Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 121 of 312 (476932)
07-28-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 4:46 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
That there has been some limitation to the LoB in the last 50 years?
The freakin' Miller-Urey experiment hadn't even been run in 1951!! We didn't know that carbonyl sulfide catalyzed the polymerization of amino acids until maybe three years ago! There have been many hundreds of papers published since I entered kindergarten that show all sorts of pathways to abiogenesis.
And Pasteur is still dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 4:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 6:17 PM Coragyps has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 122 of 312 (476938)
07-28-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Coragyps
07-28-2008 5:57 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
Coragyps writes:
There have been many hundreds of papers published since I entered kindergarten that show all sorts of pathways to abiogenesis.
Oh really. M/U and amino acids? Pathways?
Have you ever considered that when a cell dies, at that moment you have everything chemically to create life. You have all 20 amino acids, all the catalysts, all the molecular machines of life, all the DNA, and virtually all the organization for life. But instead of a pathway to life we have nothing but dead organic matter.
What we actually observe is that there is more than chemical reactions to have life.
Coragyps writes:
And Pasteur is still dead.
And you probably drink or eat pastuerized products every day. But you don't utilize anything from Miller or Urey. Isn't it amazing at how good science works!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 5:57 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 6:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 125 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 7:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2008 1:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 123 of 312 (476939)
07-28-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 5:17 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
You just invoked "Poof! Magic!" in a science thread. That doesn't go over very well.
Prove that a deity is the cause of life. I won't hold my breath. Even just provide a bit of evidence. No, the existence of life is not proof that a deity is the cause of the existence of life. That would be like saying that the existence of a painting proves that Bob, and not Carl, is responsible for the existence of the painting.
If a deity is the cause of life, what caused the deity?
Unfortunately science doesn't "know this isn't true". Science doesn't make any claims to knowing what is true. It only reasons and theorizes about what evidence it has. Science is only as good as your mind, which in your case is lame, because you haven't provided any evidentiary support of any limit or refutation of the LoB since its inception.
Science knows the conditions of the early Universe with approximately the level of certainty that science knows that gravity isn't going to shut off tomorrow. Knowledge is not a black/white, on/off binary. This is a black/white fallacy - there are infinite degrees of certainty, and while science cannot ever claim to posses absolute certainty, it can have an extremely high degree of accuracy.
We know to an incredibly high degree of certainty that there was a time in the Universe where even atoms did not exist, and that it took millions of years before heavy elements even existed such that the chemical compounds that comprise life as we know it could form. Ergo, there must be a point where life does not exist, followed eventually by a point where life does exist. This means life arose from an absence of life.
If you wish to take issue with that, have fun trying to disprove all of modern cosmology. I won't hold my breath.
CS and others have completely destroyed all of your arguments, AOK. You are intellectually out of your league if the best you can do is call CS's mind "lame."
But I knew you wouldn't, because this is about religious belief. Philosophical faith. It is not about science, or you would have some legs. But instead you chose more rhetoric, and you are crawling all over the place. In case you didn't recognize "la la la la la" is an abreviated form of "lame lame lame lame lame".
The only one I see here covering their ears and ignoring evidence is you. Your arguments are not logically sound, are based on quotemines and poor interpretation of statements by scientists, and are based on an obsession with proving your religious views rather than providing any sort of evidence. You;re projecting your own failings onto your opponents, AOK, a common and sad occurrance amongst Creationists.
Here are the facts:
Fully-formed cellular life does not spontaneously generate, exactly as Pasteur hypothesized. You're correct in this regard.
However, you take this concept too far and attempt to apply it to pre-cellular life, as well. You bring up the fact that we haven't directly observed such life forming, but this is because the conditions on Earth at present are no longer favorable for such organisms to form - the compounds no longer exist in the same state in which abiogenesis would be possible on this planet, due in large part to the fact that existing life finds those organic compounds to be a tasty meal.
Abiogenesis research has yielded results far beyond the imaginations of even 100 years ago. It has positively proven that many of the steps necessary for the spontaneous formation of a self-replicating molecule are possible and do happen given the appropriate conditions, and those conditions happen to be identical to what the evidence suggests the early Earth was like.
Science has not determined to a high degree of certainty that abiogenesis happened in this way on Earth, but it has raised the degree of certainty from "no, probably not" to a tentative "very possibly, yes."
