<p>This is pathetic. Does no one really know about chemistry around here?</p>
<p>gases+stuff---->amino acids.</p>
<p>Even if /\G for the reaction is positive, i.e. the entropy of the universe decreases when 1 mole of reaction takes place, a mixture with mostly gases and a few amino acids will have more entropy /lower free energy overall than just the pure starting materials.</p>
<p>Hence the formula: /\G=-RTln(K) where K is the equilibrium constant. That is why in every reaction there is an equilibrium which is more or less to one side. [this is how nernst equation etc. are derived]</p>
<p>i.e. even if the formation of amino acids has positve /\G, there still will be some formation of them (the equilibrium can be found by solving for K).</p>
<p>Also the "entropy decreases, so how complex beings?" reasoning is ridiculous. The 2nd law is about the entropy of THE UNIVERSE. Now we start out with something with very little entropy - i.e . a cold earth and a hot sun. Every process involved in making complexity, such as building species, living, eating etc. evolves heat and so increases the entropy of the universe. SO THE SECOND LAW DOES NOT RULE OUT LOCAL ORDER; AS LONG AS THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE INCREASES IN ITS FORMATION. If you use the same localized entropy argument, you cant explain the following processes, which shows how ridiculous this point is: freezing of ice in freezer (water becomes more ordered); condensation of gas etc. etc. etc. The heat given off by freezing, living etc. increases the entopy of the universe more than the local decrease of order can reduce it.</p>
<p>Then another point: think of how much time there is in say 6 billion years. Then think of how many molecules there are in say a drop of water - a number with maybe 23 digits or something like that. Then think of how much matter is on earth. Now to say that something is improbable is a pretty far-fetched claim; if every molecule typed away at a type-writer for this long how do you know we wouldnt get shakespeare? Also, even if something may be improbable please read about something called the "anthropic principle".</p>
<p>There is little doubt in scientific cricles about evolution; while it is like everything in science, a theory supported by tremendous evidence, in my book religion is just an unproven hypothesis. Therefore logically, on the burden of proof, you have to go with evolution (and not take the bible literally).</p>
<p>hmmm.....if ^G is positive, then the reaction is nonspontaneous....it'd have to be pushed along by excessive heat or electricity...which....actually would have been present in primitive earth through many volcanic eruptions and intense lightning storms..but i don't really understand what you said cuz i'm tired and dizzy, but i'll try to understand it some other time :)</p>
<p>I'm not a science genius, I did AP bio and that's as far as I've gone with that.
but I still have a feeling that any supernatural explanations are simply undiscovered science.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.
[/QUOTE]
Charles Darwin said that, and it raises an interesting point. Where are all the intermediate species that have since, by the theory of evolution, become modern species?</p>
<p>It depends on your model of evolution. Are you convinced by the theory of phyletic gradualism (implied by Darwin) or that of punctuated equilibrium (Eldredge & Gould)? PE does not require an infinite number of intermediate species to exist in the fossil record.</p>
<p>oh yes i made a slight omission which may have confused people: /\G refers to delta g STANDARD. If you look up what i said about the relation between /\Gstd and eq. const. K you will find a precise derivation - fairly involved. delta g non standard does increase upon formation of small amounts of amino acid, even though delta g standard is positive (because of increased entropy of mixture vs. pure reactants). Trust me, I have to do an exam on thermodynamics next week.</p>
<p>anyway, do you really think that if miller et al got their paper peer reviewed by scientists before publication, a few highschoolers with barely a basic idea of science can find flaws in the paper?</p>
<p>Ok. Amino Acids could've formed in ancient eathly conditions. There was enough energy back then. Or amino acids could've even formed on some other planet or asteriod and that might've crashed on earth and transmitted these organic molecules on earth.Even the sun would've had more energy back then and must've been hotter. Amino acids could've been formed by random chance. </p>
<p>But I want to know what happened then. How did life evolve. Not by god or any evxternal force. By evolution how did the survival mode or thriving for existance develop? By the same probability by which amino acids might've formed, could enzymes have been formed from the amino acids? Can enzymes catalyse the formation of more amino acids which could've joined to form proteins and other things which had specific functions etc? This seems a bit farfetched but is there any probability that this could've occured or at least something similar could've occured? But why is it necessary that life sould've evolved through amino acids and proteins? Could there have been any other ancient chemical species like catalysts which performed a certain function and catalysed the formation of more molecules of its own kind? Now i seem to be blabbering. Anyway could it have occured?</p>
