Undersea vents possible origin of life

MSNBC ^ | 07/24/03 | Robert Roy Britt

[bedolido]

July 24 — In a new study, researchers speculate that a towering undersea hot-water chimney laden with microbes is just the sort of place that might have spawned life on Earth or even other planets.

THE HYDROTHERMAL VENT SYSTEM discovered two years ago has now been found to have endured for 30,000 years. Researchers said similar setups — on Earth and possibly on other worlds — might last millions of years and could have been incubators for the first life. The Lost City, as it has been named, is a craggy column of minerals and microbes sitting 2,500 feet below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. It is 180 feet (55 meters) tall, higher than any other known underwater vent system and more than twice as tall as most.

UNIQUE SYSTEM Underneath the structure, seawater seeps down into the fractured crust of Earth. There, the decay of one mineral forms another, called serpentine, and releases heat in the process. This process of serpentinization lifts warm water laden with minerals back into the ocean, building the structure.

[Virginia-American]

Most of what amounts to evidence these days is speculation and story-telling.

And the ever popular 'exact same mutations found in species thought to be related on other grounds', such as my favorite, the *exact same* mutation in people, chimps, gorillas, et al, that prevents synthesis of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)

Exact same mistake, found in species thought to be related. I inherited my mutation form my parents, as did you, as do the (Other) great apes. Isn't the simplest explanation for this fact the hypothesis that the mutation occured once, in a common ancestor, and was inherited by us and the (Other) great apes?

Here's a discussion of this, from a Christian point of view The ape that bears God's image

An essay well worth reading, includes lots of concrete examples.

[LiteKeeper]

I'll read yours, if you'll read mine.

Human/chimp DNA similarity

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

When man uses 'science' in an attempt to discredit God, The Creator of all things, that's where I draw the line. Plain and simple.

Agreed. If science (and law) is to be neutral with regard to religion, it cannot also be anti-God. Atheism is a religion/ideology.

[tortoise]

Is the standard now that if you haven't heard of someone in a foreign country they are worthless? That seems to be the implication from your posting.

The community is small, and I know just about everyone importance. If not personally, then by name. It is the same reason everyone knows me, or at least knows who I am. Germany has a number of the leading people in the field currently. Only a few of the current top people in the field are actually American -- most are European or from Australia and New Zealand.

But more to the point, he discredits himself by what he writes. But then, as far as I can tell, he doesn't claim to be an expert in the field. Only you make that claim for him.

By the way, I'm a German citizen, so I'm not sure how "foreign" that makes me to another German engineer (though I'm not currently in Germany). Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[tortoise]

I'll make it easy, tell us where the information for anything in your body came from?

You'll never understand any of this if you don't understand the very definition of "information". A cursory look at the first chapter of any modern text on information theory will provide you with the beginning of a correct definition. Try the Li and Vitanyi book -- its the de facto gold standard. Hell, I might just copy the definition here, with a page number, so that you know I'm not making it up.

Hint: When you are dead and your body decaying, it will contain more information than when you were alive. If you don't understand why this is true, then you don't even understand enough to begin the discussion. It is fundamental to the definition of information. Look up the definition of "Kolmogorov complexity" on Google. You may not grok it, but trying to is the first step to having a clue.

[PurVirgo]

LMAO!!! Just what I needed to brighten my evening =)

I love wordplay

But to answer your question, I can't think of anything that occupies a lot of space but has little gravity...

I kind of thought the ton-of-feathers, ton-of-bricks analogy applied

[LiteKeeper]

Through out the night you have elevated yourslf to world-wide stature...claim knowledge of the "information sciences", claim that your name arises a thousand times in a google search...we certainly are awed by your alledged credentials. Imagine being in the presence of one whose name is known internationally whereever the subject of Information arises. And yet, you dwell in a penumbra. I have asked you simple questions about "information." - and you have given us double talk about mathematics, and you have continued to tout your reputation. You have boasted, and answered nothing.

I have asked you where the instructions contained in DNA comes from - for such things a blood clotting, etc. So far - nothing. Please, you were obviously there - tell us. Where do the instructions come from?

The amazing thing about the Internet, the Information super highway, is that we can dwell in anonymity. For all I know you are some 13 year kid sitting in his bedroom, laughing his head off at us.

