^2 = 3.0160293

ok so first is energy = the atomic mass of h-1 +h-2 * 1^2

so the initial state is 3.0219 what ever units of energy

second is energy = the atomic mass of He-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3) * 1^2

so the final state is 3.0160293 so obiviously there is a greater potential for what ever units of energy in 1 h-1 atom and 1 h-2 atom then there is in a single he-3 atom.

Lastly we have
e= 3.016 + 3.016 *1^2 = 6.032
e= 4.002602 + 1.0079 +1.0079 *1^2 = 6.018402

first off energy = atomic mass of he-3 +atomic mass of he-3 * 1^2

the initial states potential energy would be 6.032 what ever units

second is energy = atomic mass of he-4 + h-1 + h-1 * 1^2

the final states potential to create more energy is 6.018402

so the initial state of 2 he-3 atoms has more potential to create energy i nuclear fusion then a single he-4 atom and 2 h-1 atoms.

in summation my equations are correct and well explained now.

the initial fusion will always result in more over all energy then any fusion that might or might not be possible from the resulting elements. the sun is in a constant state of increasing entropy.

your trying to compare Hydrogen to Carbon and thats not entrophy thats comparing. if your turning hydrogen into carbon thats a system and that can have entropy and changes in potential energy.

im not sure how He-4 eventually fuses into carbon but the process to get to he-4 involves 2 h-1 per h-2 so thats 3 h-1 per he-3 and since 2 he-3 make a he-4 and 2 h-1's it takes 4 h-1 to make 1 he-4 sooo 1.0079+1.0079+1.0079+1.0079 * 1^2 if you were comparing He-4 to h-1 let alone h-1 to c-what ever

as ive allready told you multiple times you need to define a system where one thing becomes something else to calculate entrophy you cant just compare 2 things to each other.

Though your just saying you have 1 hydrogen atom and one carbon atom and your saying which has more potential energy its the one with more mass those calculations are fine and your correct 1 h atom has much less potential for energy then 1 carbon atom. but thats not what im saying, im saying that if you take a carbon atom that was once hydrogen and compare it from when it was hydrogen to carbon you need to compare all the hydrogen atoms to the one carbon atom not just one h atom, so i again restate that nuclear fusion and all stars exist in a system of increasing entropy.

a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. ( the change in potential energy?)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy

a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work (the change in potential energy?)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=entropy

i cant find the actual website that said that it was a change in potential energy but there is one out there.