Looking For Life on Other Worlds

So I guess you don`t think silicon based lifeforms are likely to exist?

anarayn $96 you write ``you seem to say, he DOES NOT have an idea of what it might do, where it might go...hence the need to keep a watchful eye on it...to `manage` it.``
I do not say anything one way or another on this. I dont even say whether he manages anything - all I say he what he is not: his not a micromanager. And I say this based on evidence collected to date which indicates that evolution has taken place without God having to design a human, a flower, or a goat or any other living thing.

you write ``Further you seem to say...since the fundamental laws seem so constant and omnipresent...perhaps this God doesn`t really interfere with his creation after he`s done creating it. ``
That seems to be the case indeed based on my understanding of evidence to date. Its just that the laws that we are familiar with (e.g. the laws of classical physics) are themselves the result of the operation of more fundamental laws (i.e. the laws of quantum physics), and those rest on even more basic laws (i.e. the laws of pre-Big Bang ``times``, whatever those laws were and if ``time`` even existed prior to Big Bang). And so ad infinitum. As I discussed in my previous post.

As for your question regarding God having a memory, I think the concept of memory relates to us time-bound humans and is essentially irrelevant when thinking of God. Why do you ask this question?

tahmed,

Thanks for letting us know your ideas. Couple questions:


(1)
``...as such, God does not need to micro-manage everthing...``

God as the CEO!

When Edison created the light bulb...we can safely assume he knew well (more or less) what was expected of the bulb.

When God creates creation...you seem to say, he DOES NOT have an idea of what it might do, where it might go...hence the need to keep a watchful eye on it...to `manage` it.

Further you seem to say...since the fundamental laws seem so constant and omnipresent...perhaps this God doesn`t really interfere with his creation after he`s done creating it.

Do I understand you correctly?



(2)

Does God (per your concept) have memory?

Does he remember things that hapenned yesterday? ...the previous minute?
Does he need to have memory...per your concept?


thanks,

anarayan #94 Far from saying that God is bound by laws (or even the very concept of time), I am (and have been) saying the opposite: that God CREATED the fundamental laws to begin with. And, furthermore, these fundamental laws are not merely the laws of classical physics, or the laws of chemistry underlying evolution - since classical physics and chemistry, are themselves the result from the laws of quantum physics that we are only beginning to appreciate (far less properly understand) and which are so counterintuitive as to strain or mental capacities. AND as such, God does not need to micro-manage everthing, far less put limits on scientific reasearch or make society a prisoner of tradition and historical events (as many religious fundamentalists would like to do in God`s name).
Incidentally, I disagree when you say mediocrity likes comfort. None of us chowkies knows other posters well enough to attribute mediocrity or genius to one another. And indeed, I happen to believe in the saying that ``Great minds think alike``. Mediocrites quarrel till the cows come home. And if you dont believe me, read the endless arguments on kashmir, laughable comparisons of the living standards of two of the poorest and socially and culturally most backward countries on earth (namely India and Pakistan). Non-mediocrites (relatively speaking) AGREE that both countries have a lot of catching up to do before they become an asset, not a liability, to the cause of human progress. I feel comfortable with such agreement. Even if it makes me a mediocrity in your eyes (not that I have any doubts that I am anything but a mediocrity anyway - but not as mediocre as some of chowk posters I could name. That I am sure of).
NOTE: Since you have not been reading my earlier posts (otherwise you would not have thought I am saying something as thoughtless as saying that God is bound by natural laws), I think you better stop reading here. The rest of my post is simply more idle thoughts along the same lines.

I am going a step beyond even quantum physics, since even those laws resulted from the Big Bang and as such cannot be considered the most fundamental. What I am saying, my friend, is that God is indeed the creator of everything, of laws at every level - quantum physics, classical physics, chemistry, even social interaction. BUT (and this is a HUGE but) he does not interfere in any of these laws (far less does he carry out miracles, give triplets to previously infertile couples, and so forth as ardent believers in all religions think). What I am saying is: God (and I wont even speculate on what this concept means beyond saying that this is some form of consciousness that some people - including myself - BELIEVE exists, but realize we can never prove or disproe this belief) operates at a level that lies beyond the furthest reaches of science, the realm that gave rise to the laws of quantum physics and all derived laws (i.e. the rest of natural and even social sciences) thereafter.

tahmed32,

``HOWEVER, he has also made it clear (per your quote from his earlier post) that he is quite comfortable with the concept of a God who operates through fundamental rules``

You mean a God bound by all the worldly laws...and yet working HIS good works?
In that case...that God is little better than a common magician !!!

Can a God be bound by Time? What is Time?
All interesting questions...but some other time maybe (no pun intended).

------------------------------

``My question to you then is: are you as comfortable as he is with the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` that essentially gives a free hand to the search for knowledge through the scientific method or not, and in fact does not interfere in everyday life?``


Only the mediocre look for comfort. (Don`t know who said this...but it sounds good!)

Does the universe care what anarayan or sameer or tahmed thinks?!
Let us simply wonder at this magnificient creation...and silently pass on.

cheers,

anarayan #91 Another thing: SameerJB may have, as you say, rejected the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` in the way it is commonly assumed to mean. HOWEVER, he has also made it clear (per your quote from his earlier post) that he is quite comfortable with the concept of a God who operates through fundamental rules, and does not micro-manage by imposing his will in everyday matters.
My question to you then is: are you as comfortable as he is with the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` that essentially gives a free hand to the search for knowledge through the scientific method or not, and in fact does not interfere in everyday life? If you are, then I dont see what is upsetting you.

anarayan #90 So you think that the DNA is merely (!) a floppy disk (i.e. software)? This floppy disk contains that instruction manual for building a living thing. If you are looking for the creator of anything (living or dead), you look for the author of the instruction manual. Not at the building material (carbon or silicon or whatever). Is this concept really that hard to understand?

sameer,

``is your belief in universal consiousness manifesting itself before life and also playing its role at molecular level similar to micro-management. This position is very close to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic belief of God interfering as ``will`` at each and every momemt in time and space, micro-managing everything down to sub-atomic level - although your universal consiousness has nothing to do with God or designer. But you do see its role side by side with matter at molecular and micro level.``

Thats a good (and expected) question. At what level does this `conciousness` interact with matter ?

I have no answer (nor does anyone I guess). Thats why I put all those `maybe`s!

------------------------------

``Except for some philosophical musings over tea, tahmed`s position of not-micro-managing designer or God is very comfortable for reconciliation. More imortantly it allows unfettered research and liberty to know and learn utilizing every possible mean. Same experiments carried out at tahmed`s and mine labs would yield same results because we are looking for details at microlevel.``

Sameer saab...I am NOT arguing about stopping all research...because of a belief in `consciousness`.

How does the scinetific process go? You make a hypothesis...then test it out. Doesn`t work...go onto the next hypothesis...and so on till you arrive at the truth or as close as possible to it.

You have rejected the `universal consciouss` hypothesis...in favour of the random process/reaction hypothesis. This hypothesis is woefully inadequate to explain plenty of things.

I notice you have not answered my last question...what percentage of chemicals in a cell are useless?

Perhaps you are afraid of the answer !!!

---------------------------

tahmed,

Arre yaar, we have been through this already. DNA is just a floppy disk for life. By itself, it can do nothing. Without correct and timely inputs (chemicals) and other auxillary processes running parallely , it cannot even reproduce.

regards,

anarayan and tahmed321: I asked the question about properties of carbon to understand your position of universal consiousness. What I gather from your following statement:
That inteligence (PERHAPS) used carbon as the most suitable material that exists...OR...after a few trials, it concluded that carbon is the most suitable.
is your belief in universal consiousness manifesting itself before life and also playing its role at molecular level similar to micro-management. This position is very close to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic belief of God interfering as ``will`` at each and every momemt in time and space, micro-managing everything down to sub-atomic level - although your universal consiousness has nothing to do with God or designer. But you do see its role side by side with matter at molecular and micro level.
Except for some philosophical musings over tea, tahmed`s position of not-micro-managing designer or God is very comfortable for reconciliation. More imortantly it allows unfettered research and liberty to know and learn utilizing every possible mean. Same experiments carried out at tahmed`s and mine labs would yield same results because we are looking for details at microlevel.
Actually in terms of universal consiousness and eastern philosophies, the big bang is the best firiend as the source of all matter in the universe thus making us all linked into one without resorting to non-material ideas.

