Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things

From: AA Institute (abdul.ahad_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: 1 Dec 2004 15:15:55 -0800

Trond Erik Vee Aune wrote:
>
> What you must understand is that life isn't created on a daily basis.
> Life is continuous. The sperm and egg is alive, and the zygote is
> living; when it eventually transforms into a baby it's just a matter of
> growth, not going from unliving to living.

Understand that.

> There aren't really
> mysterious forces in play here, it's just a matter of utilizing (with
> enzymes) the atoms in food to create the molecules that make up our
> cells. The mechanics is well-known and characterized, but it is still
> amazing, especially as you start to really dive deep into it, but it's
> never so amazing that you have to create divine beings to answer it.
>

So how do the molecules *know* they have to group themselves into
cells which form into the baby's eyes? Another set arrange themselves
another way to form into ears. Yet further sets form the fingers, etc,
etc? The cells are surely scattered widely apart along the body of the
foetus during the 'assembly' process...? What *oversees* that whole
process? Why do the cells on the head form into hair and the ones near
the forehead form into eyes?

That's the miracle that I'm talking about.
Okay it's not scientific to use that m***** word, sure, but a miracle
it still is all the same!

> > So the same chemical elements (C, H, N, O and P) bond together to
> > create a *living* thing as they create a piece of *plastic* that just
> > sits in one place and does nothing.
>
> Yes. The atoms are the same, the molecules, however, are not. Two
> different molecules made up of the same atoms can have completely
> different properties. Our basic set of atoms can in theory create an
> infinite number of different molecules all with different properties. We
> could even break it further down, passed the atoms down to protons and
> electrons and whatever. The amount of components is lowered even
> further, but they can all be arranged in a much larger repertoire to
> make up our arsenal of atoms.

I understand all that.

>
> > Why is it that you cannot explain or model the miraculous cosmic
> > forces
> > which mysteriously bind atoms and molecules of non-living compounds of
> > *known* structural make up into the double helix structure of the
> > DNA's coded instructions purely through the random passage of time?
>
> I don't understand this sentence. But I can comment on parts of it.
> First of all, let's not use the words miraculous and cosmic. There is
> nothing miraculous going on, and cosmos has really nothing to do with
> it. The bonds between atoms and molecules are well-defined and
> characterized, so it's inappropriate to call them mysterious.

Fair enough, it stands to reason. After all a carbon atom inside a
living thing is a carbon atom. Molecules of carbon in graphite are a
bit different to those in diamonds in the way they are configured. No
qualms here.

> The
> evolution from inert matter to catalytic organic molecules to what we
> could define as living cells, is intricate and not fully understood.

That's the part that I'm puzzled over.

> But
> there are no steps that circumvent our understanding of chemistry.

Ah, but the way those molecules inside living cells behave in their
configurations is different to the way they behave in non-living
matter. Is that right?

>
> > Electron microscopes are now so sophisticated they can image
> > individual atoms, right? So what's the problem in deciding why a
> > single cell starts to divide once, twice, and again toward a
> > multi-cellular organism?
>
> The cell cycle is well understood. We know the basics in why a cell
> divides. and how a differentiated multicellular organism develops.
> Please pick up a molecular biology book.
>
I can sort of intuitively understand the physical mechanisms, but my
question in all of this is more about the 'why'? Why do the cells
divide like that? There is a certain amount of intelligent programming
involved here, and I wanted to know what that was. *Something* is
guiding that process (as a scientific conversation let's say that
isn't God), so what is that *something*?

cheers

AA

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... Would you agree that humans can be reduced to body organs? ... Would you agree that body organs can be reduced to cells? ... Would you agree that cells could be reduced to molecules? ... Would you agree that atoms could be reduced to subatomic particles? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... Would you agree that humans can be reduced to body organs? ... Would you agree that body organs can be reduced to cells? ... Would you agree that cells could be reduced to molecules? ... Would you agree that atoms could be reduced to subatomic particles? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PHASING - Is it possible ??
    ... Your hand and the glass, when cut, are made of smaller parts of hands and ... Cutting cells is called "biochemistry", and we find cells are made of ... We can "cut" molecules to see what they are made of, ... When we divide molecules we find they are made of atoms, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... but not at the quantum level. ... particles and Aether are more simple than atoms. ... Molecules are more simple than cells. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
    ... > Or alternately, reproduce until they hit some desired number, then break off ... NANOMAN AND LIFE IN THE NEW FLESH. ... artificial but act in many ways like organic cells. ... This creature will be able to stack and arrange atoms in any way possible. ...
    (sci.space.policy)