Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 11:05 AM
335 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,798 Year: 25,404/21,208 Month: 1,031/2,338 Week: 152/450 Day: 24/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1682
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 85 (674514)
09-29-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:59 PM


However, if life evolved from non-life in the past, it should still be able to do so now, right?

And how do you know it isn't?

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16022
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 47 of 85 (674515)
09-29-2012 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:59 PM


The concern has nothing to do with historical versus experimental or observational science. You said you had never seen a virus evolve metabolizing ability, and I responded with Biblical examples because I thought they would be more familiar to you, but let me remove the confusion with different examples. Would you object to the possibility of water on Mars because, "I've never seen water on Mars"? Would you object to the possibility of electrons because, "I've never seen an electron"? Would you object to the possibility of mountains eroding away to plains because, "I've never seen a mountain erode away to a plain"?

In other words, "I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize," is no objection at all, but if you think it has validity then discussion with you is pointless. That's why I said it was concerning. I was afraid you were adopting the position that if you had never seen something happen with your own eyes that it was not possible.

So what did you really mean when you said, "I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize"? Was there a legitimate objection that you actually had in mind?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:03 PM Percy has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1737 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 48 of 85 (674519)
09-29-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
09-29-2012 8:12 PM


No Percy, I don’t mean with my eyes, literally. That would be absurd. It would require that I see absolutely everything, which is physically impossible.

We know there is water on Mars, in the frozen form. This we see through extension. The effects of the cause. However, you don’t see either the virus evolve to do so, or its effects. At least, it has never been reported. Electron’s effects can be seen. It can be tested, it can be theorized about. Mountains eroding to a plain. We can see erosion in action.

This is not so with viruses. We can test if they metabolize. They do not. They have never been seen to do so (Via experimentation, when I say “see”, I don’t mean in the “with my own eyes” sense). By anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 8:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 8:53 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16022
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 49 of 85 (674544)
09-30-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 9:03 PM


LimpSpider writes:

This is not so with viruses. We can test if they metabolize. They do not. They have never been seen to do so (Via experimentation, when I say “see”, I don’t mean in the “with my own eyes” sense). By anyone.

You did not say, "I've never seen a virus metabolize." You said, "I've never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize." If you had a legitimate point, what was it?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:03 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:38 PM Percy has responded

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1737 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 50 of 85 (674587)
09-30-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
09-30-2012 8:53 AM


So I made a paraphrasical mistake.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 8:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 6:45 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16022
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 51 of 85 (674588)
09-30-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by LimpSpider
09-30-2012 6:38 PM


LimpSpider writes:

So I made a paraphrasical mistake.

Okay, I guess you were forced into a tough choice between conceding you had no point or appearing clueless. Are you sure you made the right choice?

Is there anything you'd still like to discuss about post Miller/Urey research into life's origins?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:38 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1737 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 52 of 85 (674591)
09-30-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
09-30-2012 6:45 PM


Well, I made my objections to the experiment, which were not refuted. And no, I was not appearing clueless or had no point. I paraphrased myself wrongly.
Then the topic became sidetracked.....so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 6:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9993
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 85 (674665)
10-01-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:59 PM


Good thinking. Here’s the fundamental difference between the two. We can’t experiment on a one time event. However, if life evolved from non-life in the past, it should still be able to do so now, right?

Under some conditions, and under some time frame measured in eons, and in some environment or sequences of environments. Can all of those things be reproduced? We have only guesses about some of those things.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13718
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 54 of 85 (674680)
10-01-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:46 PM


LimpSpider writes:

Which means that they would not evolve the ability to metabolize, right? So they can’t be intermediate. They are simply too successful.


