If we consider the simplest element known to science – the one proton, one electron Hydrogen atom – it is difficult to see how such a simple concept could ever be the ‘designer’ of an evolution of over a hundred different elements with all their various chemical properties and their vast number of isotopes that exist in our Universe. Further it is hard to see any way that a simple Hydrogen atom can be considered to possess the essential properties of Life, namely the ability to be born, feed itself, evolve and self-replicate (breed) and die.
At least that was the case before you finished reading this article!
Consider an innumerable quantity of said Hydrogen atoms as can be found floating in the ’emptiness’ of space.
The combined mass of these zillions of Hydrogen atoms result in a noticeable effect. Their combined gravity (requiring no other ‘external’ force) causes the cloud to develop more dense regions over time. This process is self-sustaining in that, the more tightly a quantity of these atoms group together, the stronger the gravitational pull combines to attract more and more atoms towards the Centre of Gravity of the region.
Eventually the mass of hydrogen can become so dense and massive that gravity forces the atoms into such a state that nuclear fusion can take place spontaneously. Allowing for a single very simple ‘external’ force of neutron radiation the process of fusion in the center of the ‘critical mass’ of hydrogen atoms (nucleii) allows a number of hydrogen isotopes and helium atoms to be ‘generated’. Over time these new isotopes and elements are in sufficient numbers to allow the build up of larger and larger atoms and isotopes. Ultimately (given sufficient initial mass of hydrogen for the fuel of fusion, as has been ‘kick-started’ by gravity and ionising (neutron) radiation alone) atoms of sufficient size are created that can be split into smaller ‘second generation’ atoms through the bombardment of these nucleii by high energy neutrons, which we know as the process of ‘fission’.
Both fission and fusion, through the conversion of small quantities of matter into energy, provide the energy necessary for the self-sustaining nuclear reactions that form the many products with which we are familiar in their listing on the Periodic Table (currently over a hundred and ten different elements, most with multiple isotopes).
Looking at an overview of this process we have a single, very simple type of atom with the energy of gravity and neutron radiation that is ultimately able to feed itself (with fusion and fission energy and ‘recycled’ neutron radiation), to grow into a wide variety of new types of atoms/isotopes and to self replicate through fusion, fission and radioactive decay.
Because of the fact that a solar nuclear furnace is not a closed system, in that radiated energy is ‘lost’ to the system, and the source of hydrogen atoms is not inexhaustible, as well as the fact that the conversion of matter into energy eventually ‘drains’ the system of the fuel it needs to continue replicating, all stars will ultimately ‘die’.
These are the features we ascribed to life at the beginning of this essay!
In short Gravity, neutrons and a number of Hydrogen atoms can ‘design’ all by themselves a process comparable to that we call ‘Life’!.
The star is ‘born’, grows, evolves into ‘higher’, more complex forms, supplies its own energy (food!) and ultimately, after perhaps billions of years, ‘dies’.
This is a really amusing oversimplification.
This “oh it just happens” upward mobility of chemisty belies it’s own off the chart unlikelihood. That it happens at all, the endless chain in the anthropomorphic principle, is the incredibly unlikely idea. It is like early evolutionists seeing pond skimmers where there were none and saying “well I guess they come out of the mud. Your view of matter as having a personality and intentions is realy funny and a considerable give away to your presuppositions.
I know that the anthropomorphic priciple doesn’t prove God, but it assures that this sort of “it just happens! Wow!” stuff should strain credulilty for the person who is really thinking cause not just an eisegetical look at existing visible effects.
This is gonna be a really good one! Thanks!
You are very welcome Jason but your ego and preconceptions (about me? or is it the whole dumb world you are forced to live in? – let me tell you i get that myself a lot!) are really leading you astry again on this one and about where you seem to ‘think’ I a mor what i was trying to show above.
I came up with the above idea while writing my novel/work intending to put the ‘intelligent designer’s and their whole ‘It proves God exists’ rubbish back into the stone ages where that kind of poor thinking belongs (in my HUMBLE opinion! 😉 ) I am in NO WAY trying to make it clear that there is any kind of anthropomorphic action going on in the Universe. That was nothing like what i had in mind, please understand and if necessary completely re-evaluate that from your understanding as it comes across in what you wrote.
