Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 3:08 AM
339 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 335 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,883 Year: 25,489/21,208 Month: 1,116/2,338 Week: 237/450 Day: 2/55 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7444
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 151 of 191 (533514)
10-31-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by SammyJean
10-31-2009 12:03 PM


abiogenesis vs theogensis
Life comes from non-living material, whether you believe that it was started by god or arose spontaneously on its own makes no difference.

I think you'll probably find that Cedre's position is something along the lines of "God is the source of life and God is eternal and living. Life does not come from non-living materials, but from God." Cedre would argue that without a God that gives the life spirit to non-living matter, there would be no life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by SammyJean, posted 10-31-2009 12:03 PM SammyJean has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:07 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:31 PM Modulous has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 191 (533527)
10-31-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Modulous
10-31-2009 1:20 PM


Re: abiogenesis vs theogensis
Contents deleted due to accidental double post when I meant to edit.

Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted


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 151 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 1:20 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 191 (533531)
10-31-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Modulous
10-31-2009 1:20 PM


Re: abiogenesis vs theogensis
Modulos writes:

I think you'll probably find that Cedre's position is something along the lines of "God is the source of life and God is eternal and living. Life does not come from non-living materials, but from God." Cedre would argue that without a God that gives the life spirit to non-living matter, there would be no life.

The Genesis perspective is that the elements of the body came from the earth. From the elements, God designed the body. Then after the body was completed, God breathed into the body (having all that was necessary for life to function) the breath of life into the lifeless body. This all was accomplished within one 24 hour day.

So by this perspective, the pre-life designed body had all that was necessary for life except life itself which came from the spriri/breath of God himself, the creator and designer.

According to the
Wiki website which Meldinoor cited
relative to abiogenesis, there is no imperical standard current model for the origin of life and the various versions of how it happened are postulations. Therefore, imo, neither the Genesis account or the secularist postulations are falsifiable.

Note: On the link, schroll dow to "Current Models."


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 151 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 1:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 4:44 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7444
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 154 of 191 (533532)
10-31-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 4:31 PM


Re: abiogenesis vs theogensis
According to the
Wiki website which Meldinoor cited relative to abiogenesis, there is no imperical standard current model for the origin of life and the various versions of how it happened are postulations. Therefore, imo, neither the Genesis account or the secularist postulations are falsifiable.

That doesn't follow at all. Just because there isn't a single agreed upon hypothesis for

a)how life might be able to originate
b)how life on earth did originate

doesn't mean that there are no such hypothesese that are falsifiable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:31 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Modulous has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6175
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 155 of 191 (533536)
10-31-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
10-31-2009 4:24 AM


Cedre writes:

quote:
my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in.

That clearly isn't true or the organism would still be alive.

For example, animal life requires oxygen. If you remove the oxygen, the organism dies. Therefore, the dead organism does not "have all the necessary components required for life."

And of course introducing oxygen back into the system would not bring the organism back to life. The organism's chemical reactions continued in spite of the lack of oxygen. Those reactions resulted in chemical compounds that cannot be reversed simply by the introduction of oxygen.

Your basic premise is false. Dead organisms are chemically distinct from living organisms. That is precisely why they are dead.

And by the way: Nothing ever died from entropy. The entropy of an organism that just died is the same as the entropy of it one second ago when it was still alive. Do you even know what entropy is? Hint: If your definition includes the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then you haven't got it. I can derive the second law of thermodynamics for you from basic principles, but I want to hear your take on it. Just what do you think entropy is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 10-31-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 7:15 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 156 of 191 (533537)
10-31-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Cedre
10-31-2009 4:11 AM


Re: At the moment of death
Hi, Cedre.

Cedre writes:

Bluejay writes:

But the "carbon compounds" are not still in the right positions!

I have given you evidence that they are...

Baloney.

-----

Cedre writes:

...I have provided several links which maintain that tissue breakdown happens in stages...

And, stages of tissue breakdown have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. For those of us who will die of old age, these stages begin long before death happens.

