The Origin of Life

RE: Goga.

Your point about the definition of `reductionism` is well-taken.

RE: Afrasiyab.

Thanks, yaar. Tum to kafi jaldi convince ho gaye :-). I`d love to talk cricket, but given Pakistan`s mutant batsmen, speculating on life`s beginnings is much less taxing!

RE: temporal.

Qibla, tashreeh - please!

RE: Adeel.

It isn`t really a question of where the energy would come from. There is abundant energy from the sun (which continues to maintain all the life in Earth`s biosphere today), the Earth has its own internal heat (which would have been much greater 3.8 billions years ago), and there is always energy from electric discharges in the form of lightning. The problem to be explained is how all this abundant energy directed the spontaneous assembly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and water into a living cell. As I said earlier, my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is that the spontaneous generation of order from disorder is a physical impossibility (but lets see what Wasiq says).

RE: FerozK.

On the matter of the mother of all headaches, couldnt agree with you more ;-).

Saad

RE: Wasiq.

Interesting comments. A few points:

1. Is it not correct that the spontaneous creation of order out of disorder is not something improbable, it is impossible (ie, the odds are zero) ? At least that is how I understand the second law of thermodynamics.

2. Unlike you, I am quite concerned that life has not been synthesized in a lab. If it were `just a question of chemistry`, this should have been done by now. True that we cannot be certain of the initial conditions on Earth when this happened, but is that so conceptually challenging ? We can be certain that it involved carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, water and some form of energy. Indeed, if you take apart a living cell, that is what you`ll get. Yet we can`t take these ingredients from a shelf and reassemble them into life. In a world where human intelligence has split the atom and discovered quantum mechanics, this anomaly strikes me as very serious.

3. If life is just a question of chemistry, it seems odd that all known life can be traced to one common origin. The basic molecular machinery of all living things is identical, right down to the enzymes of self-replication and the process of electron transfer in the respiratory chain. Also, all life forms can only use L-amino acids although their optical isomers - the D-amino acids - could theoretically have done just as well. If life is something that spontaneously pops out of the right kind of brew at the right temperature, should we not expect more variation in the basic template of life ? Indeed, all of life seen on Earth is of only one kind; should there not have been more than one kind of `life` ?

Saad

PS: On an unrelated note, on the subject of cosomology, please indulge me with a question that I cannot find an answer to. Is there an edge to the universe ?

Wasiq (8):

Many of the argument that you have presented are such: something depends on something else and that something else depends on something else--an infinite chain so to speak in which every member is explained by the next member. It would be jusified for someone to ask why some chain exists or why any chain exists at all. ``Leibniz made this point by inviting us to consider an infinite collection of books, each one copied from a previous one. To say that content of the book is thereby explained is absurd. We are still justified in asking who the author was.`` (``The Mind of God``, Paul Davies. p. 171)

As for the conditional probabilities, a similar chain exists if you consider the Bayes` Law. Because you are now shifting the question from calculating the probability of occurrence of an event to the probability of obtaining some fantastically specific conditions for that event to occur. According to Leibniz, you have not gained any ground.

Saad:

You are quite a prolific writer, indeed. Although there are many things to be discussed, I disagree with your definition of reductionism that: ``...the scientific approach that reduces all observed phenomena to physics and chemistry...`` A more precise definition is: ``...the method of reductionism, whereby the properties of a complicated system are understood by studying the behavior of its component parts.`` (Paul Davies, ``The Mind of God``, p. 77)

Such an assumption renders this method to be attacked not only from a religious point of view but also from a philosophical point of view.

To all:

Those who are unhappy that others disagree at least with some of evolutionary ideas, following anecdote might be of some consolation:

... Dr. Peebles was troubled that inflation theory was being so readily accepted without being tested, mainly in the absence of a viable alternative. ``I find that distasteful.`` he said.

Dr. Peebles`s skeptical tone did not seem to upset cosmologists. ``He is half enthusiastic, half curmudgeon who wants to keep us honest,`` said Dr. Turner of Chicago. He wants us to slow down the train before it gets over some cliff.`` (Science Times, Feb. 9, 1999)

I don`t get it. Why is this editing not working the way that it should.

I meant to say well written, and the character you had mentioned.

Re: Saad Shafqat

Excellent intro to the topic...I agree, ``...how delicious to contemplate...``, but only concern is, here we go again... and round and round we go!

The debate on creationism v. evolution always boils down to a matter of personal choice believes, what ever they may be, and there is no scientific data, or corpus of research which will convince its detractors either ways. Trust me on this Saad, trying to prove evolution to a creationist is like trying to demolish a brick wall with your head! The wall will still be there, but you will have a mother of all headaches!

Saad:

Sorry yaar, the pc insulted Chucha Ghalib:

The line should read``


Aagahi daam-e-shunaidan jis qadr chahay bichai
mood`dua anka hay apnay aalam-e-taqreer kaa

Saad:

(inside of a tall serene church, candles lit in some corner, blue eyed non middle-eastern blondish fellow with halo around the head staring or in meditation on the walls, some kiosks to the side with naked dusty bulbs----enters temporal ---makes a three pronged movement with his right hand----- to confirm that his wallet,pen and car keys are firmly where they should be-- there is rustle behind the partition--a hoarse voice speaks---temporal clears his throat---silence--- silence for three or four seconds and then says)

Aaagahee daam-e-shunaidan jis qadr chahay bichai mood`dua ankaa hay apnay aalam-e-taqrir kaa

(priest takes this for Latin, makes rustling noises, adjusts his collar, fiddles with his fingers)

Hastee kay mat faraib maiN aajaaiou Asad
aalam tamam halqa-e-daam-e-khayaal hay

(as the priest straightens up to receive the confession in a more familiar language, temporal walks out of the kiosk without looking back).

regards

Saad ji, Saad ji, I am convinced yaar, no more convincing required.

Your play was very informative but I did not want to reply to it untill I had checked all the sources that you have metnioned in your play through your character Omar.

Well write yet again.

Now lets get back to the good stuff called cricket. I know you are an avid fan.

So, when is that match in Calcutta.

It may so that the misssing link that gave ``birth`` to life from inanimate was a tremendous amount of external energy - so much energy that is incomprehensible by us at this time. That could have been the ``big bang``. This burst of energy ``aligned`` complex inorganic and organic molecules into an organized protoplasmic form.

What do you think Saad?

Adeel.