Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 91 of 312 (474815)
07-11-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
07-11-2008 7:34 AM


RAZD writes:
So you are saying that life has always existed, even before the planet existed? Curious argument.
Uhmmmm... That is the argument of creationism. Panspermia also argues that life was somehow transported to this planet after the planet existed. Either way both are philosophical faiths just like abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2008 7:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 9:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2008 9:11 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 106 by Fosdick, posted 07-24-2008 12:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 312 (474819)
07-11-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid
07-10-2008 9:27 AM


Well, I don't wish to argue all these red herrings, but there is substantial evidence statistically showing the impossibility of homochirality forming naturally. Statistically this is impossible.
And yet we know of lots of reactions that cause or increase chirality, follow the link for details of a few. So if your "statistics" tell you that its impossible, then the problem would be that your statistics don't relate to the real world in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-10-2008 9:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 312 (474822)
07-11-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by AlphaOmegakid
07-10-2008 10:39 PM


Re: Topic is yours
In statistical terms, that probability is 0. That means it is impossible.
Again, what I would question is whether these statistics have anything to do with how life actually originated.
It's certainly not how anyone thinks it originated:
The probability of assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive cell by random processes.
That's the biggest heap of straw since the Great Haystack Incident of 1921.
---
That record is rocks and fossils upon which you apply your interpretive logic. Those rocks and fossils show evidence that life was once not on this earth, and of course now it is ... However, there is NO physical observable evidence of abiogenesis.
But that is physical observable evidence of abiogenesis. Once there wasn't life, now there is.
If you tell me that there's a law of nature that something is impossible, and I know that it happened, then your law is wrong.
This may sound a little narrow-minded of me, but how else can we do science? If a counterexample is not sufficient to overturn a law, then we can have conversations like this:
Creationist: I've come up with a new theory of gravity.
Me: Let's have a look ... oh, I notice one of its trivial corollaries is that it's impossible for planets to travel in ellipses.
Creationist: Yes indeed, quite impossible.
Me: But planets do travel in ellipses.
Creationist: Yes, and I've proved it's impossible.
Me: No, you've proved that your underlying assumptions are wrong. Because their predictions conflict with reality.
Creationist: No, I've proved that God must be guiding the orbits of planets by a continuous series of miracles.
Me: And so we bid a fond adieu to the scientific method ... goodnight, goodnight ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-10-2008 10:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 312 (474823)
07-11-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid
07-11-2008 9:03 AM


Uhmmmm... That is the argument of creationism.
Though, curiously, no creationist has ever been able to come up with a definition of "life" that embraces both God and E. coli.
So let's just stick to using "life" to mean "organic life" instead of descending into petty quibbles, eh?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-11-2008 9:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 312 (474825)
07-11-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by AlphaOmegakid
07-10-2008 11:22 PM


I think you may misunderstand the term fasify in science.
I am certain that you misunderstand the term "falsify" in science.
I will cite from wiki...
Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false ...
That is exactly what it means.
Falsifiability, as the wiki says, is "the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation". To falsify something, therefore, is to show it false by an observation. To say that something has been falsified is to say that it has been shown false, and hence that it is false.
The cell theory states that...
1. All known living things are made up of cells.
2. Some organisms are unicellular, made up of only one cell.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
4. All cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
... and point 4 is known to be untrue.
Well I've never heard anyone refer to the 1st and 2nd "theories" of thermodynamics. Or the "theory" of conservation of energy. I think it is very common to refer to theories that have shown universal application as "laws".
A theory is a collection of laws and facts, e.g. the theory of thermodynamics consists of the laws of thermodynamics; Newton's theory of gravity consists of his law of gravity and his laws of motion.
Usage in this matter is not entirely consistent, but in general we might say that a theory is a collection of laws large enough to be testable. Note that isolated laws need not be testable. For example, Newton's law of gravity F = m1m2/r2 is not testable unless you also have laws of motion telling you what happens when a force acts on an object. Put these elements together, and we have a theory.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-10-2008 11:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 96 of 312 (474826)
07-11-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Alasdair
06-28-2008 1:49 PM