anarayan #88 I think in considering the individual cell and the material it is made from in order to determine whether life is a result of random chance or intelligent design, both you and SameerJB are barking up the wrong tree. A more relevant tree to bark up is the DNA tree: life is, in essence, information, with the DNA providing the assembly instructions in a particular language (the four letter code of A, T, G and C).
AND, the DNA (as I said in my earlier post) is the result of random events (like viral invasions, with the viral genes being added to the genes in the cell). And it has a large number of inactive genes (i.e. they do not produce any proteins and seem to be there just for the ride, and may or may not have been active at sometime in the past).
If you are looking for intelligent design, you would have to look far deeper than the cell, and indeed even the DNA - you would need to understand subatomic physics, you would need to understand the time-space continuum. In fact, as I said in my previous post to SameerJB, you would need to develop a concept of religion and God that is vastly more profound (and with God vastly further up the causal chain) than most people imagine (and indeed probably CAN ever imagine).
So, controversies like intelligent design vs. random occurrence (or ``religion`` vs. science) are ultimately red herrings that detract from the enormous favor mankind can do itself by promoting rational thinking and the development of science and technology.

sameer,

First you deny it:
A) ``Nobody has asserted that first cell just mysteriously appeared one day from the soup.``

Then you accept it:
B) ``Actually soup has to go through million of years of tinkering and reacting according to the laws of nature until a series of reaction found an edge in survival through working in unison or synergetically.``

??????!!

Statment B means the same thing...you ARE stating (albeit in a round-about, verbose manner) that the first cell appeared BY CHANCE from the primordial soup.


Here`s more confusion:
----------------------
You say:``To make it more efficient, more players were allowed to join the party but tinkering at many levels continued.``

more players allowed in...by whom ???

to make it more efficient...by whose idea ???

***Clearly, you are yourself introducing the idea of a `designer`...are you not ???***


In summary: You see no way out of this difficulty...about how the first cell could arise by itself without an intelligence behind it.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your questions:

1) ``Did properties of carbon (as element) are part of this intelligent design too?``


Lets say you want to plug a hole on the roof. What do you do?

If you have a lot of time on your hands, your intelligence makes you look around for the most suitable material. Is it light? is it strong? can it be cut easily?, etc. etc.
Perhaps you may try a few different materials before finding something that works well.

Why should not the same logic apply here?

Also, I don`t quite follow by what logic you conclude that the `universal consciousness` MUST have created the carbon atom as well ???!!!

That inteligence (PERHAPS) used carbon as the most suitable material that exists...OR...after a few trials, it concluded that carbon is the most suitable.

--------------

2) ``What is in the nature of intelligent design to choose L-amino acids over D-amino acids 100 percent; D-series is useless in life. It is more of achoice got built into earliest form of life due to better attachment to certain clay providing it a home to settle down and grow. Otherwise D-amino acid is chemically same as L-amino acid.``


Ok, this is a much more interesting question!!

You`re asking, if there really IS a grand designer, why are there are these redundant chemicals in cells/body. Is the designer confused or dumb or what?

Well, personally speaking, I`m not in favour of a `grand designer` concept...a God, if you will. I like to think of a `universal consciousness` that is very very very subtle...not a grand designer God who can see a zillion years into the future...or move a mountain in a blink of the eye.

This consciousnes exists side by side with matter. It wishes to manifest, to express itself, to `play`.

Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a gross way?...move mountains, etc...maybe No.
Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a very very subtle way?...maybe yes.

(The above is off-course just my conjecture...so please don`t laugh too hard!!)



That said, we can move over to your question.

There are lots of things that are `evolutionary baggage`. The third-eye and appendix being two examples in human beings. These will be got rid off...eventually.

Does that answer your question? No? In that case here`s a counter question:

You hypothesize that ALL chemicals in a cell are due to random processes/reactions. No behind-the-scene intelligence working here. In that case...a large proportion of checmicals in the cell should be useless. Is that logic correct?

What is the proportion of chemicals in a cell/body that are useless. As an expert, please give us a ball-park figure.


regards,

sameerJB #86 I agree with your skepticism when it comes to mixing religion and science, and indeed the proponents of intelligent design would find it very difficult to view God as anything but a micro-manager. The one who keeps an eye on every sparrow that falls (per christian views) and is offended if an individual does not kneel before him five times a day (per muslim views, not based on the Quran incidentally). I would go further and say that the mixing of religion and science has done tremendous damage to the cause of human progress over the past thousand years: the mosques rang out against Ibn Sina in 10th century persia, and on more than one occassion he had to make a hasty exit from a city with the fervent mullahs in hot persuit (and today all this is forgotten by the spiritual descendants of the same mullahs, who spare no opportunity to present people like Ibn Sina as shining examples of muslim glory). Galileo had to go through an inquisition and was forced to toe the then-christian belief that the earth was the center of the universe. The creationists will take another 100 years to disappear and accept what is plainly there to see. And the limitations on stem cell research in the US today under pressure from theologists among others has no doubt given a setback to the cause of medical advancement.
So I suppose I should stop dragging religion into this very interesting discussion, since the concept of religion I have in mind (of a God who is anything but a micro-manager) is not the concept most people have.

sameerJB #83 I think to say that the number of impossibilities is decreasing fast, as you do, is like plankton ingesting a tiny fraction of a milligram of water and declaring that it will soon dry up the Pacific Ocean. The fact is, as I noted earlier, that infinity (which for us puny humans is essentially the magnitude of what we dont know) minus any number (which is all scinetific knowledge we have gained to date PLUS all knowledge we can possibly gain until the sun dies on us a few billion years from now, and/or we evolve into some totally different from of consciousness, whichever comes earlier) is still infinity.

tahmed321: I liked your post. However, removing designer from the position of micro-manager is a very bitter pill for intelligent design camp to swallow. I do not wish to bring any religion into this debate but think of implications of your comment of not-micro-managing.
Regarding fractals and chaos theory, I must add that the fractal is a macro outcome of the extrapolation of non-linear equation and as you pointed out, very sensitive to initial conditions. At micro level, at each step of the reaction, energetics and equilibriums play their part according to current scientific understanding. In fractal geometry, there is only one path with respect to initial conditions but in evolution, the paths are not limited but in competition with winner taking all, leaving losers to end in oblivion, exceptions, abnormalities or diseases.
Some of the paths are favored by nature, chemistry, life and even human life itself. The grain we call wheat is human assisted proliferation of a ``tumorous`` grass seed having larger weight than average grass seed.
The shape of life at present is by no means the only and best option given very large number of possibilities. Having two eyes that can only see front view is not the best intelligent design for a biped upright without considering evolution. They are there because of evolution from rodent to primates to homo-sapiens. The best position would have been on the sides (as in rodents) to be able to see both front and back.

urstruly #79 You are quite right in saying that with the introduction of Chaos theory (a young branch of math that was started only about four decades ago) the concept of entropy as traditionally understood is open to question. In fact, I dont see any reason why insights obtained through the Chaos theory would not apply to the behavior of matter as well. In particular, the two basic insights contributed by Chaos theory relate to (a) the greatly magnified longer run impact of a minor change in initial conditions; and (b) the ``strange attractor``, meaning the underlying stability and predictability of an seemingly chaotic system. Applied to evolution, (a) implies that the evolution of life on earth could have taken a different turn - and indeed the DNA is considered to include genes that represent historical events: Like viral infections of millions or billions of years ago that have left a permanent mark in our DNA in the form of genes that were contributed by the virus; or like ``peace treaties`` between cells and invading bacteria of the kind that have resulted in mitochondria - initially a foreign body - now being ``part of the family`` inside most types of cells, and indeed being the power generators for these cells. (b) implies that a few simple rules can lead to a predictable outcome regardless of the seeming chaos on the surface. This is what I was trying to explain in a different way in my previous post to anarayan: that is, as science seems to indicate, God does not need to micro-manage the universe through taking an active part in each and every event in the universe. He just needs to set the basic rules (or matter, or even of a small handful of subatomic particles), and the rest will follow in a fairly deterministic way all the way to an expanding universe and black holes and quasers having the energy of a quadzillion suns.
The interesting thing is: SINCE by all indications God is not a micromanager, one can persue scientific knowledge and technological advance WITHOUT being concerned with whether or not God exists. In other words, science and religion are essentially separate but compatible realms.

