[_ Old Earth _] drive a scientist insane and emptyworded...

[Jab-Jab]

what was there before the bang?

I don't know.

and before that?

I don't know.

and where did that come from??

I don't know

what is there after there is no time?

I don't think you can have an after, if there is no time.

and after that?

Same

and what remains then??

Non measurement of a no longer existing measurement.

where did the sky/outter space come from???

You mean open space? I don't know.

no but really. even if all is answerred you can keep it bginningless and endless like this.

You can? Why?

ow whoop we just went trhough constantly just nobody saw

?

 

[Asyncritus]

(There's a sublime humor in this question having no question mark...)

The answer is, "Yes. All-the-time. All around you, every single day."

Snowflake formation. That snowflake is significantly more organized and complex than that moist air.
The flow of unorganized water molecules from atmospheric dispersion, to cloud, to raindrop, to surface water to stream to river. That river is significantly more organized and complex than that moist air.
Salt precipitation in water
The formation of petrified wood.
The compaction of a sand dune into sandstone.
ripples sand under shallow seas.
Sand dunes.
The disks around Saturn.
The planets themselves, for that matter, and their organization with a metal core surrounded by molten oxide inner mantle, etc.
The separation of milkfat from skim milk upon sitting.
The breaking of cream while attempting a stroganoff.
The cohesion of sourdough bread upon baking.

It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

And living things too? Do you believe in spontaneous generation? Didn't Pasteur finish that one off? Or was he wrong?

 

[Rhea]

And living things too? Do you believe in spontaneous generation? Didn't Pasteur finish that one off? Or was he wrong?

"Spontaneous generation" that was studied by Pasteur (and others before him) was about flies coming from rotted meat, "generating life spontaneously". And no, I don't accept that theory as valid. Pasteur was absolutely right to conclude from his experiments that flies are not generated from the action of meat rotting. I agree with his work 100%.

In living things, absolutely more complex things can come from reproduction of less complex things. That's been shown without a doubt and there is plenty of evidence. Yes I accept that theory.

There is a fascinating experiment of this happening in a non-living system where molecules are put in a test vessel, and they create two or more products. But one of the products is more stable than the others and it will, in fact, form even after other molecules have formed from the soup, using up all of the building block free atoms/molecules. Then these less robust molecules break apart when they contact the more robust and rearrange and become the more complex one. Eventually, the whole pot contains only that more robust molecule. Simple to complex, all by itself, and using "mutation" and "reproduction" as it's mechanisms. Its very cool.

Several questions are being asked using the same words here. I'll try to anticipate them:

1. Does anything move from less complex to more complex by itself?
2. Does life move from less complex to more complex without an "engineer"? and
3. Does non-life complexify into life by itself?

Have I got that right? Am I missing the actual question?

 

[Jab-Jab]

And living things too?

All living organisms identified today came from the adaptation and traceable genetics of their ancestors.

Do you believe in spontaneous generation?

No, I don't believe meat creates maggots or bread creates mold.

Didn't Pasteur finish that one off? Or was he wrong?

Pasture did show that spontaneous generation was false. Neither Evolution or Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

 

[Asyncritus]

All living organisms identified today came from the adaptation and traceable genetics of their ancestors.

Hold on. I'm asking where the first one came from. Never never land is not an aceptable answer, any more than 'Once upon a time...'

No, I don't believe meat creates maggots or bread creates mold. Pasture did show that spontaneous generation was false.

Good stuff.

Neither Evolution or Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

How does abiogenesis differ from spontaneous generation? We'll leave evolution out of this temporarily.

 

[Asyncritus]

"Spontaneous generation" that was studied by Pasteur (and others before him) was about flies coming from rotted meat, "generating life spontaneously". And no, I don't accept that theory as valid. Pasteur was absolutely right to conclude from his experiments that flies are not generated from the action of meat rotting. I agree with his work 100%.

Good stuff.

In living things, absolutely more complex things can come from reproduction of less complex things. That's been shown without a doubt and there is plenty of evidence. Yes I accept that theory.

Hmm. If maggots can't come from bread, then where do sequoias come from?

There is a fascinating experiment of this happening in a non-living system where molecules are put in a test vessel, and they create two or more products. But one of the products is more stable than the others and it will, in fact, form even after other molecules have formed from the soup, using up all of the building block free atoms/molecules. Then these less robust molecules break apart when they contact the more robust and rearrange and become the more complex one. Eventually, the whole pot contains only that more robust molecule. Simple to complex, all by itself, and using "mutation" and "reproduction" as it's mechanisms. Its very cool.

If you're referring to Miller and Urey's experiments, then they have been quite thoroughly shown to be inapplicable.

Several questions are being asked using the same words here. I'll try to anticipate them:

1. Does anything move from less complex to more complex by itself?
2. Does life move from less complex to more complex without an "engineer"? and
3. Does non-life complexify into life by itself?

Have I got that right? Am I missing the actual question?

Good work. Now what are your answers?

 

[Rhea]

Hmm. If maggots can't come from bread, then where do sequoias come from?

I don't understand your use of this non-sequitur. The If-THEN are not well connected in your question, they seem to be completely unrelated.

If you're referring to Miller and Urey's experiments, then they have been quite thoroughly shown to be inapplicable.

I was not referring to those two. I was referring to a completely inorganic experiment that showed "natural selection" amidst pure chemistry.

Several questions are being asked using the same words here. I'll try to anticipate them:

1. Does anything move from less complex to more complex by itself?
2. Does life move from less complex to more complex without an "engineer"? and
3. Does non-life complexify into life by itself?

Have I got that right? Am I missing the actual question?

Good work. Now what are your answers?

1. See my list of inorganic chemistry going from less complex to more complex by itself in my first post.

2. The well-documented mutation resulting in extra limbs and extra fingers/toes. Often followed evolutionarily by specialization of some of those duplicate and therefore non-essential appendages.

3. Theories proposed, so far un-documented. Physics and Chemistry "laws" do not prevent it, though. Fascinating field of study looking to take those physical possibilities and demonstrate them. Parts of it have been demonstrated (like the natural selection chemical experiment I referenced earlier) which reduces the "odds against" that we currently contemplate.

 

[theLords]

Address topics, not people. Violation of the ToS in the Science Forum can result in infractions or loss of privileges to this forum.

 

[antares434]

the best thing about this post is the title
why would these questions drive a scientist insane?
questions like these are what make many scientists drive to work everyday