Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 1:23 AM
377 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 376 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,688 Year: 10,294/21,208 Month: 3,381/2,674 Week: 797/961 Day: 0/109 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Cell Division
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 16 of 32 (605635)
02-21-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Drevmar
02-21-2011 1:21 AM


To Drevmar
Hi Drevmar,

Okay, I went to the link you provided and I have to admit, I had to look up "self-polymerize" - this stuff is really slow reading for me. I'll have to look at it a few times before I am gonna get it. But I think the main gist is that we are talking about chemicals getting together, forming into a very basic cell-like structure, ... The attached reading material is somewhat difficult as well and has a lot of "out of my league" stuff.

No problem, take your time and check all you want to, that is how the open-minded skeptic operates.

Yes, this is one possibility for the way cells formed, and it can be observed in the lab as well, so it is not just a hypothetical development.

... and then picking and choosing this and that until they achieve life-form? ...

Or just lots of trial and error "tests" with various chemical combinations until one occurs that takes off, that is the hypothesis.

I feel the need to ask if a life-form has been developed in a lab? or, is the current state of development still chemical compounds? No insult intended I just want to know!

No life form has been developed in the lab yet, and the current state is still chemical evolution - where we have replicating molecules that show some mutation and selection.

Of course this gets into the question of "what is life" -- and that is a whole nother ball or worms.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Drevmar, posted 02-21-2011 1:21 AM Drevmar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Drevmar, posted 02-21-2011 11:45 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Drevmar
Junior Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 24
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2011


Message 17 of 32 (605648)
02-21-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
02-21-2011 11:03 AM


To RAZD and Mr Jack
Well, I find that fascinating. It's actually very cool and I don't see why anyone is upset on either side of the fence, even though I have read the various "evolution versus creation" arguments. Maybe that fence needs to be taken down. Okay, I am gonna digest this and think up some more questions, I thank you much! And please note, I really don't have a problem if someone does get to the creating life point. Wouldn't that be a huge step! The scriptures do not say that God will not allow man to create life (nor that evolution doesn't happen) and with all that has happened so far who knows?

Edited by Drevmar, : Thoughts weren't done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 11:03 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 18 of 32 (605725)
02-21-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 8:01 PM


Re: To RAZD
Dr Adequate writes;

We can watch liposomes dividing in a laboratory; we know it happens. If, as I suspect, you have a magic-based hypothesis, I should like you to produce equally strong evidence for the occurrence of magic. Otherwise I shall prefer the reality

Do you label Szostak's video and the article by Ricardo and Szostak " life on earth" Scientific America sept. 2009 a:

Theory?
Hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?
Magic based hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 8:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 10:08 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 19 of 32 (605726)
02-21-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
02-20-2011 8:01 PM


Re: To RAZD
Razd writes;

Which, curiously, is all we can say at this time. Nobody is claiming that this is what happened, only that it is one possibility, one that works with known science and natural processes.

I would ask the same question I asked Dr. Adequate. Do you consider the video and the article by Szostak & Ricardo "Life on Earth" in Scientific America Sept. 2009:

A theory?
A hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 8:14 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2011 6:32 AM shadow71 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 20 of 32 (605733)
02-21-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by shadow71
02-21-2011 7:18 PM


Re: To RAZD
Hi shadow71

Do you consider the video and the article by Szostak & Ricardo "Life on Earth" in Scientific America Sept. 2009:

A theory?
A hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?

I would say that it is a scientific hypothesis for one way life may have begun on earth. There are others.

We don't have any direct evidence for how life began 3.5 billion years ago on earth, so we may never know: the oldest fossil bearing rocks already show simple life forms existing, so we don't know when it really began or what came before, except that it occurred some time after the formation of the earth (unless it came from space), some 4.55 billion years ago. That doesn't give us much to work with.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

quote:
Stromatolites are not only Earth's oldest of fossils, but are intriguing in that they are our singular visual portal (except for phylogenetic determination of conserved nucleic acid sequences and some subtle molecular fossils) into deep time on earth, the emergence of life, and the evolving of the beautiful forms of life of modern time. A small piece of stromatolites encodes biological activity perhaps spanning thousands of years.

I would say that it is a scientific theory for how life can begin from chemicals and natural reactions.

The difference is that theory is supported by experimentation and the evaluation of the evidence from this and similar studies: it has been tested, while the actual origin of life is not.