-----

Cedre writes:

And if tissue hasn't began to breakdown it means that the cells and their components that comprise the tissue haven't either thus the carbon compounds comprising the cells and their components are in position, the only time they are not in position must be when the tissue begins to breakdown.

Again, this is baloney.

I'm not talking about tissue breakdown, Cedre: I'm talking about oxygen-transport, nerve signaling and the like. If you bleed to death, then the chemical reactions that are supposed to be taking place in your blood are not taking place. Thus, some of your body's carbon compounds are not in the right place. If you asphyxiate, then oxygen is not attaching to the right carbon compounds, and those carbon compounds arrive in the right place, but in the wrong chemical form.

When somebody dies, it means that some vital carbon compound is not in the right place at the right time, or does not have the right chemical conformation, or has not performed its task properly.

If you want to talk on the molecular level, you have to consider more than just tissues, because tissues are not the only molecular parts in your body.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Cedre, posted 10-31-2009 4:11 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1199 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 157 of 191 (533541)
10-31-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Cedre
10-31-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
OK Cedre - let's add 'inability to read' to your list of attributes:

Cedre:

Nonsense you're just trying to duck the need for a driver, but a car does need a driver to start it up and get it on the road before speed appears and to assume that a motionless car has speed is rubbish, it sure does have the potential to have speed but that potential won't be realized until the car is driven.

Did you not even read the part of my message Message 132 dealing with your junk argument?

Let me re-quote it to you:

Drosophilla writes:

So, your car is parked at the top of a hill. Handbrake left off but the car is on the level on the top and is not moving. A sudden earth-tremor judders the car - it rolls slightly forward onto the slope and sets off merrily down the hill....voila - speed and no driver.

Please do not duck and dive in a pathetic gesture to avoid the obvious. In a point by point debate you are supposed to answer, specifically each point your opponent raises - not ignore them, like they werenít brought up in the first place.

I have shown, easily that there is no need for a driver for the car to show the phenomenon of speed - have the decency to admit you are wrong - or show how the scenario above is invalid!

No your analogy makes no sense to me I don't even think it ties to what we are discussing.

Of course it does....that analogy is showing how it is possible to ignore the main point of an argument (meat eating) by referencing an irrelevance (butchers to cut up the meat) in exactly the same way you are (emergent property of speed as a consequence of organisational matter) by referencing irrelevant (and not even accurate as I show above) need of a driver.

You do resemble a brick wall, Cedre in a point by point discussion. You are supposed to reply to each and every discussion point and, by replying, I don't mean just by dismissal of said points - you are supposed to actually add something of value. You have tried to use an irrelevance (if you don't understand why it is an irrelevance then we've got problems), and when Iíve showed how your irrelevance is not even accurate - as in my hill roll, you simply ignore it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Cedre, posted 10-31-2009 8:56 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 6:41 AM Drosophilla has responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1199 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 158 of 191 (533542)
10-31-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Vacate
10-31-2009 1:10 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Hi vacate:

No its not necessary for the analogy, an analogy is not an exact representation of reality. Whether the car has a driver, the tires have air, or if the road is icy, it does not detract from the point he (or she) is trying to make. Emergent properties are the point, the analogy is an attempt for you to perhaps understand, but instead you show a misunderstanding of what an analogy is meant to do. Would you care to take a look at the point instead of whether the road in the analogy is gravel or pavement?

Thanks for stepping up to the front with me on this one - I feel that talking to Cedre is like talking to a brick wall. Most of what you say is simply ignored or rephrased in a way that s(he) wants. And s(he) doesn't (I believe) understand the proper use of analogy or how to tell when something is irrelevant to the scenario. Either that or s(he) is just plain stubborn...mind you that comes easily to creationists!

By the way, for your future reference....I am a 'he'.

Regards...