This is all there is in support of universal consiousness, intelligent design and one or more designers. Basically opposing laws of nature, chemistry, biology, evolution, relying upon lack of detailed step-by-step explanation at this stage in history, throwing in mokey wrenches on behalf of pre-conceived notion of intelligent design and designer without proving anything is modus operandi of intelligent design camp. Of course, on another level, they break up opposing each other ruthlessly pitting for one or more than one designer.
To summerize: ``Science is about possibilities, not impossibilities`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer(s) and universail consiousness. ``The living cell is imossinle to create in a lab`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer(s) and universal consiousness. ``The fractal geometry has patterns and beautiful designs`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer and universal consiousness.
Impossibilities are impossibilities until becoming possibilites. The history of scientific revolution is full of examples of impossibilities becoming possibilities. The number of impossibilites are decreasing fast. The linking of impossibilities to intelligent design, designer(s) and universal consiousness means decrease in importance of all such notions with the decrease in the level of impossibilities with time.
Neither complexity of living cell nor fractal geometric patterns exist before they are allowed free exrtrapolation and evolution according to non-linear expansion. The fractals actually deny participation of intelligent design or designer; they point actullay to the unpredictability of extrapolation according to non-linear equations. Simply because of its oversensitivity to very minute variations leading to totally different patterns actually oppose the idea of intelligent design as well as designer.
I guess oversensitivity of designer about past is matched by its hypersensivity to disobedience at present stage. Designer is really obsessed with fluid dynamics....::))

sameer # 81

You are missing the point again. Life is not just living cells. Cells can be kept alive for indefinite period of time - there are cases in medical history where comatose have been kept ``alive`` for years on life support. Their cells were functioning normally. Brain was producing waves while they were on support. But they did not have life. And when support is removed from such people they ``die`` with in minutes. There are also cases where cells are even grown (replicate) in petri dish. In short, the functioning of cells properly or their decay may not constitute ``life`` or lack of it. An anology can better explain my point. The discovery of steal or methods of its refinement and constructing a rail engine are two different things albiet the later is made from steal. So is the making of protiens or discovering the composition and functions of cell.

anarayan #78 We can perhaps be more sure of some laws (e.g. of gravity) than of others (e.g. the conservation of energy). But we can use them for we can use them for our everyday purposes (more specifically, in our time-space location and in our everyday time-space scales). And for non-everyday purposes (e.g. in studying the behavior of subatomic particles, or in studying the birth of the universe), we can be sure of NONE of these laws (as discussed in my previous post).
Evolutionary theory is based on chemical ``laws`` that apply to our time-space scales, and as such there does not seem any reason to believe that it is based on any less reliable laws than (e.g.) the third law of motion (I believe) that propels airliners around the globe every day. That is all I am saying.
I am not drawing from this the conclusion that there is no overarching consciousness that promulgated these laws to begin with. Since an overarching consciousness responsible for these laws (i.e. the concept of the Creator) is entirely consistent with saying that the first living cell was formed from less complex structures (proteins) and those from simpler structures (amino acids) and those from plain old chemicals placed under certain conditions. But as a result of laws that were designed by the Creator. Of course this does NOT PROVE the existence of a Creator - but it certainly reconciles the basics of science and religion quite well, I think.

anarayan, tahmed, urstruly: The cell is decayed by another series of processes than the series it was formed. The formation is much more complex than decay by oxidation. When a cell is formed, it is not programmed to decay but has a lifetime based on communication with the brain. All cells except neurons die regulatrly and replaced by new cells regularly - to offset the rate of decay or death of cells. The communication is no longer there for repairing and replacing once a person dies and still soome cells do not decay as in mummified remains although they stop all of their functions. A cell detached from the body can be kept alive for a very longtime under appropriate optimum conditions in lab or simply frozrn to liquid nitrogen temperature. Would you believe that universal consiousness can be fronzen for many simpler forms of life indefinitely in liquid notrogen. Not in too distant future, whole human chemistry and universal consiousness could also be frozen indefinitely in liquid nitrogen cylnders.
Think about it? The freezing of life in time and space is also freezing this localized consiousness at 77K, otherwise though to be beyond space, time and matter.
I understand your main concern of complexity of life even in unicellular form performing specialized functions which those chemicals or their components would not be able to perform in a lab. To me, it is a matter of lack of understanding of advance level science, scientific laws, synergies, sterochemical effects, microenvironment and so forth. Nobody has asserted that first cell just mysteriously appeared one day from the soup. Actually soup has to go through million of years of tinkering and reacting according to the laws of nature until a series of reaction found an edge in survival through working in unison or synergetically. To make it more efficient, more players were allowed to join the party but tinkering at many levels continued. since, anarayan, you are arguing for intelligent design through posing questions. Allow me to ask couple of questions too.
1) Did properties of carbon (as element) are part of this intelligent design too? If so, no further discussion is possible because you and I would have irreconsilable debate. This question is similar to asking if the density of water decreases below 4C by intelligent design, so as to make ice float and thus fish survive underwater. Obviously the properties of water and properties of carbon predate several billion years from fish and organ based life appearance. If a certain property of carbon called catenation (to make extended bonds with other carbon atoms) was not there, no life in the current form will be possible. An intelligent designer must have thought about it and definitely controlled the properties of carbon to make use of it in later intelligent designs. So the debate ends from my point of view. I do not believe in intelligent design in assigning different properties to different elements with special treayment to carbon as Kingmaker.
2) What is in the nature of intelligent design to choose L-amino acids over D-amino acids 100 percent; D-series is useless in life. It is more of achoice got built into earliest form of life due to better attachment to certain clay providing it a home to settle down and grow. Otherwise D-amino acid is chemically same as L-amino acid.
Absebce of intelligent design is not akin to blind watchmaker as many people think. What went into optimization of each and every step during the whole history of transformations were logical tinkering according to the laws of the nature and chemistry. Nowhere in the history of evolution, isotopes of elements made any difference because isotopes do not change chemical properties of elements. Nowhere during this long series of reactions any ``cold fusion`` or nuclear reactions took place.
Once we come to know any new step or missing link in the chemical evolution of life, it is explainable without resorting to intelligent design. In the last 200 years of rewearch in this area, nobody has resorted to dealing with an unknown constant in any equation called ID (intelligent design) constant similar to Planks or Gas constants. It is possible that all of those and current crop of scientists are missing out on something of such magnified importance that is privy to only select few thinkers in this world.
Evolution is a subject under biology. It is not a theory, as many believe due to Darwin`s theory of Evolutioin. One can study evolution without even reading a word abut Darwin and ``Origin of Species``. Chemists do not have to read Jaber Bin Hayan to become a chemist in similar way. To be against evolution is not about denying Darwin; it is for the sole purpose of bringing intelligent design and thus designer in some form and shape into decision making position. Instead of finding proof of it, the strategy is to negate evolution based on what is not yet fully known or understood.
It is surprising that intelligent design model comes into play only to oppose or to compensate for lack of information.

Gentlemen

I think the future of concept of entropy and its applicability to the topic of discussion is very much questionable after the introduction of fractal geometry and how almost everything in universe observes a pattern. Even the events which used to be considered absolute chaotic like a tap water falling into a bucket and the chaos that is created in the bucket, follow a pattern. So entropy, meaning increasing chaos, may be applicable to energy (heat) but I think matter follows a different law/pattern than energy.

sameer,urstruly,tahmed,hameed,

tahmed,
urstruly has a valid point about fundamental laws being hypotheses rather than `laws`.

A good example is the law of `conservation of energy` which lies at the very heart of many engineering systems. Nobody has proved it. Also Nobody has disproved it till today.

If memory serves me correctly, the second law of thermodynamics (which speaks of entropy) is also an `unproved` law.

Yes, MOST LIKELY these laws will be valid tomorrow morning...yet...you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain unless someone proves that it WILL be so.


Also, the many different nature laws we see today...could actually be different manifestations of one or two more fundamental laws.

For eg: Most of us used to wonder whats `positive` about a positive charge and whats `negative` about a negative charge. Today, string theory is bringing these two concepts under one umbrella. What we thought earlier to be two fundamentally different items are proving to be two manifesations of a single phenomenon.

---------------------

sameer writes: ``I do not understand the logic og insistance of extramaterial component of life when it is just a philosophical question dealing with meaning of life and socialy purpose of life. I will continue to disagree with universal consiousness in any name.``


Agreed that this is a very complex, subtle topic and we are with little data or tools.