I was trying to show that ‘simple’ physical concepts (Hydrogen, neutron, gravity due to their combined masses) can and do result in ‘naturally occuring complex compounding structures that ultimately can and did lead to what we currently call Life. I am working up from this in my ‘novel’, attempting to prove that the Life on Earth we know today has a clearly undersandable ‘path’ back to a cloud of Hydrogen Gas formed as a result of the cooling of energy from the Big Bang, in our case likely as recently as 4-5 billion years ago.
I am writing it in such a way as to be able to be read and followed by ANYONE – not those whith Chemisrty or Physics University degrees – the sort of people in fact who may be convinced by people such as Charles B Thaxton, Michael Behe and William Dembski, and to a lesser extent Richard Dawkins (don’t know what it is about that man – i just DON’T LIKE HIM!?) that Integlligent Design must be the true way life on earth developed.
Please, Just because i read and quote the bible as a way of expressing ONE opinion to others don’t tie me down to being only able to think or believe that ‘religious’ way – ok?
I do still have more to say about what you wrote on other posts – you have got much of me wrong J
Partially because you only read what i write, and sometimes hurriedly, so as to not even see that what i wrote was in fact not said by me originally yet you clearly made yourself believe i was thinking it as my own thought! – W R O N G !!!
Werner! – Really! Stop all that damn annoying chuckling in the background! 😉
Good morning? 😉
So how does God fit into your “creation” theory?
Where did the first hydrogen, neutron thingy (whatever it may have been that got the whole ball running in the first) come from?
“I was trying to show that ’simple’ physical concepts (Hydrogen, neutron, gravity due to their combined masses) can and do result in ‘naturally occuring complex compounding structures that ultimately can and did lead to what we currently call Life.”
is there a way to make that PacMac wowowowowoblepblepblep sound when he gets runover by the jellyfish with eyes. Or the duhduhdunuhhhhwahhhhhh sound for the loser on the Price is Right.
All you did was tell us what everything that is our there does now. this addresses none of the how or why.
in fact the “gravity with no outside forces” comment is really what kind of gave it away for me. Clearly I am out matched in certain details of astrophysics, but the the “their own gravity” thing again, is like describing why snow comes in a hexagon, and saying it just does it. the inexplicability and irrationality of the Strong Nuclear force and that gravity is only measurable in observable effects and the fact of its relation to a way out there constant with no good reason, (correct me if I am wrong but there is no grav-o-meter) both are unexplained and yet none of what you said “just happens” would just happen without it.
As well, your starting point is billions of Hydorgen atoms. Like me saying if I started with a million dollars and a bunch of guys and this mongo house just happened.
It certainly, certainly doesn’t explain life.
But please, continue.
Sometimes when I’m reading all you guys’ words in these post and comments I find myself inching closer and closer to the computer screen hoping that if I see the words a bit larger they would suddenly define themselves & make more sense. Then occurs to me…YOU ALL AREN’T SAYING NOTHIN’, there’s a camera secretly catching my perpetual perplexed face on film and I’m just being punk’d. GOOD ONE GUYS!
Tam Please don’t in any way take this as ‘condescending’ because it TRULY isn not meant to be. I laughed out loud at your last comment! 😀
You so often these days make my whole day with your wonderful wit and humour a better more human and loving place to be.
I could see you inching closer to your screen ( because i do it myself at times with the same vain hope that i can ‘see’ more’ by it! 😉 ) and the way you relate it allowed me to see myself through multiple reflectors – i REALLY have got to write and share that ‘mirror’ post one day.
OK – J, Tam, anyone else who went the way they did, you guys have really got to take a step BACK sometimes! You both are heading a little in the wrong direction my post was meant to lead you to…
I am NOT giving the meaning of Life in this short post (that would be truly impossible in a one page monologue!)