Edited by Drosophilla, : correction of spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Vacate, posted 10-31-2009 1:10 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 191 (533544)
10-31-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Modulous
10-31-2009 4:44 PM


Re: Abiogenesis Models
Modulous writes:

That doesn't follow at all. Just because there isn't a single agreed upon hypothesis for

a)how life might be able to originate
b)how life on earth did originate

doesn't mean that there are no such hypothesese

Wiki says, "Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment."

Could you explain, as per the above, how postulations on alleged abiogenesis is more falsifyable than postulations on the alleged Genesis record relative to the origin of life?


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 154 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 4:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2009 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6175
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 160 of 191 (533547)
10-31-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 7:26 PM


Buzsaw writes:

quote:
Could you explain, as per the above, how postulations on alleged abiogenesis is more falsifyable than postulations on the alleged Genesis record relative to the origin of life?

Hmm...because you can run an experiment upon the former but not on the latter?

We can already create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Is that "abiogenesis"? Well, that depends upon your definition of "life," but surely you see the point. If we think we have a chemical pathway to what we consider to be "life," all we have to do is run the experiment to see if the chemistry actually results in the products we were hoping to get.

How do you propose we reproduce the Genesis effect?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7444
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 161 of 191 (533549)
10-31-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Abiogenesis Models
Could you explain, as per the above, how postulations on alleged abiogenesis is more falsifyable than postulations on the alleged Genesis record relative to the origin of life?

Sure.

Let's say you postulate that "complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform such as silicate crystals in solution" (paraphrased from the wiki article) - you could falsify this concept quite tidily by showing that crystals "are not faithful enough to store and transfer information from one generation to the next" (again paraphrased from wiki).

As for whether or not it is more 'falsifiable' than the genesis account, isn't something worth getting into. I never claimed that the one account was more falsifiable than the other. I simply pointed that just because there are many hypotheses it doesn't follow from that alone that they are not falsifiable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 191 (533551)
10-31-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Blue Jay
10-30-2009 10:32 AM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Bluejay writes:


I showed you an example of an extremely simple system that readily and repeatedly decreases in entropy, which is a direct refutation of the central principle of your argument. Now, you have to support your thesis, or your entire argument fails.

Logically, your year in and year out, millennia in and millennia out water to ice crystals analogy is repetitive, indicatitive of no significant agregate growth progress to a more complex system over the millennia, whereas alleged abiogenesis would require significant progress over time towards complexity to effect the genesis of life, requiring an agregate lower state of entropy on the system than that of water to ice crystals.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix spelling of millennia


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 121 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:32 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Rrhain, posted 11-01-2009 2:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 191 (533553)
10-31-2009 9:34 PM


Re: Falsifyability
Modulous and Rrhain: Thank you for your responses.

I'm not going to go on my soap box to debate falsifyability of the Genesis origin of life in this thread, though, imo, the complexity of DNA would appear to be a model as falsifyable for ID relative to the Genesis record life origin as what you have cited for abiogenesis.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rrhain, posted 11-01-2009 2:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6175
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 164 of 191 (533559)
11-01-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 9:34 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
though, imo, the complexity of DNA would appear to be a model as falsifyable for ID

Ahem. You're assuming that which you're trying to prove. You are assuming that DNA is "irreducibly complex." If you had been paying attention, you would know that DNA is actually reducible. RNA is, too. You have heard of "thioesters," yes?

You mean you didn't actually do any research on this topic before you decided to pontificate about what is and what isn't known?

At any rate, you are missing the point: If we have an hypothesis for how a certain chemical product can be achieved through the interaction of certain chemical reagents, then it is clearly a falsifiable hypothesis: All we have to do is run the reaction and see if we do get the products from the chemical interaction of the reagents.

As an example, suppose we are trying to determine how water might be created chemically. I have an hypothesis that all we need to do is mix two parts hydrogen gas with one part oxygen gas at STP and then spark the mixture.

