Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 2:23 AM
165 online now:
GDR, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 162 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,791 Year: 21,397/21,208 Month: 1,830/2,326 Week: 285/881 Day: 3/107 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing building stone of abiogenesis discovered?
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 1 of 9 (678937)
11-11-2012 5:30 PM


http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2012/11/121110093550.htm

According to the article, a molecule called AEG has been found to exist naturally. This would give weight to new and improved theories on abiogenesis.

Now, I'm no expert, but I was curious what this forum's more knowledgeable members would think about these developments.

Now most naturalists often still have to reply that ''we do not yet know for sure'' when pressed on this facet of the orgin of humanity. Is this a major step towards relative clarity on abiogenesis?

Seems like a orgin of life topic to me, but it's mostly a news topic, so other more relevant subforums also could work.

Title might also need rephrasing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-11-2012 5:38 PM Kairyu has not yet responded
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2012 9:59 PM Kairyu has not yet responded
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 10:50 AM Kairyu has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 9 (678938)
11-11-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kairyu
11-11-2012 5:30 PM


Adding a little more, evolutionists are fond of pointing out that the origin of life must have been a gradual affair involving copying with modification and selection, and looking over the article it presents the possibility that PEG might have preceded RNA as the basis for heredity, just as RNA might have preceded DNA.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kairyu, posted 11-11-2012 5:30 PM Kairyu has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 9 (678940)
11-11-2012 5:38 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Missing building stone of abiogenesis discovered? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 4 of 9 (679003)
11-11-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kairyu
11-11-2012 5:30 PM


Hi Kairyu,

Kairyu writes:

Is this a major step towards relative clarity on abiogenesis?

No clarity at all according to your article.

From your article.

Does the production of AEG by cyanobacteria represent an echo of the earliest life on Earth?

"We just don't have enough data yet to draw that sort of conclusion," reports Cox

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kairyu, posted 11-11-2012 5:30 PM Kairyu has not yet responded

    
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 5 of 9 (679055)
11-12-2012 8:09 AM


I see what you're trying to imply. However, this statement more a common protocol to not draw any hard conclusions about such a important topic without further research, rather then stemming from any real confusion or dead-ends. It's always written like this. You genuinely didn't know, or are you just taking it out of context?

From what I learned before about the topic, this is a significant lead, enough for me to ask the question speculatively.


  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1320 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 6 of 9 (679079)
11-12-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kairyu
11-11-2012 5:30 PM


Re: Did life really begin naturally billions of years ago, or just a few thousand years ago in the six 24 hour Solar Clock measured "days" of creation.

Sub Thread: Did life really begin naturally billions of years ago, or just a few thousand years ago in the six days of creation.

This would give weight to new and improved theories on abiogenesis.

What is the difference in regard to the threads in this forum since Abiogenesis is hardly substantially different from the Spontaneous Generation stated in Genesis, which when closely read merely states that the Plant Kingdom appeared from the "first sprouts of lkife on Earth," and the Animalingdom followed.

This is essentially the same as science has found in the Two Kingdom biology we use today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kairyu, posted 11-11-2012 5:30 PM Kairyu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Genomicus, posted 11-12-2012 10:58 AM kofh2u has responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 7 of 9 (679080)
11-12-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 10:50 AM


This is essentially the same as science has found in the Two Kingdom biology we use today.

We don't use a "two kingdom biology" today, though. There may be as many as six kingdoms, if we follow T. Cavalier-Smith's argument (A revised six-kingdom system of life, 1997), and anyway modern biology uses the three-domain system as the broadest taxonomic division.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 10:50 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 2:58 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1320 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 8 of 9 (679125)
11-12-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Genomicus
11-12-2012 10:58 AM



We don't use a "two kingdom biology" today, though. There may be as many as six kingdoms, if we follow T. Cavalier-Smith's argument (A revised six-kingdom system of life, 1997), and anyway modern biology uses the three-domain system as the broadest taxonomic division.

As you ought know, none of the six systems of taxonomy is really satisfactory enough to insist that one or the other must be used because it is perfect.
But all of them are arbitrary and can be useful when the circumstances avail themselves.

But my reasoning is that since Genesis speaks only of Plants and Animals, a modern reader should comprehend what the writers were saying, and they should utilize the Two Kingdom System sincethe imlication is that all life forms were created during the six eras of geological time.

(Which side are you on?
Are you a scientist taking the opposition to my theistic evolution or a programmed loyal denominational church person maintaining that Genesis contradicts science???)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Genomicus, posted 11-12-2012 10:58 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 11-12-2012 4:11 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 9 of 9 (679139)
11-12-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 2:58 PM


Hi Kofh2u,

In the interests of keeping this thread on topic, I'm suspending your permissions in the Origin of Life forums.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 2:58 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017