THIS POST (as compared to my entire book of which this was a mere ‘sidelight’ – a flash of intuition for me, to you) was only supposed to allow you a way to see how ‘from little things BIG things ‘grow’ (that is also the title of a really wonderful song from a real Aussie by the name of Paul Kelly) and does not require the Hand of God as many creationist thinkers try to explain it (does not NOT require it either – God put the Universe’s physical laws in place as a result of the initial ‘creation’ of the egg that grew into our Universe (NO Jason – there was no actual ‘egg’ the way we think of one today… geez people, grow some kind of brains please and give me SOME credit????).
MY POINT for ‘Life but not as WE know it’ was to make people THINK about how life COULD begin from inanimate matter and known physical laws/forces and not just be made up holus bolus by a loving Creator God.
Quite correct Jason – there is much more to come in this ‘story’ – I can only put so much into one post – please bear with me a little?
Glad you gave me your thoughts on Strong Nuclear forces (the ones that hold protons and neutrons together in larger atomic nucleii against the repulsive force of electromagnetic charges from the similar charged protons – they have a very minor ‘unrelated’ role in what i was saying as do snowflake formation structures)
Again this was just a VERY small example of ONE way a kind of ‘life-form’ we don’t truly think of as such today, can be shown to develop from fundamental principles (not THE Fundamental Principles, Jason! – Please don’t tie me or yourself down anywhere ok? NOT till you have the whole ‘picture’. Geee! I don’t want you all making out like this was the ONLY thing behind all life as we know it – hence the title guys!
I’m working up to that in stages so hopefully people can follow it and not pick it to pieces till they see where the pieces actually FIT!
Get it yet??
Tam, God may have His place at the ‘Head of the Table’, please don’t think I’m trying to disprove Him or His power in any way – OK Sweetie? 🙂 and yes i said MAY – there remains in my mind a degree of Uncertainty i think it useful to allow your knowledge, or perhaps Wisdom is a better term, to continue to expand. 🙂
In case anyone was interested this has personally been a very upsetting (in some ways, rewarding in others – Thank you God! 😉 ) kind of 24 hours. Not seeking sympathy – just letting you know!
LOL!!!!! I am absolutely loving this. lwbut, you have an incredible ability to comment…hear what someone might say in rebuttal…and them respond to that rebuttal as if it actually already happened.
Like I’ve said before, I love hearing you speak…err…write 🙂
yeah, I’m just being playfully argumentative.
I’ve seen your comments on other things elsewhere and I know that yer not what I’m makin it out to be.
I am just lovin sparring with smart people, though.
“I am just lovin sparring with smart people, though”
Uuuhhh…you’ve never sparred with me…
I may not be smart but I’m people!
Come on, let’s spar – you know you’ll win 😉
I’ve only got so many spare sparrers to spread around. s’pose I could spearhead a special sparring spree. That would be splendid.
I split a sheet a sheet I split
Upon a splitted sheet I sit
not ignoring anyone today ( not even Ben!) but seems i am not the only one having a bad day – just rang my ISP to find that a major communications carrier had had major overseas cable trouble and a whole heap of web-related stuff is on the fritz over here so i may have to get back to you all once ‘normal’ services have been resumed – that ok??
Your Special Jason!! I see what In Worship felt about you now!
IW – you certainly do get things right – even if you don’t say much lol 😉
Peace Folks 🙂
Sorry Love! Yes, it’s OK…just this once 😉
fritz, schmitz, what about my needs?
Love u is smrt! I got lost somewhere between the atom and isotopes..really what is an isotopes? LOL oh well i will visit again…I am thinking like Tam..yall are probably watching me with a very confused look while I am reading…R U all laughing hysterically! I would if I knew what you really said.
Darla! Welcome fellow strawberry lover/chocaholic 🙂
Please don’t let the attempt at brain power around here in any way ‘put you off’ – my site won’t always look like this rubbish I hope! 😉
I wanted to say something to the smart people who don’t believe in God in my previous posts and to the people who don’t believe in science in this one.
I am about bringing us all together and this was one such attempt – hoping to show some that there are indeed many things that are true, even if we don’t always see them ourselves.