This is a clearly falsifiable hypothesis: All I need to do is run the experiment: Take two parts hydrogen with one part oxygen, mix them at STP, and spark the mixture. If I get water, then my hypothesis is supported. If I don't get any water, then my hypothesis is falsified. There might be other hypotheses out there about how water might be generated chemically, but that doesn't affect the falsifiability of my hypothesis.

As another example, relativity. When it was put forward by Einstein, the ability to physically test it was not available even though the method about how to test it was quite clear: We need to get an extremely accurate timepiece to be accelerated in comparison to another timepiece and see how such action affects their timekeeping. At the time it was presented, atomic clocks and supersonic jets didn't exist, but they eventually came along.

Another similar test required a solar eclipse that would then allow us to measure gravitational lensing around the sun. Well, it isn't like we can generate such eclipses at will. We have to wait until they come along.

So even though we didn't have the immediate methods to test relativity, the methods by which we could do so were clear. The various hypotheses regarding chemical origins of life are still in the early stages, working on methods by which they might be tested. That's why they're still called "hypotheses," rather than actual theories: We haven't been able to adequately test them. That doesn't make them unfalsifiable. It makes them hypotheses.

All that said, you're assuming that DNA cannot be created chemically (despite the fact that it is clearly created chemically in your cells every single day...or are you saying that something other than chemistry is taking place inside your cells?) But if we have an hypothesis about how one can develop DNA chemically, all we have to do is run the experiment to see if it works.

And it turns out that it does. DNA can easily be created chemically. In fact, there are plenty of biological supply houses in existence where you tell them what specific DNA sequence you want to have and they will generate it for you and send you a vial filled with the stuff.

Now, answer the question: How might one go about testing the Genesis effect? Are you saying god is willing to be put inside the box to be poked and prodded and forced to reproduce what he did before?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 9:34 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6175
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 165 of 191 (533560)
11-01-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 9:06 PM


Buzsaw writes:

quote:
Logically, your year in and year out, millenia in and millenia out water to ice crystals analogy is repetitive, indicatitive of no significant agregate growth progress to a more complex system over the millenia

Irrelevant. Your claim is that it cannot happen at all. And yet, your claim is trivially proven false. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what entropy is. Do I really need to post the primer on how to derive the second law from first principles again?

Question: What is the entropy diagram for photosynthesis? Are you implying that anything in the pathway for photosynthesis is something other than chemistry?

This is the point you are missing: Chemical reactions get chained together. If I take hydrogen and oxygen gas, mix them at STP, and then spark the mixture, I get water. I can then use that water in another reaction: If we then dissolve silver nitrate and salt in the water, the water will act as a catalyst to dissociate the silver and chlorine which allows them to react to produce silver chloride. The products of that reaction can then be used in another reaction (such as reacting the silver chloride with ammonia.)

quote:
whereas alleged abiogenesis would require significant progress over time towards complexity to effect the genesis of life

Why is this a problem? We've already seen it directly happen over the course of the diversification of life on this planet. The atmosphere of the earth used to have very little oxygen in it. But the life that was around at the time produced oxygen as a waste product. This oxygen then went into the atmosphere and increased its presence to well over 20%. All of this oxygen then asserted a selective pressure upon life causing it to chemically evolve to use the available oxygen which reduced the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. There has been a long history of life changing the chemical makeup of the biosphere which then chemically changed life to take advantage of the new chemistry which then changed the chemical makeup of the biosphere, spinning the merry-go-round yet again.

Since we can see the very process you claim is impossible happening right in front of our eyes, both in small scale and large scale, why would you have us lie about it?

quote:
requiring an agregate lower state of entropy on the system than that of water to ice crystals.

Ahem: What makes you think life is a "lower state of entropy" than other chemicals that are used to keep life going?

Do you even know what entropy is? Do I need to post the primer on thermodynamics again?

Question: What is entropy? Hint: If your answer includes the terms "order," "disorder," or "information," then you've got it wrong.

Once again: What is the entropy diagram for photosynthesis?

What? You mean you didn't do any research into the subject before you decided to pontificate about what is and what isn't known?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 9:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017