Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 61 of 191 (533230)
10-29-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
10-29-2009 10:37 AM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Bluejay writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Interesting; Lifeforms having no life.
Still going for the rhetorical points, I see.
I didn't say that, although, admittedly, the syntax of my sentence made it a bit ambiguous.
Ambiguous?
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.
Online Dictionary: Life Forms: "The characteristic morphology of a mature organism"
Bluejay writes:
And yet, every winter, huge quantities of water (a three-atom molecule) freeze into an organized crystalline structure that we call "ice."
Seems that the thesis of your argument is entirely refuted by one of the most basic observations available in the natural world.
And this is suppose to model the abiogenesis of life, or am I miss-reading you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2009 10:37 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 62 of 191 (533238)
10-29-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:06 AM


The very first life form arose from an assembly of life-giving components yet I have showed that having life-giving components even having them in the right places isn't all that's needed for life
Actually you have singularly failed to show anything except a fundemental lack of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:06 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 63 of 191 (533262)
10-29-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:19 AM


Emergent proerties.....
The example of a motor car given by Bluejay and JUC in the early posts was a good example and I’d like to carry this further in analogy to emergent properties to make a comparison with life processes.
Cedre in message 5:
It's more than interesting I believe it's a real challenge to abiogenesis; the fact that it's close to impossible to maintain life after a certain period with all the essential components for life in tact show that life is not just a matter of having all the components and having them in place it's more than that.
So components, on their own, won't make something unique or emergent?
Well let's look at the motor car:
If I supply you with all the materials needed metal, oil, fuel, instructions how to build a car etc you will eventually build that car.
Now if you start it up and drive it away that car will possesses something we label as 'speed'. It is moving - going from 'A' to 'B'. But nowhere in that list of materials were you supplied with an item called 'speed'. That is what the scientists here have been telling you about 'emergent properties'. These are properties that come about as a result of the special way you put the physical things you have been supplied with together.
And it has to be done in that correct way. Fuel on its own won't cause speed....it just burns. Metal lies in chunks on the ground, oil seeps into said ground. But put all those materials into the correct order (i.e. build the car) and those materials cause 'speed' to come about. How a bronze-age man would consider that magic!!
Let's take the comparison further. If the car breaks down, say the cam shaft breaks, the engine seizes or runs out of fuel then the car will stop - and the 'speed' disappears.
When religious people say to me 'where does your soul go when you die' to me this is analogous to saying 'where does 'speed' go to when a car breaks down? It is (to me) a nonsensical question. Once the order of working parts break, for any reason, the emergent property (speed in the case of a car, life in the case of organic components) simply ceases.
There is no issue at all here to abiogenesis. It's exactly what you’d expect. Think about this analogy - I think it is quite revealing in more than one way.
Edited by Drosophilla, : Spelling mistake rectified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:19 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 2:18 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 64 of 191 (533264)
10-29-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Strawman?
Hi Buzsaw,
The problem here is that we all agree that we should really be discussing more primitive organisms, except for Cedre. Ideally, we should be discussing the requirements that the first life had. Did the first replicating molecules need a soul in order to replicate? Do bacteria need souls in order to function?
Cedre is the one that finds relevance in discussing the complex factors involved in sustaining a larger living organism. Because he only looks at organisms at the macroscopic level, he doesn't realize that dead organisms are in fact physically distinct from living ones. He has been given several examples of this.
It isn't really fair to label Modulous' rebuttal a strawman, when the very argument he is rebutting is the strawman that started this whole charade in the first place.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 65 of 191 (533266)
10-29-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:27 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Buzsaw writes:
And this is suppose to model the abiogenesis of life, or am I miss-reading you?
No, it is in fact an example of a decrease in entropy, and an increase in order within an non-isolated system. The water molecules do not have to combat the second law of thermodynamics in order to turn into ordered ice crystals. I think Bluejay was responding to your question about the original life forms having to fight entropy.
Buzsaw writes:
I understood you to refer to life forms as an amalgamation of inorganic chemicals from which life eventually emerged.
Life did not emerge from inorganic compounds. It may have been assisted by inorganic compounds, but nobody is arguing that inorganic compounds suddenly turned into organic ones.
You're mistake here is that you are assuming "organic" to mean living and "inorganic" means dead. Organic means carbon-based. As such, even a small molecule like methane is organic.
Why does it matter whether we call these first replicators "living" or not?
PS. Did you read the excerpt I linked you to about the experiment with the virus. Wouldn't you agree that the fact that life can thrive at a genome complexity of a mere 220 nucleotides is a fairly convincing example of how simple these first life forms could have been? (And they were probably even less complex than that)
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 10:04 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 66 of 191 (533267)
10-29-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
10-29-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Soul
Modulous writes:
My body remains alive without a soul. If bodies often spontaneously came back to life - that would be an argument for the soul.
Data relating to the alleged invisible soul is unfalsifiable. Therefore neither you or I can substantiate with evidence whether or not we have a soul.
By the same token, it would, however, not be necessary for frequent spontaneous regenerations/resurrections of dead bodies to argue for the existence of soul or the necessity of body + soul = life. What is observed is that death via natural means usually results from the pressures of cell entropy etc. How that relates to the soul remains debatable, so I'll leave off belaboring the point.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 12:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 6:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 67 of 191 (533268)
10-29-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cedre
10-29-2009 3:48 AM


Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
No what you have is a lifeless organism a body not life.
Thank you for sharing your religious beliefs with us. Now, let's address the facts.
Cedre writes:
but dead organisms defy that notion. And although deterioration may begin shortly after death it doesn't happen extremely fast as you claim otherwise resuscitation would always fail. I have read of a man who had been dead for three days but was able to be resuscitated. Also according to Wikipedia it actually takes a long time for tissue to deteriorate "The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years" Not Found
I'm not referring to decomposition on a larger scale. A cell that is starved of oxygen will quickly be damaged by certain chain reactions and it will die.
However, research into techniques of suspended animation have shown that if oxygen in an animal is quickly replaced by something else, such that the animal goes from "sufficient oxygen" to "no oxygen" without spending much time in the damaging zone that is "low oxygen", he will not suffer as much internal damage to the cells. Another method of improving the survival of a patient with no pulse or breathing, is by lowering the temperature, reducing the damaging processes that take place inside cells with little access to oxygen.
Think of it. A person put into suspended animation would be dead for all practical purposes, but the parts inside his cells will still be connected properly, such that he can be resuscitated even after great lengths of time. While a person who is simply strangled to death, without any of these steps taken, will be far more difficult to revive. Why is this?
You have to remember, just because the heart, brain, arteries etc. are still in place, life is what takes place on a cellular level. If the cells are damaged, the parts of the organism are no longer properly connected, and you will not be able to revive it. It doesn't matter what it all looks like on a macroscopic level.
Cedre writes:
Exactly All that's needed are not just parts correctly assembled but my point is other factors are come into play, dead organism especially freshly dead organisms also have parts correctly assembled, humans still have a heart and arteries and etc everything is still in place
They don't necessarily have all the parts in place. If the cells are too damaged, the organism will not resuscitate.
Try to think of life on a cellular level.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 3:48 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 3:00 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 191 (533273)
10-29-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Play nice
Meldinoor writes:
I don't think Buzsaw was trying to disparage these processes by using the word "random".
Give me a break. If one is confident enough to raise objections to a scientific theory or concept, one should know better than to use the word "random" at all to describe a chemical process. If chemical reactions are random, then why the flying hell should we even have the field of chemistry? So, by proclaiming that chemical reactions (which are the basis of abiogenesis) are random, one must either be inadequate in one's knowledge to raise any objection or one is an outright liar.
Now, trying to talk about things to which one is clueless about makes one intellectually dishonest, which is pretty much lying.
As you can see, in either case, one is a liar.
Sorry, after years of dealing with creationists, I don't have any patience left in me. I'll point out the lies when I see them. It is, after all, one of the 10 commandments. And despite me pointing this particular lie out many many times in the past, I still see the same people throwing it out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:26 PM Taz has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 69 of 191 (533275)
10-29-2009 5:13 PM


Evidence please
Hi Cedre,
Cedre writes:
I will propose that this life-sustaining force is God, you are at liberty to propose your own, what is certain is nothing natural is known to cause life or to add years to it. When it's time to die it's time to die.
Before you continue to assert this, perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence of "unnatural deaths". That is, deaths without a natural cause that can only be explained supernaturally.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why a person who chokes to death can be resuscitated, while a person who is heavily irradiated (cell damage) can not.
From your point of view it would seem that medicine is irrelevant in resuscitating the dead, since life is supernatural anyway.
Unless you can respond to these questions, I don't see how your concept of what it takes to be living has any foundation in the real world.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Cedre, posted 10-30-2009 3:31 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 70 of 191 (533276)
10-29-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
10-29-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Play nice
Hi Taz,
Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I agree that random was not the right word to use. But Buzsaw wasn't discussing the randomness of evolution or abiogenesis, his post had nothing do with it. As such, while he may have used an unfortunate choice of words, you are still attacking his semantics rather than his post.
Whatever Buzsaw's knowledge on the topic, he is still entitled to ask questions and recieve answers to those questions.
It's a good thing you point this out. But rather than just saying "You're a liar!!", try to point out why and how he is lying. You'll notice that I had to explain to Buzsaw why you were upset, as it wasn't apparent in your post.
I'm pretty sure I'll be as tired of these creo misconceptions as you are once I've been active in the debate for 3+ years
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 4:32 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 6:34 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 71 of 191 (533278)
10-29-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Soul
Hi Buz,
Regarding the soul, and the puzzle to understand it....can I refer you to my message 63 of this thread (sorry not sure how to put a link to it when message 63 itself has not been refrenced by any other link yet).
Basically I carry the analogy of the motor car and organic life to the finale of 'death'. Happy to chat on this one....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 191 (533281)
10-29-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 5:26 PM