Alasdair writes:
Can you please provide a modern day reliable scientific resource that shows that "The Law of Biogenesis" is what you say it is?
I probably can, but first you will have to define "modern day" and then you will have to define "reliable scientific resource" for me. These are widely interpretive phrases.
Alasdair writes:
Quoting Huxley doesn't count. I want a statement from modern day biologists.
Well, I beg to differ with you. Even though the citation is old, It was current relative to the theory of biogenesis. This theory has no known violations today. That makes it "modern". That also solidifies the "LAW" status.
Alasdair writes:
Since when was "agent of death" included in the definition of life? Does that mean all predators aren't actually living?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you understand viruses and prions they destroy living cells. (their hosts) Viruses actually replicate within the host until the host explodes. I find it interesting that people actually think that these agents of death are actually capable of being life. They destroy life.
If you have a "virus world" that somehow exists. And the you have a cell that somehow evolves from that. What chance does one cell have in an environment of a multitude of viruses? The logic here is bizarre to me. That cell would be attacked by the non evolved viruses in an instant. Then bye bye cell. Now I understand that this is argumentm ad ignoratium. However, the reasoning process is still bizarre to me.
Alasdair writes:
You know that viruses reproduce, can evolve, and have DNA/RNA, right?
Viruses are about 400x's smaller than the smallest known cell. They cannot reproduce or evolve without a host cell. They are not alive unless they come to life from prexisting life. Hence, they obey the law of biogenesis. That's why it's a discovered natural law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Alasdair, posted 06-28-2008 1:49 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 12:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 312 (474923)
07-12-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid
07-11-2008 9:03 AM


Uhmmmm... That is the argument of creationism. Panspermia also argues that life was somehow transported to this planet after the planet existed.
No, it is like the argument that Ned provided: at point (A) in the past (4 billion years ago) on this planet there was no evidence of life, at point (B) in the past (3.5 billion years ago) on this planet there is evidence of life: what is your conclusion based on this evidence?
Panspermia only transfers the question to another location, and you are still stuck with the same problem: at point (A) in the past (13.7 billion years ago) there is no evidence of life in the universe, at point (B) in the past (3.5 billion years ago) there is evidence of life: What is your conclusion based on this evidence?
We can also include a supernatural hypothesis: if life only comes from life, and life on earth was created by some supernatual entity, then - logically - that entity itself is life, and we have the question of where that life came from.
Either way both are philosophical faiths just like abiogenesis.
Except that "faith" is not tested nor held tentatively, while it is entirely possible and practical to hold "philosophical hypothesis" in a tentative manner, the best explanation currently known, but subject to revision or scrapping if evidence shows it is invalid.
Testing, of course, is where you actually try to prove the hypothesis wrong - actively and with intent: something that is not a part of any "faith" I am aware of.
Either way, claiming it is a philosophical faith does not deal with the issue and evidence of {no life} then {life}.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-11-2008 9:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 07-12-2008 10:47 AM RAZD has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 98 of 312 (474926)
07-12-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
07-12-2008 9:11 AM


Re- Life
RAZD I got a couple of questions.
Wikipedia says:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.
Talk Origins says:
biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.
Question 1. Is these correct?
That abiogenesis is a study of how life might have begun on planet Earth.
RAZD writes:
We can also include a supernatural hypothesis: if life only comes from life, and life on earth was created by some supernatual entity, then - logically - that entity itself is life, and we have the question of where that life came from.
Question 2. What would the study of abiogenesis have to do with life outside of the planet Earth?
There would have to be another hypothesis to cover that subject as you mentioned.
Question 3. Are you suggesting that hypothesis be a part of the standard Theory as it is referred to by Talk Origins in the following quote? Where they are attacking Wells.
Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write,
The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material
Question 4. Has the Abiogenesis hypothesis reached the point it can be called the standard theory?
My comments.
Anything that has to do with life starting by some supernatural entity would have to be faith based as there is no way to prove one way or the other it happened that way.
Anything that had to do with life coming from another planet would have to be faith based as it is impossible to prove. Some would say what if we found life on another planet would that not be proof. It would be proof there was life on another planet but not that life on earth came from another planet.
Please correct me where my thinking is wrong.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2008 9:11 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2008 11:34 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2008 4:12 PM ICANT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 312 (474928)
07-12-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
07-12-2008 10:47 AM