So with all due respect - I am going to bed - enjoy your flights of fancy, and delusions of grandeur.

[tortoise]

I have asked you where the instructions contained in DNA comes from - for such things a blood clotting, etc. So far - nothing. Please, you were obviously there - tell us. Where do the instructions come from?

Your question is nonsensical. It is premised on assumptions that aren't true (a la the old "have you stopped beating your wife" fallacy). You tripped up when you assume that information in certain finite contexts "comes from somewhere" and that all other information does not. It turns out that there is a finite context for the exact same information where it has no subjective value (provable). This has been hashed out before: pattern "meaning" is provably meaningless and it is relatively trivial to give examples of this fact.

Information simply is, and no finite bit of information is more special than any other. One could ask where the seething pool of information came from in the first place, but that is not the question at hand (nor particularly constructive to address). Everything is information. This fact won't change if you ask the same question enough times. It is in all the texts, even going back to Shannon. This may go against your odd little world view, but it is nonetheless true.

You cannot rewrite mathematics to suit you. Well, you can, but nobody has to listen to you. You either accept the core axioms of mathematics and therefore all the consequences of those axioms, or you don't. Bottom line. In the first case, you should probably respect the opinions of the major texts of the field, and in the latter you can be rightly ignored. Your choice.

[tortoise]

The amazing thing about the Internet, the Information super highway, is that we can dwell in anonymity. For all I know you are some 13 year kid sitting in his bedroom, laughing his head off at us.

Maybe I'm just a well-trained iguana. This does not alter the fact that you do not see anything wrong with contradicting established mathematics on a whim. Willful ignorance really, because you could look it up. Springer-Verlag, Elsevier, Kluwer, and IEEE publish quite a bit on the topic, so there are resources.

In other words, you've chosen a creationist website to be the sole arbitrer of an entire field of mathematics, rather than the mathematical texts that define the field. I'll go with the mathematical texts. Did I mention that I am a VERY well-trained iguana?

[tortoise]

You know, this actually sums up the entire issue, the fundamental question of authority, so I'll repeat it:

In other words, you've chosen a creationist website to be the sole arbitrer of an entire field of mathematics, rather than the mathematical texts that define the field.

This is ultimately what this argument boils down to. It is actually kind of creepy that you would actually be okay with this.

[Skywalk]

It's a lost cause, tort.

The one thing I've found disturbing is the way the creos here mock and ridicule on a near non-stop basis. Then they bombard you with links to the most biased sources on the planet, and call it victory.

They are either willfully deceptive or hopelessly optimistic.

[Gumption]

They are either willfully deceptive or hopelessly optimistic.

Or they're just very good Christians exercising their faith. If they had facts to support them it wouldn't require faith to believe what they do. IOW your above observation is an absolutely necessary requirement for being a good Christian.

[Physicist]

When he says that "information has to come from somewhere," he seems to be saying that information obeys some sort of conservation law, like energy.

[Physicist]

They are either willfully deceptive or hopelessly optimistic.

Indeed, the union of those two propensities is known as "faith".

[BMCDA]

Li and Vitanyi Placemarker

[BMCDA]

When he says that "information has to come from somewhere," he seems to be saying that information obeys some sort of conservation law, like energy.

It doesn't only seem so but this is what they indeed claim.
If I'm not mistaken, W. Dembski came up with this "law of conservation of information". However, IMHO this doesn't make any sense at all but well, that's just my opinion.

[LiteKeeper]

pattern "meaning" is provably meaningless and it is relatively trivial to give examples of this fact.

Based on your premise, the very words you have used to above are meaningless. They come from nowehere, and they mean nothing, apart from your precious math. Therefore, there is no reason, whatsoever, for me to pay attention to you.

In the context of a Freeper thread ( a specific context) what you have said has no meaning. So, ATTENTION all lurkers, we no longer have to give any credence to anything tortoise says, because it is all meaningless.

Adios "smart one"

[tortoise]

Based on your premise, the very words you have used to above are meaningless. They come from nowehere, and they mean nothing, apart from your precious math. Therefore, there is no reason, whatsoever, for me to pay attention to you.