You haven't provided a shred of evidence for your interpretation of the law of biogenesis - all you've done is shriek "but we've never seen life form spontaneously!"
You'd be right if you said "in the absence of any evidence despite a thorough examination of the possibility, it is highly likely that abiogenesis is not possible," IF there were an actual absence of any evidence. Note that this is still not enough to say "abiogenesis is impossible," because while an absence of evidence is suggestive of absence, it is not evidence of absence.
However, abiogenesis research has shown that dismissing abiogenesis out-of-hand is completely foolish. There is evidence in support of abiogenesis, even if there is not proof-positive that abiogenesis actually occurred on Earth.
Your die-hard insistence that there is a black/white response to this question is foolhardy. There is no unbreakable law of biogenesis that says that life cannot arise from nonliving organic chemicals. Stating such does not make you right, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. You have no evidence, your position is weak, and your logic is tragically flawed.
Go bring your god to the faith forums, where you can invoke the magical without evidence to support your claims. here, the standards are higher, and you lose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 124 of 312 (476940)
07-28-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 6:17 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
What we actually observe is that there is more than chemical reactions to have life.
Where has that been "actually observed," AOK? I don't think you can tell me - because that hasn't been observed.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 6:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 125 of 312 (476943)
07-28-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 6:17 PM


AOkid writes:
What we actually observe is that there is more than chemical reactions to have life.
Really? What?
I don't know where you're going with this topic, Alpha. It's really quite simple. The Law of Biogenesis of Pasteur is about extant forms of life coming only from life. It has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, when all (including creationists) agree that life must have come from non-life at some point and in some way unless it's eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 6:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 07-28-2008 8:03 PM bluegenes has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 126 of 312 (476946)
07-28-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by bluegenes
07-28-2008 7:15 PM


More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
AOKid writes:
What we actually observe is that there is more than chemical reactions to have life.
Really? What?
Please pardon my barging in, but what about the digital information that is stored in genes and then used to build proteins? Doesn't genetic "software" count for something more than mere chemical reactions?
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 7:15 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 8:14 PM Fosdick has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 127 of 312 (476947)
07-28-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Fosdick
07-28-2008 8:03 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hoot Mon writes:
Please pardon my barging in, but what about the digital information that is stored in genes and then used to build proteins? Doesn't genetic "software" count for something more than mere chemical reactions?
Why not barge? It's an open forum, and I just did! What you refer to as genetic software is all made of chemicals. If there's a change in information by mutation, that's a chemical change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 07-28-2008 8:03 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Fosdick, posted 07-28-2008 8:27 PM bluegenes has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 128 of 312 (476949)
07-28-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by bluegenes
07-28-2008 8:14 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
What you refer to as genetic software is all made of chemicals. If there's a change in information by mutation, that's a chemical change.
A DNA molecule is still a DNA molecule, even if its nucleotides are rearranged. What matters more than chemical DNA is the order of its nucleotides. And to say that genetic information is nothing without the chemicals is to say that thinking about it is nothing without a brain.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 8:14 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 9:50 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 2:19 AM Fosdick has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 129 of 312 (476951)
07-28-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Fosdick
07-28-2008 8:27 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
A DNA molecule is still a DNA molecule, even if its nucleotides are rearranged.
Well, yes and no. DNA is a junkbasket name for a roughly infinite family of polymers of nucleotides. Each individual DNA strand can be named as its own unique molecule, just as each protein can be named either by a trivial name like "hemoglobin" or a very specific name like "glycilphenylalanylserylglutamylalanylalanyl....................................lysine. With DNA you normally see letters - A, G, C, and T - because it takes less ink.
A car is still a car, but a Yugo and a Maserati don't share all their functions.
Edited by Coragyps, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Fosdick, posted 07-28-2008 8:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 10:51 AM Coragyps has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 130 of 312 (476961)
07-29-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Fosdick
07-28-2008 8:27 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hoot Mon writes:
A DNA molecule is still a DNA molecule, even if its nucleotides are rearranged. What matters more than chemical DNA is the order of its nucleotides.
By which you mean that the arrangement of chemicals is important in determining exactly what chemical reactions will and will not take place. Yes, of course.
And to say that genetic information is nothing without the chemicals is to say that thinking about it is nothing without a brain.