<p>"But I want to know what happened then. How did life evolve. Not by god or any evxternal force. By evolution how did the survival mode or thriving for existance develop? By the same probability by which amino acids might've formed, could enzymes have been formed from the amino acids? Can enzymes catalyse the formation of more amino acids which could've joined to form proteins and other things which had specific functions etc? This seems a bit farfetched but is there any probability that this could've occured or at least something similar could've occured? But why is it necessary that life sould've evolved through amino acids and proteins? Could there have been any other ancient chemical species like catalysts which performed a certain function and catalysed the formation of more molecules of its own kind? Now i seem to be blabbering. Anyway could it have occured"</p>
<p>YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>first there was chemical evolution(proved by a prof a Uchicago in 1950's) which allowed for carbon based life forms where oxygen was a poison. This changed when there was a major chemical upheaval in the ocean and oxygen actually became useful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"But I want to know what happened then. How did life evolve. Not by god or any evxternal force. By evolution how did the survival mode or thriving for existance develop? By the same probability by which amino acids might've formed, could enzymes have been formed from the amino acids? Can enzymes catalyse the formation of more amino acids which could've joined to form proteins and other things which had specific functions etc? This seems a bit farfetched but is there any probability that this could've occured or at least something similar could've occured? But why is it necessary that life sould've evolved through amino acids and proteins? Could there have been any other ancient chemical species like catalysts which performed a certain function and catalysed the formation of more molecules of its own kind? Now i seem to be blabbering. Anyway could it have occured"</p>
<p>YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>first there was chemical evolution(proved by a prof a Uchicago in 1950's) which allowed for carbon based life forms where oxygen was a poison. This changed when there was a major chemical upheaval in the ocean and oxygen actually became useful.</p>
<p>Then, the rest is history.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I just made a random attempt at trying to figure out the evolution of life. It cant be all right. So, what were these original cerbon based life forms which had oxygen as its enemy. And what was the chemical upheaval in the ocean? Elaborate please.</p>
<p>Why i think this isn't all right is because we had over 100 entries debating about the formation of amino acids without external force and then i just came up with a seemingly improbable theory. There must be a huge hole. Unless ppl are too ready to finish this thread.lol.</p>
<p>I suggest you read this</a> ENTIRE website before making any more claims. It'll make you sound...how should I say...more educated.</p>
<p>Oh, and the monkey thing:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.</p>
<p>@slipstream99: Be careful. As an educator, anything less than perfection on your part constitutes a direct proof of G-d's existence. That said, keep up the good work. : )</p>
<p>my point/question was NOT to try to poke holes but rather to ask,</p>
<p>Does natural selection work along a particular track or path that remains constant throughout time, or does it change with time? If the former, what keeps it in the constant path? If the latter, what keeps it from going into an endless cycle?</p>
<p>The poor analogy comment was directed at slipstream99. I did not agree with her/his typing monkey example. The second half of my post was an attempt to lighten up what might have been misinterpreted as a jab at her/him.</p>
<p>
Absolutely nothing. You're totally correct, evolution is spiraling out of control just as it always has. Excepting the untimely demise of threatened species, no branches of the evolutionary tree are stunted. We're still evolving, and yes, it is totally possible that new forms of life are developing. It's just a highly unlikely scenario given the mature competition.</p>
<p>I read this whole thread. Thats why i am sarcastic. There have been over a hundred entries debating on the formation of amino acids (Very simple organic compounds) without any external force. Suddenly the debate dies. I write a baseless theory something which i haven't even verified and immediately it is accepted??!! One entry held the view that probabiltiy of amino acid formation without external force was 1/10^300. When someone can make such a wild claim, how can everyone accept this theory. there must be a catch somewhere. Otherwise there must be other opinions too. Other ways in which things may have happened. Unless ppl are too bored to carry on with this thread and ready to end it with a hardly proven theory!!!
Thats why i'm sarcastic</p>
<p>tanonev, environmental factors are what provide the so-called "foreknowledge" that you pointed out. That's all natural selection and evolution are - adaptations and exaptations to have a higher fitness, which ultimately leads to higher reproductive success. </p>
<p>Since this analogy seems to be inadequate, however, I direct you to this</a> website, which discusses Avida, a program that, well, proves evolution is not a mathematical impossibility. If you do not feel like reading that, I suggest you read this</a> article, which was featured in Discover magazine and summarizes the findings of Avida and addresses some of the erroneous arguments of creationists.</p>
<p>shirish, I believe this is why so many people refuse to become embroiled in such a debate on this issue. I think the reason people ended the debate on the amino acid probability, etc. is because such obviously false statements were being thrown in in the name of evidence and, quite frankly, we don't have enough knowledge to argue about anything beyond the basic Stanley Miller/urea/structure of amino acids facts we learned in either AP Chem or AP Bio.</p>