The development of the theory for how life can begin is an integral part to the formation of the hypothesis for how life did begin, as it provides the evidentiary basis to make the hypothesis.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 02-21-2011 7:18 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 21 of 32 (605745)
02-21-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by shadow71
02-21-2011 7:13 PM


Re: To RAZD
Do you label Szostak's video and the article by Ricardo and Szostak " life on earth" Scientific America sept. 2009 a:

Theory?
Hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?
Magic based hypothesis?

I can't access the article. The video presents a non-magical hypothesis as to the way in which abiogenesis took place and some facts about biochemistry that support its plausibility.

As no-one has observed magical processes in biology, this in my judgment makes the hypothesis superior to magic-based hypotheses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by shadow71, posted 02-21-2011 7:13 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 11:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 22 of 32 (605750)
02-21-2011 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2011 10:08 PM


So you don't believe in magic.

Well, incredulity is not an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2011 10:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:00 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:06 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 32 (605755)
02-22-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Bolder-dash
02-21-2011 11:16 PM


Bolder-dash writes:

So you don't believe in magic.

Well, incredulity is not an argument.

Thats not what he said.

Dr Adequate writes:

As no-one has observed magical processes in biology, this in my judgment makes the hypothesis superior to magic-based hypotheses.

If that criticism sounds like "I don't believe in magic," then you have a serious cognitive deficiency preventing meaningful participation in such a topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 11:16 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2011 12:07 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 24 of 32 (605759)
02-22-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Bolder-dash
02-21-2011 11:16 PM


So you don't believe in magic.

Well, incredulity is not an argument.

Observation, however, is an argument. I have never seen magic any more than I have seen a pig with wings. Unless and until I do, the scientific method constrains me to disbelieve in both.

An argument from incredulity would be saying that magic is too ridiculous to be true. Whereas what I say is that it is too unevidenced to be plausible. Like winged pigs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 11:16 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2011 12:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 25 of 32 (605762)
02-22-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 12:00 AM


Dr. A believe in magic
So you are saying that he does believe in magic?

Ok, that's interesting too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:00 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 12:12 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:12 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1014 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 26 of 32 (605764)
02-22-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2011 12:06 AM


An argument from incredulity would be saying that magic is too ridiculous to be true. Whereas what I say is that it is too unevidenced to be plausible. Like winged pigs.

Do you also mean like the evolution of the eye through random mutations? You haven't actually seen that happen have you?

Or of abiogenesis? You were there? Wow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2011 9:19 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 32 (605765)
02-22-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
02-22-2011 12:07 AM


Re: Dr. A believe in magic
Bolder-dash writes:

So you are saying that he does believe in magic?

Ok, that's interesting too.

Wow, OK then. You have effectively removed yourself from the conversation due to a lack of the required skills to meaningfully participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2011 12:07 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 28 of 32 (605766)
02-22-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bolder-dash
02-22-2011 12:07 AM


Re: Dr. A believe in magic
So you are saying that he does believe in magic?

Of course he isn't.

Is there any statement that you can't misunderstand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2011 12:07 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 29 of 32 (605793)
02-22-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by shadow71
02-21-2011 7:18 PM


Origin of life on earth.
I don't know about the video but the Sci. Am. article makes it pretty clear that what they are doing is presenting a brief synthesis of the most current research in several fields, concerned with the origins of life, as a hypothetical scenario.

Szostak and Ricardo writes:

The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be forever lost to science. But research can at least help us understand what is possible.

...

We may never know the exact details of early evolution, but here is a plausible sequence of some of the major events that led from the first protocell to DNA-based cells such as bacteria.

The article is littered with possiblys, coulds, mights and mays, all caveats suggesting the hypothetical nature of the scenario.

There is some wishful thinking in there ...

If we assume for the moment that the gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of life's origin will someday be filled

... but on the whole everything they present has solid experimental evidence supporting it as a plausible mechanism, not necessarily what actually happened. Without a time machine that may be the best we can hope for.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by shadow71, posted 02-21-2011 7:18 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 12:18 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 30 of 32 (606029)
02-23-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Wounded King
02-22-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Origin of life on earth.
Wounded King posted;

There is some wishful thinking in there ...

If we assume for the moment that the gaps in our understanding of the chemistry of life's origin will someday be filled

... but on the whole everything they present has solid experimental evidence supporting it as a plausible mechanism, not necessarily what actually happened. Without a time machine that may be the best we can hope for.

TTFN,

Thanks Wounded King. I have a lot reading to do to even try and understand the basics of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2011 6:32 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017