But, let me ask a simple question:
You say the first living cell could have been created by the laws of nature, chance, etc. Also you say that EVERYTHING going on inside a cell is as per entropy laws.

I ask...in that case, why does a cell decay???

Upon death, a cell breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. It never stays intact...which it theoretically SHOULD...if your hypothesis is correct. Think about it.


An abstract answer is that...the cell was `programmed` to die.

Which brings us to an important point:
****In the evolutionary sequence...even the simple cell is already far advanced****

Even though we speak of `simple cells`, actually, the simplest cell has FAR TOO MUCH embedded intelligence. To compare it with raw checmicals is silly. To say that it arose DIRECTLY, repeat DIRECTLY from the `soup` is stretching things a bit.

From the simple cell to the complex mammal...is only a matter of time...no big deal. Evolution...the hidden intelligence in every life form...will inexorably take its course.

The huge chasm seems to be that from raw-chemicals to the first cell.

Was there a simpler form of life...before the first cell???!!!


thanks,

urstruly #76 I may be hypothesizing that if I jump from the third floor, I will, by the law (sorry, hypothesis) of gravity, fall straight down. I wont try to test this hypothesis though. The reason is, that UNDER CERTAIN GIVEN ASSUMPTIONS (e.g. that I am located on mother earth during ``current`` times) this hypothesis has been successfully tested and as such I can be confident that if I jump from a third storey building, I shall end up on the sidewalk rather than, eg. gracefully floating around. Thus, under certain assumptions of my location in space-time, the ``hypothesis`` of gravity is not a hypothesis but a proven law of physics. BY THE SAME TOKEN, we have more complex laws (these having been tested as well, and as such no longer considered hypotheses) of chemistry which, as SameerJB says, can successfully explain the emergence of life through chemical interactions. And I tend to agree with him.
MY POINT is much more fundamental though: these laws themselves can change. Scientists now believe e.g. that these laws came into being only at the time of the Big Bang. Space-time as we know it, along with all the material universe, and along with all the laws within which that material operates, did not exist before that. They also believe that these laws are abrogated inside a black hole. So: given the vast amount of info we have by now, theory of evolution is almost as well established as the law of gravity.

tahmad

What you call laws of nature (in the context of creation) are not laws. They are mere speculations. They are not even hypothses according to the scientific method.

Even if the missing link is found, the theory of evolution will still remain speculative. For example, if we compare a 2 million year old fossil of a poodle with a 1 million year old fossil of a buldog - all you can do is to speculate that the smaller dogs might have evolved into bigger dogs. The possibility will still exist that the two dogs were actually different geners of the same specie.

As far as the point whether primordial soup just started cooking by itself or someone mixed the ingredients will always remain open for speculation. The answer to the secondary question, which is, there is a law that governs the mixing of primordial soup does not answer the first question.

urstruly #73 The theory of intelligent design (which is basically creationism under a new label) as you describe it overlooks an important fact: arrowheads and buildings cannot reproduce themselves, whereas living creatures invariably can. This creates the possibility of ``design improvements, enhancements, modifications`` over time, whether at the individual level (as Darwin thought) or at multiple levels (i.e. at the gene level, individual level, or at the level of entire species or related groups of species like the wiping out of dinosaurs) as a century of painstaking scientific research after Darwin has shown. So, by now there is irrefutable evidence by now that all living creatures today are the result of such design changes in new ``editions`` (i.e. new generations) of living creatures.
Thus, I have no problem with SameerJB`s view (if I understand it correctly) that the laws of nature have served to take a handful of chemicals 4 billion years ago, and through the inexorable processes governed by certain rules of chemistry, biology, and so forth. We even know today that these ``laws of nature`` that we take for granted can change. E.g. Einstein predicted that light can bend with gravity, and sure enough this was proved by a physical experiment some decades back. Scientific theory holds that there must be something like black holes in the universe where ALL RULES of physics as we know it are suspended - and sure enough, we now have demonstrated that not only is the universe littered with black holes, there is one at the center of our galaxy which was computed (and results made public only last week) to have a mass of 25 million or so of our sun. And so on, and things get only weirder as we look into particle physics where the same particle can be in two places at the same time and so forth.

BUT, the question that will I think always elude us is: WHO sets these rules? Newton simply ``discovered`` certain rules of physics, as did Einstein, and as are scientists doing at galloping speed (relatively speaking) today. But no human invented these rules. WHO decided that there should be a force of gravity that pulls rather than repels, or that there should be a gravitational force at all? And coming back to living things, WHAT AGENCY decided that the Thymine molecule should link with Adenine and Cytosine with Guanine to form the four alphabet language of the Book of Life (the DNA), and not Thymine with Cytosine? Even if we answer this question (in terms of the rules governing atoms and sub-atomic particles), we are then left with questions like: what causes an up-quark (one of the handful of subatomic particles which is the level to which we have tracked down the building material of all matter) to have an up-quark spin and not a down-quark spin, not to mention the strange-quark and the other weird sub-atomic creatures they have discovered in the second half of the 20th century? And even physicists are beginning to feel (as per a recent article in the Economist) that we are at a watershed into totally new insights of a kind that shook up the Newtonian physics of the late 19th century. And so, the story of the increasing human awareness of the nature of things goes on.
While SameerJB thinks this process reduces the role of ``extra-scientific agents`` (or God, as some of us like to think), I think he is right only in terms of the concept of God as understood in primitive or superstitious terms (e.g. we know that the god Thor does not cause lightening, rather it is readily explained by the laws of science). In a broader sense, I think no matter how much we subtract (i.e. discover) from infinity (i.e. the unknown), infinity will always remain undiminished as infinity. The search for the Mind of God (as Einstein put it) will go on, until one day the Old Man decides humanity is getting to big for its boots and causes a huge flood with no time build an ark (just joking here).

Thanks Hameed for updating about high power new telescope and advances in the optical spectral techniques in the region where intensuty of shiniing stars is relatively low. The red color monochromatic is very advantageous here because of lesser diffusion of red color and laser being monochromatic does not require scanning very wide area. Here on earth, the red laser is often associated with ruby and similar material can be found at other places, although I do not know why it would be pulsed on its own and not continuous. Of course, pulsed has many analytical advantages.
anaratan and tahmed: I do not understand the logic og insistance of extramaterial component of life when it is just a philosophical question dealing with meaning of life and socialy purpose of life. I will continue to disagree with universal consiousness in any name. It is more of a logic developed by thinking individuals in the absense of modern understanding of life, chemistry and evolution - some 2-3 thousands years ago. I do not mean to reject it mainly because it is old concept becasue many old concepts such as family, marriage and wheel are still useful and accepted. However, more we understand life, as I previously mentioned in terms of medicine instead of remedies. Even the universal consiousness also has chemical basis in terms of neurotransmitters communicating through oxidation-reductioin of acetylcholine. The complexity of interaction methodology is mainly due to the time it took to ``perfect`` the system to the advantage of its carrier. For each individual, intelligence develops with age depending upon opportunities, dedication, perspiration, inspiration and not inventing the wheel for every individual. We do not have to begin life in the stone age any more because of surrounding but if a child is kept away in total isolation from surroundings and interaction completely, the universal consiousness will not manifest itself automatically to put that life in 21st century.
The living cell or photosynthesis in plants is perfectly logical for a scientist. But you have to understand the genesis of each step reaching to a cell. Each reaction is either spontaneous or non-spontaneous. Once bond formation of bond breaking is involved, entropicla contribution is negligible. Entropy contributes in bimiolcular reactions effecting the probability of productive collisions leading to activation towards a reaction. The product from one reaction can be more disorderly than the reactants if the equilibrium to falling back to reactants is overcomed such as in static equilibrium. A chair placed on rooftop has more entropy than at placed on the floor but a chair can be as easily put toether on rooftop as on floor because once it`s formation due to static equilibrium is not reversible process. In chemistry, if the product precipitates out, the reversibility is stalled or slowed to make the reaction proceed according to LeChatlier principle. This is also termed as product of thermodynamic control. The energy from heat, solvation, bond formation, light and many other forms of energy becomes part of the product. When the product of Ist reaction goes into second reaction, the high entropy of ist product helps the second reaction. For example in enzymatic reaction, the strained pre-organization of catalyst becomes nore comfortable, or decreasing entropy by forming lock and key type intermediates and transition states.
In kinetic control reaction, the product stability and irreversibe equilibrium of rate determining step dominates the fate of the reaction. Similarly in dynamic equilibrium processes, the rate of product comsumption in the next step determines the equilibrium. A faster second reaction shifts the first reaction to the forward direction. Better scientific understanding of reactions went into evolving a cell is inversely related to extramaterial contribution. The chemistry of photosynthesis is well established in the presence of catalyst chlorophyll. The electronic energy from sunlight is chaneled into the formation of carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and is not uphill overall process. Moreover, both thermodynamic control and static equilibrium applies to photosynthesis. The carbohydrate basically precipitates out shifitng the equilibrium to the forward direction.