I'm not sure what "intermediate" has to do with it. My point was that there is no fundamental difference between non-living and living matter; in fact, you have to bring in artificial criteria like metabloism to make a classification. It's possible that a virus-like "thing" could evolve a metabolism-like capability if there was some advantage to it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:46 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM ringo has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1737 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 55 of 85 (674690)
10-01-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
10-01-2012 2:50 PM


http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/ I’m not the only one who thinks viruses are non-living, ringo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-01-2012 2:50 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 7:45 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2012 8:10 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 10-02-2012 12:54 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-16-2012 9:15 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9993
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 56 of 85 (674693)
10-01-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


Are viruses alive.
I’m not the only one who thinks viruses are non-living, ringo

Is that really the point? If viruses are non-living does that mean that they aren't part of the evolutionary pathway to life?

I'm sure that when you did your search, you cherry picked away references such as the ones I've listed below. No you aren't wrong for saying that viruses are not alive, at least when they aren't attacking a cell, but as ringo pointed out the gulf between living and not is not as wide as you are trying to imply.

"Are viruses alive?"

quote:
Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. Virions can remain in this dormant state for extended periods of time, waiting patiently to come into contact with the appropriate host. When the virion comes into contact with the appropriate host, it becomes active and is then referred to as a virus. It now displays properties typified by living organisms, such as reacting to its environment and directing its efforts toward self-replication"

From Scientific American: Are Viruses Alive

quote:
First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

http://www.wi.mit.edu/programs/ask/100206.html

quote:
What is the issue regarding whether viruses are alive or dead? Why do some scientists believe a virus is alive and some believe it's dead?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 57 of 85 (674695)
10-01-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


The gallop continues
Not all scientists agree with Dr. Racaniello. Do you even know who he is?
quote:
The simplest answer is: "That depends".1 This is not meant to be flippant but it recognises that much of the definition of a word like "life" comes from personal perspective. There is no real wrong or right. You make your case for why you think it is or is not alive, and that's your posiiton. Cool. At best, viruses could be considered undead. No zombie parallels please-they don't eat brains

Source

quote:
For about 100 years, the scientific community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are. First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

Source

quote:
Viruses are infectious particles that consist of a DNA or an RNA molecule (the viral genome) packaged in a protein capsid, a protective coat that allows their transfer from one cell to another. Although it is in our nature as humans to try to classify things in order to make sense of the world around us, viruses may exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living creatures depending on the definition of life used. According to Schwann and Schleiden’s “cell theory” dating back to 1839, all living creatures are made of “individual units of life” called cells – small membrane-bounded compartments filled with a concentrated aqueous solution of chemicals. The simplest life forms are unicellular organisms; higher organisms, such as ourselves, are like cellular cities in which specialized functions are performed by different groups of cells linked by intricate communication systems. Under this definition, viruses are acellular particles and thus are definitely not alive. If one’s definition of life is a more evolutionary one, with an organism being defined as “the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history” (Luria et al., 1978), then viruses are definitely alive.

Source

Science is not all black and white. Few things are. Life, as science has shown, has a lot of grey.

Oh others can argue by link too. Not much fun is it.

ABE
Oops sorry I see NoNukes beat me on this.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13718
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 58 of 85 (674741)
10-02-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


LimpSpider writes:

I’m not the only one who thinks viruses are non-living, ringo


You don't have to work so hard at missing the point. Cearly, there is controversy over whether or not viruses are "alive". That makes my point. There just is no clearly-defined difference between "alive" and "not alive".

The broader point, again, is that some virus-like "thing" could have evolved a metabloism-like capability if there was some advantage to it. That possibiliy is all that is needed for abiogenesis to happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 7:50 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 59 of 85 (675876)
10-16-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


The feline disagrees with you on that one, Limpy. The Virus is the King of the Living. He is the smartest and most efficient of all that which is alive. His memory is the longest. All the rest serves the benevolent King and His Will is done without Him lifting a protein.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by LimpSpider, posted 10-16-2012 9:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1737 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


(4)
Message 60 of 85 (675878)
10-16-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-16-2012 9:15 PM


Uh-huh. Never have I seen more a mature user!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-16-2012 9:15 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017