|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Traste.
Although, if you had looked hard enough, you certainly would have found this written multiple times in the threads I linked you to from the Pilbeam thread, I think you may still benefit from reading this one more time: Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about how organisms reproduce. It suggested that some animal reproduction (ontogeny) was accomplished by the environment, instead of by sex or cell division. That is, some animals were born from leaf litter, water, rotting carcasses or dirt. This concept calls for a mechanism that allows decaying matter to be transformed into an animal by means of a pre-existing template. Abiogenesis is the common idea underlying many hypotheses about the origin of the very first life form. In simplest terms, "abiogenesis" basically means that, at some point, there was a first life form, and, since no life predated that life form, that life form could only have come from something other than a pre-existing life form. This concept has no templates: it is a haphazard compilation of random elements into something workable. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed? Can you further make a clear argument showing how those experiments disproved the possibility of abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth through chemical evolution?
At the moment you seem to be taking a set of experiments with very specific goals and applying their results to something almost completely unrelated except by semantics. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
traste writes: What is absolute and correct abiogenesis that disprove long ago by Pasteur?Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE.Do year any experiment producing life from non life?If youy hear your alone. What are the characteristics of good written English in your mind, traste? Speaking of which, Pasteur's law was originally expressed as "Omne vivum ex ovo", latin for "all life [is] from eggs". This we now know is not literally true, because organisms that divide to self-replicate do not use eggs. However, the general observation still holds out, and is usually expressed as "All life comes from life", which, so far as all life forms we have observed are concerned, holds true, although it cannot be proven as an absolute law even when applied to the present. The reason that this is popular amongst creationists is probably because hillbillies have problems with their tenses. It was never "All life was from eggs" or "All life came from life". Such statements would imply that life is eternal, of course; that it has always existed, meaning no creation or abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." Yes, spontaneous generation. Pasteur's experiments applied to to spontaneous generation; not abiogenesis. I tell you I don't like jelly beans. You respond by telling me I'm nuts, raisins rule. Fine, Who care? I was talking about jelly beans and am under no obligation to condemn raisins. You know you can start your own argument with your own definitions, don't you? You don't have to confuse other people's arguments. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: He did a lot of other things but that is the experiment you're talking about.
quote: No. The closest he got to that was the experiment I was talking about.
quote: By which he meant the idea that modern microorganisms appeared as a product of decay...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Maybe.But dont you know that even some supporters of evolution acknowledge that Pasteur experiment settle the contreversy that surrounds spontaneous genaration?How would you reconcile your view with them?You are so vigilance in spoting that Pasteur is an elderly,how about Darwin is he not an elderly to?You contend that Pasteur work maybe wrong,dont you realize that Darwin's work maybe wrong too because he is an elderly?You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?That statement remains true no laboratoty models produce living things from non living things.Do you hear some?Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me..Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay".I will quote Stephen Meyer if you ask me who is Meyer will he is one of the supportets of intelligent design,and who is Pilbeam by the way?Meyer said that Pasteur's experiment show that life could not began from non life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?In my reply in Feb 10 2009 I apologize if I did not recognize evolutionist Francis Hitching as my reference.This what he said "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reaction water in any case inhibits the growth ofmore complex molecules"Dont you hear about that thing?Or your only so concern to the idea that supports evolution?By the way you imply that circle is not a square I agree as a person who has undergone rigid training in mathemathics I know for sure that there is no such thing,but it does not mean that there is no such thing as difficulties in evolution.In fact chemist Richard Dickerson said"it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation.And biochemist George Wald said "spontaneous dissulution is much more probable and hence proceed rapidly than spontaneus synthesis"He acknowledge "this the most stubborn problem that confronts"evolutionary theory.But the difficulties does not stop there.But for sure you dont know about those difficulties.As a student of mathemathics a branded evolution mathemathically erroneus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
You are correct.Our creator is needed for such complexities and precision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Who is Pilbeam in the first place?If I say that I believe that spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution. At least our "Fairy tale" has some evidence to back it up where as creation or ID has none. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5168 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation. I would imagine that this was written before it was known that carbonyl sulfide, a gas emitted by volcanos, catalyzes the polymerization of amino acids in water. (Leman, et al., Science vol 306, pp 283-286 2004). And maybe before, or in ignorance of, hypotheses about early amino acid polymerization happening on occasionally-wet rocks or inside lipid droplets. And please, traste, put a space after punctuation marks. It will make your writing much easier to read. You won't waste any paper, either - just space on a screen.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024