Darwin`s theory, though named, ``origin of species``, hardly describe the `origin`; evolution or evolutionary process is not origin. And even evolution component of it is speculative. On the other hand a new theory is emerging regarding the origin - it is not based on religious doctrines, but despite that it has acclaimed support from both religious and non-religious points of view. The theory is called ``Intelligent design``. The basic logic of this theory is simple - as in archeology and anthropology when a piece of stone/metal/wood is found in the shape of arrowhead the the set of assumptions go like this:

- In nature, such a shape hardly occurs by itself, therefore, it must be made by someone and since such shapes are usually made by humans, therfore, humans must have made them.

- Or when an archeologist finds the ruins of a building- the assumptions are made that since such shape does not occur by chance, therefore, someone must have made them; and since such structures are usually made by humans, therefore, humans must have made it.

Like I said - science is about possibilities and not about impossibilities.

anarayan #69 Actually, I think the conditions that triggered the transformation of a bunch of chemicals into what ultimately became living creatures are simple enough - they were replicated in the lab over half a century ago when the first amino acids were formed after simulating conditions of earth 4 billion years ago (with electrical discharges to represent the tremendous lightening storms of that time). And amino acids become proteins and the rest is history.
I agree with you though that to think that something as complex as a cell (Let alone the human eye, or the even more complex eagle eye, or the even more complex human mind, or the incredible wings of the common housefly whose complex motions scientists are trying to mimic nowadays, and the list goes on) could happen by chance. Darwin`s theories are on the right track, but are not sufficient to answer this question - a significant enhancement to this theory has been made earlier this year in the book ``The structure of evolutionary theory`` which replaces the one dimensional struggle for survival of the individual with a multi-dimensional struggle at various levels - the DNA, the individual, the species, and so on. The implications for human society are profound.
And even this advance begs the ultimate question - what is behind all this? One guess (e.g. an overarching intelligence) is as good as another (i.e. ``mechanical`` interactions), as long as one does not confuse what we believe with what we know. We just dont know the answer to this question.

I thought you might find the following quote from Arthur C. Clarke (the famous British science fiction writer who lives in sri lanka) interesting: ``There are two possibilities: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying``.
Another aspect of course is the SETI@home program. Started by the University of Berkeley in 1999, this program by now has extends distributed computing to a growing number of PCs (about 4 million now) so they work in parallel to provide the power of supercomputers costing $300 million. The program basically takes radio transmission captured by the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico (the largest radio telescope in the world today), and looks for radio signals of a kind that ET is currently expected to most likely be using. These are then sent to these various PCs, where the screen saver analyzes the signal when the PC is not being used, and sends in the results. This program run essentially on a voluntary basis, has been of interest not only in SETI but also in the more mundane field of computing where it is the leading example of harnessing the power of the internet for distributed computing that represents a serious alternative to the traditional use of the ``Big Iron`` approach for supercomputing. And you can be a part of it by simply downloading from Berkeleys SETI@home program.
PS: Incidenatlly, the types kind of signals they are looking for in this distributed computing aspect of SETI indicates the thoughtfullness and cooperation of voluntary efforts of individuals as well as of universities and even some international agencies that has gone into this entire effort: They are looking for signals that are within a narrow band - since broadband signals would require too much bandwith for the distances involved between stars. Similarly, they would form a bell-shaped curve lasting about 15-20 seconds, resulting from the movement of the telescope due to the earth`s rotation first towards and then away from the pont of signal origination. And they are looking for a very narrow band - around 1420 Mhrz I think - which is a relatively quiet part of the tower of babel created by the trillions of heavenly bodies as well as signals from man-made satellites etc. since FCC and international agencies have also lent a helping hand to SETI by disallowing use of this frequency for commercial or other purposes.

tahmed, sameer, anarayan, urstruly:

Sorry for the delayed participation. Quick comments regarding SETI: Allen Telescope is expected to be operational by 2005 and will also modify the way radio astronomy is done. In fact, there is another project, The Square Kilometer Array (SKA), that is being designed based on the Allen Telescope project.

However, another interesting area is ``Optical SETI``. Recently (in the last couple of years) astronomers have started looking for strong laser flashes (pulses) near sun-like stars. As it turns out, searching for ``intelligent`` signals in the optical have tremendous advantages. First, you don`t have to search (and guess) through millions of frequency channels since optical spectrum is much smaller. Second, as it turns out, its quite easy to outshine a star at a particular wavelength. For example, we are at a point where we have the technology to build a laser that can outshine our Sun at Red wavelengths (of course we should not try that around the yellow region of the spectrum) for a short period of time. Optical SETI (or OSETI) is going on at Harvard, Ohio, and couple of other places.

There is also a satellite planned ``The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)`` that is going to search and image earth-like planets (scheduled for 2009-2010). It will also be able to take spectra of the planets to see if we can detect oxygen or not. All primordial atmospheres of planets (including Earth`s) were devoid of free oxygen. Only life changed the composition of our atmosphere, and made it relatively oxygen-rich. So one idea is that if we detect sufficient oxygen on an earth-like planet, then there is a very good chance that there is life (probably very simple) out there. Of course, this is from the perspective of life as we know it, not life as we don`t know it.

-Salman.

sameer,

(1)

You write:
``Extramaterial part of life called soul or something else also falls because whether it is or not, it is totally in control of human, excluding everything outside human mind. If I do not want to participate in creating a soul (fathering a child), the god`s participation is terminated. With it falls all the concepts of hell, heaven, morality and everything that were to be applicable to this future human being - all because of me and my decision not to bring this human being into the world.``

I understand what you are trying to convey. But I feel the `God` concept should not enter this discussion...since what we (me and urstruly) are talking about is simply something non-material which we may call `intelligence`...not God in the usual sense of an all-powerful entity that can influence worldly events, that passes commandments, etc.

This intelligence would be something subler than the subtlest...permeating all life...not gross enough to change our daily thinking (which arises out of our conditioning, experiences, etc)...but the essence of life.



(2)
``The point I am trying to make is that even if there is to be something beyind material form to life, it is so minor (insignificant) - discarded or ignored in scientific calculatioins.``
``Entropy is a minor component in determining the fate of a reaction, measured in cal/ deg/ mole unless at very high temperatures because it is per degree temperature dependent. The right term is free energy commonly known as deltaG which is related to equilibrium at every step of a reaction. For a series of reactions taking place over 3 billion years, all the intermediate steps with equilibrium constants have to be known to find out overall free energy as downhill or uphill for all the processes leading toa cell formation.``


I have 2 things to say here:
a)
Once a reaction starts, then, you are correct...entropy doesn`t figure much in the calculations. But here we are debating something else...whether the process WILL START AT ALL.

In this question (whether the process will start at all)...entropy is the ONLY player.

A reaction will never EVEN START if in the net result it will add to the `orderliness` of the universe.



b)
Do you really feel that the first cell `SOMEHOW` came into being (by chance) ???? Many scholars believe so and that is something that always surprises me.

Take a DNA...many hundred thousand molecules...perfectly placed.

Now consider this:
Say an event has 1/10 chance of hapenning. Consider a series of ONLY 20 such events.
If one event takes 1 second...then for the event series to defintely take place...we will have to wait for 100 billion years...more than the age of the universe!

And to make a cell is a million times more complex than 20 simple events. The intricate cell wall, the fluid interior with perfect pH, the nucleus, the tremendously tight-coiled DNA, etc, etc, etc.

You would agree that a `chance` cell is indeed laughable!

---------------------------------------------

Let me now explain what I meant in my previous post on `life` and `entropy`:

Consider a tree. It takes in raw minerals and converts them to living matter. It captures and stores the energy of sunlight. This action goes against the `entropy principle`. This action of capturing light and storing as chemical energy. It adds to the order in the universe.

Can you name any natural process which does this???

