Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 191 of 305 (396092)
04-18-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rob
04-18-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Your source
when I last asked you what this had to do with abiogensis, you actually dodged the question by answering that hoot mon had brought up a relevant point--that of the nature of the information.
that did not answer the question of what this complexity has to do with abiogenesis.
something with 2 parts I'd call simple. 4 parts is still simple, but more complex than something with 2 parts. something with 10 parts is beginning to get quite complex. but how does this work against how abiogenesis happened?
and just what is your point? you quoted a good chunk of that discussion, but there's nary a point I can discern--except for a question about how complex A,T,C,G are compared to 1,0.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 8:27 PM Rob has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 194 of 305 (396124)
04-18-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rob
04-18-2007 10:58 PM


Re: The point was? Complexity
Abiogenesis is about explaining the original so as to eliminate intelligence as a necessary means to explain it.
no. no. no. that is not what abiogenesis is about.
the goal of any theory of abiogenesis is to explain how abiogenesis happened.
if you can prove that intelligence had to be behind it, you still have to explain how that intelligent agent did it.
Reproduction is not creation...
it isn't? so I take it that you're not a creation? you are, after all, the result of reproduction. a better word to use would be replication. and take out creation, because you can create copies. copies are created. i think you mean to say:
"replication is not creating the original"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 10:58 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:10 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 198 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:44 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 199 of 305 (396164)
04-18-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rob
04-18-2007 11:42 PM


Re: The point was? Complexity
my point is valid, though.
the theory of abiogenesis (or rather, the attempt to get one), as with all theories in science, seeks to explain how something happened.
just like panspermia, saying that an intelligent agent did it only shifts the question. except it's shifted to:
"how did the intelligent agent do it".
looks like my statement is resting on more solid ground than yours.
(here's a hint: ToE is not an attempt to remove an "intelligent agent". it is an attempt to explain what we see happening, even if it's an "intelligent agent" doing it)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:42 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Rob, posted 04-19-2007 1:04 AM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 214 of 305 (396861)
04-22-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Fosdick
04-22-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Abiogenesis for chickens
I'd think you'd want to hop right on the back this blind horse and take him for a jolly ride, hollering, 'You see. Scientists might know a few important things about the molecules but they don't know enough important things about the words, especially those of the Creator.'
Bad suggestion if you ask me. Why? Where's an explanation? This argument you're telling him to use is essentially a "god of the gaps". It has zero explanatory power as to how life came about. "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer. Why? because the question is "How?", not "Who?". And saying "god did it" still leaves you trying to explain how he did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Fosdick, posted 04-22-2007 7:49 PM Fosdick has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 215 of 305 (396864)
04-23-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Rob
04-22-2007 12:38 PM


Re: Abiogenesis for chickens
hey rob, there are a few threads about radioactive dating that are semi-active.
here's a link to RAZD's thread (which is actually about age of earth, but radioactive dating is in there):
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
here's another one, the title says carbon dating, but something tells me there's more in there. mind you, I haven't read through this thread, so I don't have a clue as to it's quality:
http://EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon dating -->EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon dating
and I'll say this about your PNT--you're not being silenced. You just have a bad OP--anyone, regardless of their affiation, would not get that through the PNT system.
I'm just posting this here so that you can check out some of the threads about this subject. I highly reccommend RAZD's thread--although it does deal with more than radioactive dating, the topic is the age of the earth and the evidence we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 12:38 PM Rob has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 232 of 305 (396991)
04-23-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Fosdick
04-23-2007 8:02 PM


Re: Panspermia is another of those Non-Answers like Goddidit
why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 04-23-2007 8:02 PM Fosdick has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 240 of 305 (397008)
04-23-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Fosdick
04-23-2007 8:44 PM


Re: Panspermia is another of those Non-Answers like Goddidit
Meanwhile, they need to believe that the God of Biology chose Earth to conduct His blessed lab experiments. How utterly conceited are we?
False. You still have to explain how abiogenesis got started with panspermia. In the meantime, even if it did happen elsewhere, that does not mean it cannot have happened here (which is what your statement seems to imply).
Also, panspermia only means that life started elsewhere and came to earth. Abiogenesis does not claim that life only started on earth. So your final complaint is a non-starter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Fosdick, posted 04-23-2007 8:44 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 11:45 AM kuresu has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 248 of 305 (397118)
04-24-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 11:45 AM


