|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,772 Year: 4,029/9,624 Month: 900/974 Week: 227/286 Day: 34/109 Hour: 4/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Oh sacred cow of evolution. I am sorry for disrespecting you. Please forgive me. You are absolute oh Gog. Your priests will endure forever. Their great faith and extrapolating imaginations are higher than mine. Who am I to question the smartest people on earth? It's just a's and g's, c's, and t's. It's not complicated. abiogenesis is the mother of life. Queen of the universe. An accident waiting to happen that did. All there is is matter... Oh great material force. Give me my way. lead me into the understanding that understanding is just a random variation within my kind. What's true for you is lie to me (except evolution... no compromise there) my apologies again. Just give me the apple and let me be. I want to suck the pandas thumb.
and you know, w/o natural selection, you can't have evolution. sorry rob, but that's the way it is. I do know Kuresu... And I understand. How complex of a creature do you need before a self replicating cycle is established? And I do not mean what scientists can imagine (faith/ extrapolate)... I mean show me the simplest living cell available in the fossil record or that is currently alive. I want verification and evidence. That's what they keep telling me science is. Then explain to me how it arose by the process of abiogenesis. No imagination necessary. Evolution makes sense because we imagine that life started out simple. Turns out not to be the case. Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles). And it has to be produced in the first place before it can be reproduced. And the specifics of the genetic information just so happen to have all of the instructions for the building of those organelles. Have I offended you and your elitist brethren? The smartest people on earth? Perhaps a man of higher learning is more credible to you than a stupid truck driver? Phillip Johnson - author ”Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley- “With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately ”real’, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from. Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists." You can still believe in evolution and abiogenesis. Just use your imagination Kuresu! Jeremiah 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. just thought I'd copy this whole off-topic gem. instead of bringing "Is Science a Religion?" thread further off-topic, I'm bringing it here. basically, the topic is abiogenesis, and fixing Rob's misconceptions of just what is required for DNA to come about and replicate. I don't know much about the topic--my area of knowledge in biology is in evolution--which is only concerned with what happens after we have life. What I do know, is that Rob is mistaken in his statement that
Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles What I'd like to see, I guess, is a compilation of current abiogenesis information--what we do know about DNA replication and creation. The topics of science being a religion, or evolution being our modern "creation myth", are not the topic. i'm warning everyone now--talk about those two (or any other off-topic junk), and I will ask for a suspension. Question. Always Question. " . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
okay, so I'll start with a link. not the greatest way, but. it's from wikipedia, and is woefully inadequate, but it does serve as an introduction to the ideas about abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia in particular, I like this section:
1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism ancient research, yeah, but the key point is in its simplicity. or rather, the simplicity of the first self-replicating organisms/molecules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
the whole quote of rob's post is off-topic in "is science a religion?" thread. he's talking about abiogenesis (mainly--there's some other junk in it too) in it. which is the topic of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
when you're an admin, you can make those decisions about people's threads. take this to the moderation thread if you don't like the set-up of my OP.
i included the threat of suspension because I know that this topic will most likely go off-topic, in a short period. you're already doing that. i want this thread to stay on topic as much as possible. take it to the moderation thread if you feel that an admin should've told me to rework the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
the topic is abiogenesis, not evolution.
please try to stay on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
welcome ot EvC. this is a fun place to be, especially if you stick to the topic. The topic of this thread is the evidences for abiogenesis, not evolution. your question about macro and micro (I'm assuming you mean macroevolution and microevolution) does not belong in this thread. Check out the Biological Evolution forum to find threads on that question, or start your own thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
oh, and enjoy you're stay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
not a problem. we all have learning curves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I want to say that MattP has a hand in some origins research, could be mistaken though
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
hey rob. glad to see you joined this thread (i think).
tell me, is your only defense a nearly forty year old book that naturally ignores all modern research on the topic of abiogenesis? The argument is based off of data we had 40 years ago. Do you not think that new research has happened since then? Have you read this whole thread? When you have, come back, and hopefully come back with something more up-to-date than dean kenyon's book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
just what the heck does "articial" really have to do with abiogenesis, the topic?
might I suggest you all staying on abiogenesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
rob, you're mixing up the fact with the theory. fact is, abiogenesis happened. trouble is, we don't know how, which is what the theory will explain.
i'm looking for evidence for hypotheses about how abiogenesis happened. not whether it in fact happened (hint: we already have that evidence. And that is, the facts that life did not exist at one point, but now does. and no, that's not an a priori assumption)).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you're dealing with science here. science assumes things can be explained in purely naturalistic terms.
if they can't be explained, we either don't have enough knowledge about the subject or we're looking in the wrong direction. this does not make science atheistic, mind you. It could very well be that god(s) are using these methods to make the world go round. do you fault newton for thinking that gravity can be explained by natural methods? what about atomic theory? germ theory of disease? theory of heliocentrism? what gives?
The A Priori assumption is that it happened and can be explaned in purely material terms. nice shift, man. before you said it was:
It is better known as an A Priori assumption that since life is now here, we know abiogenesis happened. you've shifted from saying that the fact is assumed to how the fact can be explained. very disengenious. too bad you didn't get away with it. anyhow, none of this has to deal with how abiogenensis happened(s). you know, the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
morality has squat to do with this, rob. you know that.
morality is off-topic. we are looking for "how". that's all that's important. if you only came into this thread to preach, get out. this thread is about the evidence for how abiogenesis happened or didn't happen. not about why we're trying to found out. try to stay on topic, or I will ask for a suspension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
we know life started whole and fully formed, we just don't know how
DNA is useless to life unless combined with all of a cell's machinery. both statements are false. I refer you to post 4 of this thread, by MattP:http://EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: Abiogenesis DNA does not need all of the organelles in a cell for replication. it barely needs a thing.
There is certainly no material explanation
really? Wasn't it Newton who said that specific parts of his theory on gravity would never be explained? Weren't they eventually explained in natural terms? That's a bad argument, and a bad defense. Every single gap for god has been filled in by science with few exceptions--such as just what the heck is going on at the extreme beginning of the universe. A god of the gaps is a weak god also. Is it not possible that God is just using these natural mechanisms? Or that he created them? It's a much more viable position, I think, then relegating god to that which we do not know. Because if there's one thing I've noticed (and many, many others have too), is that science keeps moving forward, keeps explaining and finding new things. Eventually, there will be no gap for your small god. And since you are claiming there is no material explanation, what does explain how abiogenesis happened, and where is your evidence that that is what happened? This is, afterall, a science thread. "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you oughta slow down. look at what you quoted by me:
kuresu writes: DNA does not need all of the organelles in a cell for replication. it barely needs a thing. that is what post 4 shows. that you barely need a thing to replicate DNA or RNA. So your statements that:
the other components in the cell are needed to replicate it. and DNA is useless to life unless combined with all of a cell's machinery. are false. I was only talking about replication in my post that you replied to also (when telling you to visit post 4, that is). as to origins, take a read through the first page of this thread (before lovefaithhope enters). There's some good info there. Now for some of your other posts:
I don't need evidence. I know it happended because it is here.[on how abiogenesis happened] that is the evidence that abiogenesis happened. that does not explain how it happened. you still need evidence to explain how.
It was God putting life into being by whatever means He does such things. and that's a non-answer. it is essentially, god did it. that does not tell us how he did it. {abe: it's also an empty assertion, thanks to the lack of evidence. empty assertions are also bad answers, they get you nowhere. /abe} I take it you're not interested in the how part of this question one bit, are you? If not, get out of this thread. This is for people who want to find out how this thing happens. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given. "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024