Re: Play nice
Meldinoor writes:
Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I agree that random was not the right word to use. But Buzsaw wasn't discussing the randomness of evolution or abiogenesis, his post had nothing do with it. As such, while he may have used an unfortunate choice of words, you are still attacking his semantics rather than his post.
Whatever Buzsaw's knowledge on the topic, he is still entitled to ask questions and recieve answers to those questions.
It's a good thing you point this out. But rather than just saying "You're a liar!!", try to point out why and how he is lying. You'll notice that I had to explain to Buzsaw why you were upset, as it wasn't apparent in your post.
Here is why I think he's a liar. While the post wasn't about the supposed randomness of chemical reactions that brought about abiogensis, he threw out the word random as a way to deceive unsuspecting readers. By ignoring this, he's hoping that some readers might take it to mean evolutionists are acknowledging that abiogenesis and evolution are just random processes.
Here is a more obvious example of this form of dishonesty. There was an episode of law and order where the defense attorney was questioning the forensic scientist in court. While he was questioning her credentials, he asked the following question: while you were attending medical school and worked at a strip club, I understand that you studied...?
The question had nothing to do with her working as a strip dancer while she attended med school. And yet, he knew, the judge knew, and the jury knew that he threw the fact in as an attempt to discredit her. When the prosecutor objected, the defense lawyer said he was just innocently referencing her past work. Innocent my ass. If no one questioned it, the jury would have assumed that working as a stripper in the past somehow discredited her as a reliable forensic scientist. Goodness knows, I've been attacked in this way by defense lawyers while testifying in court before (no, I never worked as a stripper). It's their way of discrediting you in the eyes of the jury and still be able to back pedal when someone objected to the dishonesty.
When I objected to the use of the word "random" to describe the chemical reactions that resulted in abiogenesis, I was objecting to the intellectual dishonesty of throwing a lie out as a side comment and then not even have the balls to admit the dishonest intention.
The intention to lie is obvious. Let's drop the bullshit.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 5:26 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM Taz has replied
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 8:03 PM Taz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 191 (533282)
10-29-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
10-29-2009 6:34 PM


Re: Play nice
Don't be so quick to presume sneaky tactics from Buz.
He has demonstrated a total lack of comprehension to any of the science invovled. I doubt very much that he is being so tricky.
He just uses words at random ( ) without having a clue about the nature of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 6:34 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 7:57 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 83 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 11:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 191 (533288)
10-29-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
10-29-2009 6:41 PM


Re: Play nice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NosyNed writes:
Don't be so quick to presume sneaky tactics from Buz.
He has demonstrated a total lack of comprehension to any of the science invovled. I doubt very much that he is being so tricky.
He just uses words at random ( ) without having a clue about the nature of the discussion.
Hi Ned. I've not touted myself as being scientifically astute. Therefore I have limited my input to the extent of my knowledge. If you think my conduct here in this thread amounts to random goble-de-goop, it would be nice for you to participate in the topic discussion rather than posting blind asserted personal attack.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite evidence for your charges. Imo, that would be especially nice since you, as an admin would serve as an example relative to the board guidelines.
ABE: Ned, my message ratings presently average 4.3. Not bad, for random yada. No? Btw, I see yours are 3.3.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2009 6:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 75 of 191 (533289)
10-29-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
10-29-2009 6:34 PM


Re: Is it Random?
Taz writes:
Here is why I think he's a liar. While the post wasn't about the supposed randomness of chemical reactions that brought about abiogensis,
Taz, again, please enlighten me. Were the chemical reactions that bought about abiogenisis random processes or not? If not, why not?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 6:34 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 10-29-2009 9:05 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 77 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 9:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024