The opposite of this action...extracting the checmical energy of plants (burning petroleum)...happens spontaneously...because that is in line with the `entropy principle`. Burning petrol increase the entropy of the universe.

Thus my statement that `life` is a NEGATION of the `entropy principle`.

No natural process can negate this principle.

tahmed321: I did not start discussion about the definition of life. I merely disagreed to a statement that made a suggestion to treat life different than the constituents it is dependent upon. How could SETI or any other technique find life somewhere out there when we do not believe that the identifiable material is not life. What will the telescope be looking at? Something different than the constituents? I guess if I had agreed with head down to something other than chemical basis it would not have been religion bashing but then forget about telescope and SETI and any known technique to detect life in the universe and discard this article.
I hope you understand that it is no use looking for life out there if we do not know what life is.
We are looking for traces of gases, temperature, pressure, water and things necesssary for life. However if they communnicate with us, then it is life and forget about the constituents because anybody able to contact will be more than able to explain what they are in all respect. If we are to detect something in the outer space at current level of skills, it is going to be constituents much before seeing an ET.
I was not familiar with Paul Allen`s recent contribution but now I do, thanks to you. As we are able to magnify outer space more and more and able to have better view of stars whose light have already reached us, we might have better idea. But still the difficulty is that stars are too hot and the planets around them almost invisible due to glare from their parent star. The moons are almost out of question to see.
W hat we are looking at are the signatures in the form of specific wavelength emission radiations that are specific for different elements and compounds. I am not sure but I think they are radiowaves region and thus very weak signals.
All we need is convincing evidence from just one source, that break the uniqueness of life limited to earth. As soon as it is 2, the possibilities in the universe mean large numbers. Wouldn`t it be nice to be hit by a small meterorite that brings the clues from the outer reaches of solar system of life on Europa or some other moon.
Do you know the date this new telescope will become operational?

Urstruly #65 Dont go, please. On this board we have some glimmerings of EU (Extra-Usual-stuff-about-politics-and-stuff), and your posts have raised some interesting issues. I think I brought up the religion angle myself, but I did not mean to detract from the main discussion.

SameerJB #64 The point I was making was not that science was ``proves`` or ``disproves`` God`s existence. It is as irrational to think that science proves Gods existence as it is to think that science disproves it. All I said was that there will always be a boundary to human knowledge. Indeed, the more we know, the more we realize how much more there is to know. So, if anyone wishes to BELIEVE that there is a overarching consciousness of some kind that we can never fully understand (i.e. God as understood through religious teachings) then I think that is his/her business. If anyone wishes to BELIEVE otherwise that is fine too. Neither belief comes in the way of the scientist as he/she persues what I consider to be the finest occupation of all for a human being - expanding the knowledge frontier. I hope this clarifies my point.
PS: Incidentally, on the question of SETI, I understand they are now putting up a new telescope named the Allen Telescope Array (after Paul Allen, of microsoft fame, who is a major donor along with another microsoft almuni, Myrhrvold) in California which is expected to increase the capacity for the SETI search 100 times over the present telescope array (the Arecibo Telescope Array). This, per the SETI website, is considered a very significant (and not an incremental one only) over the ability to search for a ``needle`` (i.e. artificially generated signals, which would indicate the presence of ET) in a haystack (the vast amount of ``noise`` generated by the trillions of heavenly bodies, some stretching back to Creation - excuse me, Big Bang - itself).

Unfortunately, the discussion that could have been a good learning experience has turned into religion bashing. This discussion was never about religious doctrines. Science is all about possibilities and not impossibilities. I am out.

tahmed321 and anarayan:
Let me first handle before Big Bang and soul before getting into entropy and life beyond chemistry.
What was before Big Bang can not be explained with our current understanding because that is beyond time and space. That is, though, no reason to believe a designer on one side and nothingness on the other. However, if in time we are able to answer history 100 years before Big Bang, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and other believers in designer hypothesis will immediately ask: haha, but what was 200 years before Big Bang. See, in this way a believer could never be convinced despite absolute failure on jis part to answer the making of designer himself except that he was always there. Billions of dollars and a million scientists around the world are not doing reasearch to answer a mullah or a priest somewhere in the world. The adamant hangover with the creation hypothesis on part of these people is detrimental to their religions because religions are more than just about creation or god. Buddhism for example has no opinion about either.
Extramaterial part of life called soul or something else also falls because whether it is or not, it is totally in control of human, excluding everything outside human mind. If I do not want to participate in creating a soul (fathering a child), the god`s participation is terminated. With it falls all the concepts of hell, heaven, morality and everything that were to be applicable to this future human being - all because of me and my decision not to bring this human being into the world. If you believe slightly differently that we create the chemical part and designer adds the non-material one is also dependant on us because chemical one is independent (X-axis) and non-material is dependent (Y-axis). The point I am trying to make is that even if there is to be something beyind material form to life, it is so minor (insignificant) - discarded or ignored in scientific calculatioins.
Entropy is a minor component in determining the fate of a reaction, measured in cal/ deg/ mole unless at very high temperatures because it is per degree temperature dependent. The right term is free energy commonly known as deltaG which is related to equilibrium at every step of a reaction. For a series of reactions taking place over 3 billion years, all the intermediate steps with equilibrium constants have to be known to find out overall free energy as downhill or uphill for all the processes leading toa cell formation. Along the way, entropic loss or gain has to be calculated factoring in the pre-association or pre-organization (orderliness) of the previous step(s). Sorry to be too scientific here but what it means is that a comparison of living cell in energetics could not be compared with the large number of chemicals that it is made up of and neither with the basic elements of the cell as C, H, O, N, S.
An random agglomeratioin of watch, car or human cell components will not start function as a watch, car or human cell respectively. There is an order to put them together to get to a watch, car or human cell. If you know the right order exactly in detail, having the availability if all chemicals involved in a cell, knowledge of exact conditions for every reaction and several million years of time at hand, a living cell could be produced from its chemical constituents. This is called principle of microreversibility in chemistry, something similar to reverse engineering. Did life took all the right steps to get to this point?
Depends what do you means by wrong steps. Wrong step would have tajen us to different shapes and forms of life and if intelligent would have considered them right steps. The right and wrong is thus subjective once we consider us to be the only right outcome. At every step, life and chemistry associated with it tinkered with large number of competing reactions and they still do but thet lose out through the complex selection process. None of the reaction in body produces 100 percent desired product, some are actually very poor yield processes. That is why we excrete, sweat, fart and ultimately die. It is optimum and not the most efficient overall chemical result. An efficient would have left no waste, taking in exact amount of fat, protein and carbohydrate calories in the form of pills three times daily and living happily ever after.
anarayan, I think I have answered your question as to why we have not created a living cell in laboratory. For microscopic reversibility, all details at micro levels must be known and time at hand. Many chemicals previously thought to be natural part of living cells are now produced in the labs. The vitamin C is no longer dependent upon exepnsive and time consuming extraction from lemons and lime. The Jasmine scent used in perfumes as well as many other perfume ingredients are chemically synthesized with ease. These are just couple of examples from top of my head.

sameer,

If I may speak for others also...we welcome your thoughts, especially in your field of expertise.

However...I think urstruly and yourstruly...were on a somewhat diffrent wavelength. By `life` we meant the ultra-subtle intelligence that seems beyond grasp and not its material manifestations.

Lets take it point by point.

----------------------------

You say: ``I will disagree with the separation of life from matter. The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt ...So life is a manifestation of matter in a very organized, synchronized, collaborative, complex and not yet totally understood way of a chemical based machines that was in the making for the last 3 billion or so years.``

Off course, there`s no doubt about that. But if `life` was mere chemical reactions, then there would be no problem in creating it in the laboratory.

Naturally evolved life may be several billion years old, but today we have taken it apart...we know life chemically. So why should it be difficult to reproduce a cell in the lab?? Maybe you can throw some ligth on that.

To my knowledge, no life has ever been created artifically by man. All the scientiests have done is the `play` with living cells by injecting them with DNA made externally, etc.

--------------------------

Your other point was with respect to `entropy`...which is VERY central to this question of `what is life`...and which I felt would creep into this discussion...were it to get serious.

All naturally occuring `movements` or `reactions` are due to the entropy principle. Matter and energy seem to seek the most stable, most disorderly state.

Now, the million $$ question is...did life first evolve due to this principle??? Is life in its present state based on this principle???

If yes...then you are correct...`life` is nothing but a bunch of chemicals trying to find its lowest state.