An Isotope is very simple (if you get chemistry, lol – doesn’t everyone???? 🙂
It is just an atom that has either gained or lost a little weight about the ‘middle’. (oversimplified ‘Tam Term’ there – like it Tam? )
Atoms are, as you might already know, the smallest form of a pure substance (element) you could ever have. Sort of like a human being is to ‘Mankind’ We have white ones, black ones, yellow ones, red ones we call wrongly ‘races’ which have some external characteristics in common and each has it’s own individuals. Same with atoms.
You can be a fat, thin or ‘normal’ human being – same with atoms – each of this ‘type’ fat, normal or thin, is an ‘isotope’ (literally – equal type (to each other) but with a small difference ‘inside’ to the ones who most closely look like each other – there are roughly a hundred different atomic types currently ‘discovered’ by man in nature and each one has several isotopes).
Atoms don’t have sex though – poor things lol. 🙂
Neither do they ‘live’, although they are what allows us to.
They are able to undergo change and are in constant motion both around space and inside of themselves and are made up of still smaller things ( only a very few in number, as far as we currently can show ) and are by no means the ‘be all and end all’ of our Universe.
This post was just to show that even supposedly dead and simple things without what we call life, can and do make up other things that we do consider to be ‘Life’.
Hope that helped some? 🙂
Oh one more thing if you see any mass media like a paper or the tv news you may have heard the term Uranium 235?
This is one very special Isotope that has ‘lost weight’. Uranium ‘normally’ ‘weighs’ 238 ( not pounds, but think of it that way) While U 235 has ‘shed’ 3 from it’s more common ‘cousins’. This makes it a little more ‘active’ as Uranium is kind of ‘obese’ in the atomic world. 😉
U 235 is natural, not normally man-made. It comes from stars originally and also from ‘natural’ weight loss (called decay in physical terms).
We get man-made ‘enriched’ U 235 for nuclear reactors by ‘sifting’ out the ‘skinnier’ Isotope from it’s more common ‘fatter’ atoms.
This is very difficult to do and we have limited success, ‘enriched’ Uranium is still mostly fat Uranium isotopes but with more skinnier U 235 per every 100 fat ones of U 238. U235 is considered more Unstable than it’s well-fed and more ‘relaxed’ cousin – many weight loss sufferers can get where it is coming from, i think? Too much U235 ‘skinnies’ getting together in one place is likely to make them go off with a very Big Bang! Do you like mushrooms?
There – your first (?) Nuclear Physics lesson – who says your dumb? lol 🙂
Anyone tells you that and now you can baffle them with simplifed ( for their benefit! 😉 ) science.
I think some obese atoms wandered off and got lost in my Great Aunts hiney 😉
PLEASE… tell me it was not Aunt ‘Ethel’ 😉
Uranium – ‘fat’ atom – Named after the God UrAnus.
I am NOT saying another word! 🙂
I enjoyed this post!
I never really considered ‘stars’ as a life form.
To be fair, I still don’t! 😉
But it is an interesting concept.
Incidentally I was watching one of Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ episodes the other day “The Lives of the Stars” I remembered how you said in another post how you thought of Dr. Sagan as a great popularizer of Science, but he is lacking in HARD science.
That may be true but damned if I didn’t think that 95% of what he says is still relevant! 😉
It was Carl Sagan whom I directly credit (or whom Gods Gal can blame) for my shaking off most of my christian dogma regarding the physical world. Even after almost 30 years the ‘Cosmos’ series is relevant and most of the science is still valid. What’s more important is the out and out AWE it still inspires in me in my contemplations of the Cosmos!
I loved ‘Cosmos’ too, of course! 🙂 Mostly for the Awe – also for the ‘95%’ lol.
Well done You for shaking off all that dogma and allowing You to see the Universe in ALL it’s glory, not just the ‘sanitised’ version (warts and all!)
Now maybe you can begin to be ready to see even Greater things? not mere things such as stars and galaxies… but how they all rely upon and interact with one another…?
The fundamental interconnectedness of ALL things on Many levels…?
The thing i know of as …