Questions
RAZD is bound to do a better job than I am at answering these but he's not around so I'll sneak in:
[qs] Yes. And, personally, I think that the "might" is important. We are finding pathways across the fuzzy, grey non-life-to-life boundary but it may be that the information needed to pick a particular path or be sure that we have found exactly the right one is no longer available.
Right now just finding 1 or more likely paths is the aim of research.
Question 2. What would the study of abiogenesis have to do with life outside of the planet Earth?
There would have to be another hypothesis to cover that subject as you mentioned.
It think this is just an accident of terminology and our current state. It is like the term "geology" -- it refers to the study of earth rocks. (that's the geo in it). So some might call the study of moon rock selenology for example. We named it without thinking for a minute that we would have other examples to study.
But I think that is being pedantic. It's geology if it's rocks no matter where they are.
Right now, we only have information about earth and it's life so abiogenesis is restricted to that. If we find something on Mars I don't think it would be a problem to include that in "abiogenesis".
Question 3. Are you suggesting that hypothesis be a part of the standard Theory as it is referred to by Talk Origins in the following quote? Where they are attacking Wells.
People are not always careful when using words. There aren't any thing but hypothoses or speculations on abiogenesis right now. At least that is what you'd call it if you are being pedantic and careful about the use of the words.
There is no standard theory or even, in my opinoin, a theory at all.
The standard hypothesis was, for a long time, Darwin's warm pond. I don't think there is any standard now. We've learned a lot about extant life and the range of conditions which it can live in.
Question 4. Has the Abiogenesis hypothesis reached the point it can be called the standard theory?
From above you can tell I think not.
Anything that had to do with life coming from another planet would have to be faith based as it is impossible to prove. Some would say what if we found life on another planet would that not be proof. It would be proof there was life on another planet but not that life on earth came from another planet.
This is incorrect. If we found life on another planet we might have proof that it wasn't the source of life on Earth if it was too different.
If we found life elsewhere that was very like Earth's that would, as you say, not prove it was a source of Earth's life but would help us understand more with a second sample.
If we had many, many examples of life in different places and we found that they were all different in some basic way (DNA codes e.g.) from Earth's but we found life on Mars to be very like us then we would have a strong indication that life moved from Mars to Earth or vice versa.
None of this is faith based. It can be based on whatever information we have at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 07-12-2008 10:47 AM ICANT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 312 (474968)
07-12-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
07-12-2008 10:47 AM


Re: Re- Life
Question 1. Is these correct?
That abiogenesis is a study of how life might have begun on planet Earth.
I would say that abiogenesis is the study of mechanisms whereby life may have arisen from pre-organic compounds, with particular emphasis to the development of life on earth and the conditions that existed between 4.5 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago.
Of late this has included the possibility of "seeding" of earth with organic or pre-organic compounds that have been found in space and that could be carried to earth by meteors or as dust, so we are not strictly restricted to things just on earth.
What makes earth of particular interest in these studies is that we do know that there is life on earth. To study the development of life on mars, for instance, is rather pointless if we can't show that there is life on mars.
Question 2. What would the study of abiogenesis have to do with life outside of the planet Earth?
There would have to be another hypothesis to cover that subject as you mentioned.
Once we have evidence of life on some other planet then we have essentially the same question - before {A} no life, after {B} life, so how do we explain it?
Question 3. Are you suggesting that hypothesis be a part of the standard Theory as it is referred to by Talk Origins in the following quote? Where they are attacking Wells.
I've not read that article, however I don't think they are referring to a "Standard Theory" (the way it is used in physics when they talk about the "Standard Model") but just the common theory. We may be reading too much into specific words.
Question 4. Has the Abiogenesis hypothesis reached the point it can be called the standard theory?
Personally I am skeptical of any claims to their being a "Standard Theory" as that implies the kind of degree of validation that would have been reserved for "laws" not that long ago, and that have been shown to need revision (Newton's "Law" of gravity, for instance). To me a theory is a theory. As long as it is a scientific theory that means it is based on evidence, it make predictions and it explains things to the best ability of our current knowledge, but that it is still just as susceptible to falsification as the newest theory to be developed.
Anything that has to do with life starting by some supernatural entity would have to be faith based as there is no way to prove one way or the other it happened that way.
I would use hypothetical rather than faith based, as you can have hypothetical considerations that you don't necessarily believe are true, but which are made to be tested and eliminated (if possible) in order to narrow the realm of what is possible by elimination, when the falsified hypothesis are voted off the island.
Anything that had to do with life coming from another planet would have to be faith based as it is impossible to prove.
Again, it would be hypothetical, and no theory in science is proven, so the best you can do is validate the concept. For instance, one of the concerns about finding life on Mars is that it is earth based life that has been carried there by our own rockets. If the life there had opposite handed amino acids, or used different constructions of proteins not seen on earth, then that would validate (but not prove) the hypothesis that they could be due to separate development of life on a separate planet. If they were all similar to earth life that would validate (but not prove) the hypothesis that they could be from contamination.
Hope that helps.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : splignel