If no...then we are forced to accept that there is something non-materialistic in life. Something we may call `will` or `intelligence` or `desire`... which is not material.


Borrowing your example...water flows downhill. If at some place we observed it flowing uphill...we would conclude that it is NOT NATURAL...that therefore there was some `will`or `intelligence` at work here that developed a `mechanism` to make it go uphill.

Similarly...you know very well (as a scientist) that the simplest living cell is tremendously complex. DNA chains are (I believe) several hundred-thousand molecules long.

There is ORDER...not little...but TREMENDOUS, repeat TREMENDOUS order in `life`. You would agree to this I think.

Therefore...`life` is a NEGATION of the entropy principle.

On its own, the entropy principle would NEVER allow the first cell to ever be constructed.

What do you think?

cheers,

sameerJB #61 The statement ``The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt`` leaves no room for the soul as traditionally conceived. So, once the chemical reactions stop, that is the end of life as we understand it. ALthough not a scientist like you, from all indications your statement is probably true - since we know that neurotransmitters allow cells to communicate (thus bringing them together to form a brain). And there seems to be a vast number of neurotransmitters in the brain, ranging from small molecules like Dopamine (which gives the ``racer`s high``) and Serotonin to larger amino acids), and a minor imbalance between them can have devastating affects in terms of mental disorders. For ages mental disorders have been considered to be the result of the devil taking over the human mind - and now we know it is tiny bits of chemicals, and the imbalance is often rectified relatively easily with simple pills. It does not therefore require much leap of imagination to consider consciousness itself to be the result of these intricate chemical interactions spread over trillions of nerve cells.
But where does this leave religion? I think it simply indicates that things like ``soul`` and the ``Almighty`` are well beyond our understanding - since we will probably never know where these chemicals came from in the first place (since science also tells us that all matter in the universe came into existence in a flash out of essentially ``nowhere``). And as long as we dont know what happened before the Big Bang, how the laws of nature were formed to begin with, and other such basic questions, there will always be room for religion, I think. Only, it wont be the empty ritualistic religion as we know it today, which is essentially a projection of life on earth as we know it (complete with great sex and so forth, as we muslims are reminded often by our detractors). Rather this religion is a much more profound one which essentially represents the Great Unknown in space and time that will always lie outside the boundary of our scientific knowledge. And the key actionable item for us is to keep on extending this boundary. That is why we were created, or so we believe.

To: tahmed321, Urstruly, anarayan, shajar
Now we are in an area where I feel more comfortable discussing due to having little background in chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology. First of all, I will disagree with the separation of life from matter. The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt, though many of them we have not yet fully comprehended. All the medicines, drugs and even spiritual healing like meditation, prayers or cognition work through chemical basis. Once chemistry in every step of life and living is not denied, the matter can not be excluded from any discussion of chemistry. Chemistry is the understanding of the properties of matter. So life is a manifestation of matter in a very organized, synchronized, collaborative, complex and not yet totally understood way of a chemical based machines that was in the making for the last 3 billion or so years.
A car is still a car when its transmission fails and junked because its parts can be used to make other cars work. A life fails at death but eyes, heart, liver and with further development in surgery and overcoming the rejection by immune system, are usable living parts after death for transplantation. This is possible because part of the machines or matter is deemed useful and alive enough to work as living parts of the machine.
The question really boils down to that a car does not yearn to make its copies but computer viruses and viruses do just as other forms of life; not only making copies but also making sure that the copies survive until they are capable of reproducing. Just like computer viruses, it is built into the machines. Why do machines evolved to do this proliferation of self?
This is a famous turning point for philosophers of purposeful design and therefore a designer. However, a self propelled and selfish machine does not need a designer; it creates and modifies design to optimize its survival, ability to reproduce and various techniques to maximize the survival of copies. But why?
Water flows downstream for a reason, called gravity. Same thing if explained in terms of chemistry would be called entropy. Decreasing the entropy (usually mean disorderliness fir laymen) or lowering of energy is thermodynamically spontaneous process. This is exactly what happens when crystals start to grow on their own. The growth of a particular shape of crystal by water or other chemicals/ molecules is a matter of energetics and not design/ designer. They are just obeying the laws of nature to live in a most comfortable lowest possible energy state. Energetics is the reason for oxygen to behave as biradical triplet (sort of teo joined free radicals) than behaving a doubly bonded singlet state drawn in science books; living as biradical is more comfortable for oxygen.
Similarly the properties of carbon predate the life on earth. One of the properties leads to destruction of organic (carbon based or living) molecules in time most commonly due to the reaction with oxygen called oxidation. It means there will be a lifetime for organic based machine – life. Machines have to develop design to overcome this property of carbon in many ways. One is to keep replacing the dead chemicals/ cells with the help of feeding sources of energy and basic material for replacement and other is reproduction. In terms of thermodynamics or energetics, none of these is uphill battle, once machine is working properly.
The property to reproduce in a selfish way requires certain patents or specialties (such as optimal microenvironment in vivo) so that the proliferation is controlled by the machine and not in vitro. The DNA is just a chemical without that microenvironment of viscosity, density, salinity, pH, polarity etc to make DNA work in desirable and optimum way – basically providing the right activation energy for the preferred transformation. The energetics at every step from day one to death can not be over looked. The conditions within allow the chemistry to take place desirably without breaking any laws of energetics or nature.
More we understand chemistry of bodily functions, more we understand life. What is non-material part (if any) of life will remain mystery because of unavailability of techniques to measure/ analyze it on scientific basis. Non-scientific basis is very subjective and world could only be born into believing only one universally acceptable answer.
The discussion between qualitative and quantitative differences of human DNA from other primates is more appropriate in creation versus evolution debate. Here, it is more appropriate to understand (I think we have not yet identified those genes clearly) the human genes responsible for larger brain memory than primates. I believe that somewhere in the distant past, the memory of certain primates started increasing slowly and continued for a long time before it started making a visible difference, something like memorizing scenes, skills and moving scenes. Once this happens, memory increase accelerated until enough memory space was available to store data about acquired skills, intelligence and wisdom (sort of artificial intelligence). Rest is human history of last half a million to today. Really the difference between other primates and us is in brain ability setting in motion a fast track evolution and perhaps genes associated with it. The fast track evolution of mind related activities has left primates so far behind that for many it difficult and sometime insulting to relate humans to primate in a world where even a rich or a tribe tries to distance as much as possible from poor and other tribes.

Urstruly,

``The life itself and the its matter form through which it exhibits itself must be considered two separate entities.``

I think so too. Wish we knew more on this.

We go back to the anceint belief that the universe comprises two things - matter and mind.


regs,

shajar #56 Qualitative differences between living things would, (to my mind at least), require something much more fundamental than the number of genes. These would require the absence of genes altogether in other living things, and a totally different mechanism instead for their design and development.
Interesting about the potato having a larger number of chromosomes than a human - I assume that the total number of genes in a potato is much less though than in a human (the latter being estimated at between 30,000 and 150,000, per my quick google search on Nature magazine). In other words, while the potato has more chapters, the total number of pages required to create us humans (who are definitely superior to potatoes, or so we think) is much greater.

I think the discussion below by urstruly, anarayan, sameerJB raise some fascinating issues:
First: What is life? Is a virus (which I understand lacks even a cell nucleus, and is essentially a glorified protein in many ways) a living creature as urstruly says? It can reproduce, but by hijacking the DNA of its host; and it can be killed. So perhaps a virus is a kind of a terrorist ``mini me``. If a prosthetic arm responds to a man`s nerve cell commands (as I believe is being done experimentally nowadays), and (as no doubt will be the case) looks and feels like a human arm, is that robot arm now a living part of the man? Is the famous ``Turing Test`` for life (namely, that a computer can be considered to have become a living being when it can carry on a conversation with a human from behind a curtain without the human being able to tell whether it is a human or a computer he is talking to) a valid test? (and indeed we will then probably have our first living computer over the next couple of decades per current projections). Closer home, is Chowk (or the internet) a ``brain`` a new kind of a living entity that is made up of many interacting living individuals in the same way a human brain is a living entity that is made up of many interacting nerve cells?
I dont have answers to this, other than the way urstruly put it: we need to broaden our definition of life. Not for nothing is the earth called the ``living planet``.
Second: Can intelligence be created from non-intelligence? The answer is simple (as science has indicated) and incredibly complex (if one questions the assumptions that science is based on). Take your pick.
Third: SameerJB raises the question of psychopaths (like OBL) using the vast destructive power of modern societies to attack these societies themselves. I think this is a far bigger potential danger to the existence of mankind than people realize. About 3-4 years ago, Bill Joy (the former VP of Sun Microsystems, and a leader in the development of cutting edge technologies) made a speech on the subject that received much attention at the time, but has been strangely forgotten now that some of what he predicted at the time seems to be coming true. Indeed, a half-century ago Toynbee made a similar prediction, which in a nutshell was: Mankind`s technological prowess now vastly exceeds its emotional maturity. This is a recipe for a disaster. He was thinking of nuclear weapons. We can only pray for tremendous good fortune for our human race to make it safely through these critical times. Since the odds seem against it: we have primitive emotions and hatreds that were harmless (and probably beneficial) in stone age societies and in our animal past, but which now can translate into mass destruction. And beyond that are the unintended consequences for the environment and so forth that we have no clue about (the first nuclear test in the US was delayed, I understand, due to fears that it could start a chain reaction that would ignite the world`s atmosphere - the scientists were not very sure, so we basically got lucky that time).
On this cheery note, I end my two bits on some of the points raised in the discussion below.