You started off great, but fell on your ass at the climax. "Meaning" only exists in subjective finite contexts. It does not exist in any absolute context of interpretation, and shared context is the only reason we can communicate at all. If I posted the same thing in Cebuano, it really would be meaningless in your context (presuming that you don't speak Cebuano), beyond perhaps recognizing that it is structured like a language. Of course, if posted the Champernowne index to the same text, you most likely wouldn't even recognize it as a language.

Since we both seem to nominally speak and understand English, we do have some significant subjective shared context and there could meaningfully communicate. On the other hand you don't seem to speak mathematics, so that could be a problem.

[LiteKeeper]

You most likely will not read this, nor accept any of the premises in it. But for the lurkers, I am posting a simple review from Amazon on his book, In The Beginning Was Information. It is not really meant for the closed minded Evos, only for those who care to read it

In his book, In the Beginning Was Information, the author Werner Gitt explains in detail the principle of information theory, namely defining the characteristics of information and all the observational evidence we have for the origin and formation of information.

He carefully and clearly delineates what is considered information for the purposes of the theory, and the 5-level structure of information, which includes
Statistics,
Syntax,
Semantics,
Pragmatics, and
Apobetics.

It is shown that the well-known theory of information given by Shannon is an important contribution, but can only describe the lowest (statistical) level of information, while ignoring the most crucial aspects of its higher level definition.

All information, as defined by the book, has these higher level aspects, which include the
structure and code (syntax);
the meaning (semantics);
the intended action (pragmatics); and
purpose or goal (apobetics).

Of course that is an oversimplification of the concept, but Gitt does a fine job of explaining it with numerous fascinating examples both from the biological and technical realm.

Gitt shows how all attempts to generate (or simulate the generation of) information apart from a mental process have failed.
This is the most fundamental hurdle that the theory of evolution must overcome in order to claim validity as a complete explanation of the origin of life apart from the Creator or a mental source.

DNA is undeniably information, and it is coded in such an efficient and marvelous way, that it is utterly unmatched by the greatest technological advancements of today.
Even an experiment to show the formation of meaningful DNA from materialistic processes, in sufficient quantity to produce life, would still fall far short of proving this necessary step for evolution, since apart from a meaningful context of proteins and RNA to participate in the replication, transcription, and translation of the information in DNA, DNA is useless.

And as it is well known in biology, the paradox goes deeper: the proteins that are required for replication, etc are coded for BY the DNA! The challenge of information theory to evolution can not be brushed aside, and this book does an excellent job of laying out the theory in a detailed yet understandable and compelling manner.

Gitt's book offers a fresh look at the creation and evolution debate by presenting a robust positive case for creation on the basis of the theorems and natural laws encompassed by information theory and the countless observations that have affirmed this theory. He discuss numerous examples that have been proposed contrary to the it, and how they have failed to falsify the theory. Gitt devotes limited time to discounting evolution, but makes reference to other writings of his that deal with it more specifically. The purpose of the book is not so much to deconstruct evolutionary theory, but to establish by scientific theorems that all known information has a mental source, and this has yet to be disproven.

He is also unabashedly a Christian and a believer in special creation, which comes across clearly in his book, yet he rightly admits that the existence of God can not be proved. However, he points out the consistency of the inference of a Creator with all other observations about information.

"In the Beginning Was Information" will be a very informative book not only for creationists, but evolutionists as well, due to its thorough explanation of information. If you read this book, by all means read the appendix at the end, it contains some of the most intriguing examples in the whole book!

[LiteKeeper]

What amazes me, Tort, is that you are so arrogant. Anyone can communicate in such a way that only a few can understand them...using jargon specific to their particular discipline. It takes an educated person to reduce complex issues into terms that those who are not educated in your particular discipline can understand.

I have asked you simple questions. All I have received is bluster and arrogance. My conclusion is, therefore, that you don't really know what you are talking about and are bluffing, or you are not as educated as you claim to be and therefore cannot reduce your knowledge into language that us laypersons can understand. Either way, you have wasted a lot of time and bytes saying nothing, casting stones at those who wish to learn, and have done nothing more than prove my first point, and that is you are an arrogant ignoramous.

Correct me,please, if I am wrong.