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[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 98 by ICANT, posted 07-12-2008 10:47 AM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 312 (475080)
07-13-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
06-25-2008 8:17 AM


Game, Set and Match?
Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today?
Probably because many do not believe it to be true. You do understand what is meant by "law" in a scienitic context, don't you? It is an observation that appears to hold in a wide variety of situations, although not necessarily with any theoretical back-up as to why the "law" should hold. This makes "laws" potentially very weak in scientific standing. Just becasue we have never observed something to happen has no bearing on whether such a thing is possible or impossible - we may just not have yet encountered the conditions udner which the thing happens or does not happen. Examples: Newton's Laws of Motion (broken in both relativistic and quantum domains), Newton's Law of Gravity (broken in both relativistic and qunatum domains), the Laws of Thermodynamics (trivially do not apply on sufficiently small scales). The Law of Biogenesis has been observed to occur only on a planet already replete with existing life. It has only been observed over extremely small time scales compared with the age of the planet. And it has no universal theoretical underpinning, no mechanism. What then is the importance of the Law of Biogenesis on abiogenetic studies of the early Earth? Clearly, no importance whatsoever.
Try this video -
Please state where you believe that the Law of Biogenesis would prevent the mechanisms suggested in this video from occuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-25-2008 8:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 5:06 PM cavediver has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 102 of 312 (476168)
07-21-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by cavediver
07-13-2008 10:19 AM


You are not even in the game.
cavedigger writes:
Try this video -
I did. Did you? I laughed about 3/4's of the way through. At the beginning the author makes an emphatic statement that "abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution". They are two separate theories. Then he developes a new definition of life. And then he invokes evolution and natural selection.
What a joke! You see abiogenesis in any form doesn't work without evolution. Because it uses imaginary mystical life forms.
I believe in angels. You believe in "primordial life". You just read a different Bible than me. It's all philosophical faith. This video is especially.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 07-13-2008 10:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2008 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 07-21-2008 5:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2008 5:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 103 of 312 (476172)
07-21-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 5:06 PM


You are Not Even Bothering to Play
Or to put it another way, you can't point out anywhere where your precious law of biogenesis prevents the model presented in the video. You can only pour scorn, try to score semantic points over terminology and argue from incredulity.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 5:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM Granny Magda has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 104 of 312 (476174)
07-21-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 5:06 PM


Re: You are not even in the game.
I did. Did you? I laughed about 3/4's of the way through. At the beginning the author makes an emphatic statement that "abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution". They are two separate theories. Then he developes a new definition of life. And then he invokes evolution and natural selection.
Maybe if you looked at the video as a science piece and not a comedy, you may have understood that evolution only occured after the vesicle was capable of reproduction thus alive.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 5:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 3:43 PM bluescat48 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 312 (476175)
07-21-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
07-21-2008 5:06 PM


Re: You are not even in the game.
I'm sorry, I specifically requested you point out where the Law of Biogenesis would prevent the mechanisms portrayed in the video from occurring. However, I do fully understand if you are not capable of addressing this subject at that level.
Because it uses imaginary mystical life forms.
There was nothing in the slightest bit mystical in the video - it was remarkable in its almost trivial simplicity - but I can understand how someone with your outlook would view it as mystical.
I will try once more - where would the Law of Biogenesis prevent the mechanisms portrayed in the video from occurring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-21-2008 5:06 PM AlphaOmegakid 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