tahmed32 #50 ``That we are different from animals only in quantitative terms, not qualitative``
on genetic terms, that is not completely true. there are qualitative differences.

infact, the exact no. of genes has not yet been discerned.
as for chromosomes, potatoes have more than humans!

anarayan

I agree with your logic. That was exactly my point. The life itself and the its matter form through which it exhibits itself must be considered two separate entities. When life ``leaves`` its matter form the matter becomes dead like all the matter in the universe - so a question arises where did that life come from in the first place. Extended this logic further we must concentrate our efforts to understand this phenomenon by observing the viruses - since a virus is the simplest non-cellular organism that exists on the cusp of lifeless matter and alive matter. It can be crystallized like matter and remain live. But it can also be ``killed`` i.e. its ``life`` component can be separated from it.

Hameed, Sameer, urstruly,


My 5 cents:

Here`s a point most people seem to be overlooking in this discussion:

--------------------------------------------------------
``DNA drives life on Earth. But DNA itself is not ``alive``. To replicate itself DNA requires a complex and specialized environment that is provided within living cells.``

Key phrase: ****DNA IS NOT ALIVE****

Everybody seems to be assuming DNA = life. But DNA is NOT life. DNA is just a `floppy disk` for life. Something useful to store information.

So, before we think of finding life in outer space we should find out what we mean by `life`.

What IS this intelligent, mysterious thing called `life` that so cleverly uses DNA to propagate itself???
-----------------------------------------------------------

Clearly this is a subject that needs to be dealt with at high (abstract) levels first. Since we hardly have any low-level data about it.

Since we have little idea what life is...can we define `life` by its qualities???

Some people say life is a manifestation of intelligence.

To that I would add...life has a sense of ``I-ness``...a sense of identity.
Which came first - intelligence or identity ??? Does one produce the other automatically???

The simplest cell `knows` it boundaries, its needs, its enemies...ITSELF.

-------------------------------------------

Say a programmer writes a clever program that plays chess. Does the program have intelligence ?

It does, in a sense...and it doesn`t in another sense...since the intelligence of the program is simply the extended intelligence of the programmer...the creator.

So intelligence can create further intelligence...no big deal in that.


THE KEY question is:
****Can intelligence be created out of Non-intelligence? ****


Any ideas anyone???

tahmed321: The vastness of the universe as a big empty space dotted here and there with stars and stars having their own federation of planets. This fact is usually not internalized by seeing the beautiful sky filled with stars and having 100 billion stars in the universe. It is a situation similar to seeing matter and understanding, in terms of mass, that it is really an empty space dotted very sparcely with very tiny or condensed mass of nuclei of atoms because electrons really do not have comparable mass (1/1875th of a proton).
Once that fact is well understood about very great distances between stars than the diameters or weight of the stars, the exploding dead star matter does not really spread all over the universe but mostly sucked in by the neighboring stars with their gravity. Therefore the wealth of carbon and other elements on earth has been pretty much the same as at the time of earth formation from some other exploding star and matter created as a result of big bang. By the time life came to earth, by any mean, earth was technically complete of its share of elements and except for later addition of small amount from meteorites and comets which were part of our federation (solar system) anyway.
So when we talk about discovering life in other places in the universe, we are really talking about knowing its existance rather than seeing it, meeting/ interacting it or finding ET. Nearest star outside solar system is more than 3 light years away. A person posting on chowk from alpha centuri will reach the server in october 20005 earliest of travelling through space at the speed of light. So really contact with anybody outside the solar system is just a dream or fiction right now. We will need many fold increase in the speed than the speed of light unless talking about folding hypotheses/ theories of time and space. All we want to know is that if life exists anywhere else.
It is not easy to define in one sentence what constitute life and where to draw the line. Urstruly does have valid philosophical reasons to include artifically intelligence based machines as well as part natural life-part machine as in transpalnts of artificial organs.
I have not read Pinker`s book but I do agree completely with you that except for accidental death, natural death can be and being delayed more and more until is is no different than conquering death. This is going to be achieved in more than one way. One is to have access to your own cloned spare organs, particularly the ones who fail more often. Then more and more artificial permanent organ transplants who understand the chemical signals the way nervous system works. Once human brain is made compatible to over the counter overhaul kits in communication, one can screw and unscrew parts with screw drivers, preferably Philips (?). Can you imagine a couple shopping for legs, penis, breasts, lips and so on. Hmmmmm what will be left of Miss World beauty contests. All one need will be a functioning brain which could also be serviced and taught in a hurry than regular schooling. Just attach electrodes and transfer 30 gegabytes of information within 15 minutes. Too bad none of us will be around by the time humanity will reach this stage. At the same time the danger of something going wrong leading to decimation of human race is also possible. Imagine once it becomes very easy to produce deadly viruses causing epidemics and some OBL type persons getting their hands on it. Except for the tightly held core technologies, rest will as they do now, will keep leaking to everybody interested in it. Right now the leakage leading to creating bootlegging material (such as CDs, DVDs and some medicines) is limited, but in genetic engineering this is the real danger, once OBL types start playing with it.

Urstruly #49 Drumz, do not believe this poster who calls himself Urstruly. He is a Klingon in reality. He was disgracefully discharged from the Imperial Starfleet eons ago. He now tries to avenge himself by misleading starfleet recruits like you into thinking that flying saucers do not exist.
As for Urstruly, or should I say Urstruly of Uranus, you can run but you cannot hide from our flying saucers.

Drumz

The guy who wrote post #44 is lying. He is no alien. And if he has already probed you while you were asleep, then that wasn`t a probe either ok? Just don`t beleive anything, anyone says to you especially the strangers who wanna give you a candy ok.

SameerJB #48 Glad to see your post that does justice to the article which deals with an aspect that represents humanity at its best - i.e. in the persuit of science, with open minds and stout hearts. (I refer to stout hearts, given the timid manner in which most of us - particularly among us muslims as we pass through our days of degeneration and decay nowadays - cling to preconceived notions on the one hand, and lash out on the other hand at the West for daring to use their God-given minds and eyes).
Coming to the subject...
I find it fascinating that carbon-based life on earth - including us humans - is made up of atoms that were (as someone once put it) ``forged in the couldron of some long-dead stars``. And we know that such atoms have been continuously forged ever since for perhaps the past 16 billion years. And we also know that these atoms can then assembled into molecules, and ``confederations`` of molecules (aka living cells) in conditions that are not particularly extreme (relative to the extremes of pressures and heat and radiation and so forth that can be found in the universe). So, by all indications, the question seems not ``whether there is life outside planet earth``, but: ``when will we discover it``, or ``when will it discover us``, or ``have we already been discovered, and are being observed unbeknownst to us?``.
While we seem to be at a dead-end for now in the search for ET life, we are on a superhighway nowadays (thanks to genetic research) wrt to life on earth. We are discovering (as per a recent book by Pinker on the subject) that there are indeed genetic differences between humans. That we are different from animals only in quantitative terms, not qualitative. That things like immortality are not beyond our reach, given reasonalbe time and scientific effort. I have no doubt that this search of understanding life on earth (as opposed to ET life) will in a few decades from now totally change our notions of the past few thousand years on what it means to be human.

Hameed # 28

What I meant was that at philosophical level, at least, at this stage we must broaden our d