Re: And the principles are...?
why does this sound like the invisible pink unicorn?
as to what abiogenesis claims = life can start from non-life (but not in the manner of spontaneous generation--what Pastuer proved false).
that is the simple statement of what abiogenesis is about.
and panspermia requires abiogenesis.
and the Big Bang are equally speculative.
perhaps you should tell/ask cavediver this in one of the big bang threads. here's a hint though--they aren't equally speculative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 11:45 AM Fosdick has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 258 of 305 (397138)
04-24-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 4:11 PM


Re: And the principles are...?
Oh, I know, conditions are different nowadays. But how would you know that if you don't know what those conditional requirements were (are)?
well, geology can tell us a heck of a lot about ancient conditions. such as the near lack of oxygen in the early atmosohere (leading to those red-banded rock formations made of iron--that's where the oxygen produced went). We don't need abiogenesis to tell us that conditions were once different. Geology does that itself (and related branches, such as paleoclimatology (not sure if that's what it's called, but it's they study of ancient climates) and paleobiology).
If Earth is so damn bio-friendly then why can't I go into the woods, turn over a rock, and see abiogenesis making fresh copies of new chemical thingies right before my eyes?
well, unless it's affecting things, you'd need a damn powerful microscope. Anywho, how would you tell the difference between what's already there and what's new?
If it was only a chemical process, and if it happened here on earth, I would expect that we would know everything important about it by now
well hell, plate tectonics is only a geological process. But you know, we didn't know what caused the plates to move until at least 60 years after Wegener developed his hypothesis. And this is something quite simple (when compared to chemical reactions, that is). And you know, we're still learning about it. Unless I'm mistaken, we're not quite positive what causes deep earthquakes (those with a focus below 50 kilometers). But it's part of plate tectonics.
Nice argument man. It's just incredulity on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 4:11 PM Fosdick has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 269 of 305 (397177)
04-24-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Fosdick
04-24-2007 8:03 PM


Re: Eating the evidence
Then, by your reasoning, abiogensis could never happen because life would simply eat itself to death. (After bug A eats bug B it starves to death, and the whole process has to start over.)
um. no. that doesn't follow one bit from what AZPaul3 said.
why? many organisms synthesize their own food. and in abiogenesis, what we are looking for is self-replicators (and easily replicable). these means they aren't going to be eating other replicators just yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Fosdick, posted 04-24-2007 8:03 PM Fosdick has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 278 of 305 (397333)
04-25-2007 2:23 PM


Pure, Digital, Information
a phrase so loved by Hoot Mon to describe DNA.
Let's take a look at computer data. It's 1 and 0. Each byte is composed of 8 bits (which i think means a sequence of 8 of those 1s or 0s).
now then, 1s and 0s are just electronic signals. 1 is on (i believe), 0 is off (and if this is not the case, it's just vice versa).
That's what computer data is. Electricity. But wait, you say--it's digital information.
Yes and no. 1s and 0s are just electronic signals, just like DNA is just chemicals. The "information" part is not separate, like you seem to imply. It is, it would seem, an inherent part of the structure.
Anyhow, you're argument is bull. True, DNA holds information. But it is just chemicals, just like 1s and 0s are just electrical signals.
I think you're confusing the thing itself for the interpretation of that thing.
Edited by kuresu, : realized I never asked a question . . .so that sentence got axe'd

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Woodsy, posted 04-25-2007 2:32 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 291 of 305 (397521)
04-26-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Fosdick
04-26-2007 11:00 AM


Re: The chemical v. code test
so when dealing with bits (you know, 1s and 0s), which are just electrical signals, there's more than electricity? Is that something "more" inherent and intrinsic, or extrinsic and not inherent?
are you suggesting that information in DNA is not an inherent property? I argue here that information is an inherent, instrinsic property, not something that can be developed separately (which is what you are suggesting happened, if I understand you properly).
and Hoot, you should go back to freshman biology. Why? There are apparently 80 different nitrogenous bases--not just 5 (which is all they teach in freshman biology. thank Doddy for this bit of info).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Fosdick, posted 04-26-2007 11:00 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Fosdick, posted 04-26-2007 1:02 PM kuresu has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 301 of 305 (397544)
04-26-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Fosdick
04-26-2007 1:02 PM


Re: The chemical v. code test
Why don't rocks do that?
every wonder why geologists can tell so much information from a rock?
while the compositional elements of rock can be random, rocks are made up of minerals. and minerals have definite structures that form under definite conditions.
not only that, but the difference in organization of the composition of rock (sedimentary vs metamorphic) has information--such as how deep it was in the earth.
we can tell a lot about rocks and minerals just by their structure. They have a lot of information. But that information is useless except to us.
I honestly don't see why you're making such a big deal about this. It's pretty simple, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Fosdick, posted 04-26-2007 1:02 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024