More precisely, it's not "to say" that, but it is like saying that, which (I think) is what you meant. Yes. The Hoot Mon thoughts come from the specific and unique arrangement of the chemicals in the Hoot Mon brain in reaction and relation to the complete Hoot Mon environment as perceived through the Hoot Mon senses. And the Hoot Mon "genetic code" comes from the specific and unique arrangement of chemicals in the Hoot Mon genome which, in reaction to a chemical environment, made Hoot Mon (happily ).
There is nothing "more" than chemical reactions involved (so far as we can observe). The arrangement of the chemicals is a result of historical chemical reactions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Fosdick, posted 07-28-2008 8:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 10:37 AM bluegenes has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 131 of 312 (476993)
07-29-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by bluegenes
07-29-2008 2:19 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
bluegenes writes:
There is nothing "more" than chemical reactions involved (so far as we can observe). The arrangement of the chemicals is a result of historical chemical reactions.
I'll stretch for this anology: If Bill Gates had agreed with IBM that MSDOS was nothing more than a computer's electronic parts then Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground. In other words, the code is more than the chemicals, just as thoughts are more than neuronic synapses.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 2:19 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2008 10:55 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 07-29-2008 11:41 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 132 of 312 (476995)
07-29-2008 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Coragyps
07-28-2008 9:50 PM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Coragyps writes:
A car is still a car, but a Yugo and a Maserati don't share all their functions.
But they both transport passengers from point A to point B, which is their function. The Y chromosome is still a DNA molecule, even if it differs from the X chromosome. There is nothing special about the A, G, C, and T”the chemicals”on a Y chromosome that makes it different from an X chromosome. What is essentially different and important is the arrangement of these nucleotides. The chemicals”A, G, C, and T”themselves are perfunctory and identical to those of any other DNA molecule.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 9:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 133 of 312 (476996)
07-29-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 10:37 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
I'll stretch for this anology: If Bill Gates had agreed with IBM that MSDOS was nothing more than a computer's electronic parts then Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground. In other words, the code is more than the chemicals, just as thoughts are more than neuronic synapses.
Inappropriate analogy.
Computer programming is a series of symbols assigned meaning by an intelligent entity. Computer programs do not assemble themselves based on electron shells and chemical bonds. An IF/THEN loop does not spontaneously form with a WHILE loop, and pointers are not assigned values because of an endothermic reaction.
DNA is a series of chemicals. It does not have meaning. The chemicals do not represent anything, it is not a language, and it is not in a literal sense a set of instructions.
Chemical "information" bears no resemblance whatsoever to human created information such as language or computer programs. We can derive "meaning" from chemical compounds in that we can understand their properties and components and why and how they form, but describing the properties of a water molecule or an organic compound is entirely different from defining the word "stupid."
DNA does define an organism in a very real way...but only in the same way that H2O defines water. There is no magical hoo-ha involved with DNA, it is not information in the same sense that language or binary code is information (and I swear to god the next person who says DNA is "binary" or "digital" will be treated like the idiot they are).
The number of rings in a tree trunk can be called "information," but it's obviously not in anything remotely akin to the same sort of "information" carried by language. No intelligent force is required to generate the information contained in the number of rings in a tree trunk. Idiot IDists who bring up "information theory" and insist that the information present in DNA proves that there is a designer have no idea what they are talking about.
In a real sense, Hoot, thoughts really are absolutely nothing more than the firings of a series of neural synapses.
The extra meaning is assigned by your own consciousness. It's a subjective personal value assessment, not an analysis of what comprises a thought in objective terms. Likewise, the concept that there is anything more than electrochemical processes involved in life is founded not on objective data, but rather on subjective personal emotion that "there must be more to this."
Life as we know it is nothing more than a complex series of imperfectly self-replicating chemical reactions that metabolize energy from their surrounding environment. Nothing "more," no "soul," just a beautifully intricate (though sometimes woefully inefficient or even stupid) series of chemical reactions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 10:37 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Jack, posted 07-29-2008 11:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 134 of 312 (476997)
07-29-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Rahvin
07-29-2008 10:55 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
DNA does define an organism in a very real way...but only in the same way that H2O defines water. There is no magical hoo-ha involved with DNA, it is not information in the same sense that language or binary code is information (and I swear to god the next person who says DNA is "binary" or "digital" will be treated like the idiot they are).
I disagree. DNA is arbitary*. There is a translation step that takes DNA and turns it into meaningful chemistry, with tRNA, mRNA and the other various bits of pieces involved in turning DNA into proteins, it's inert. You could not create a protein from DNA without it, and there is no way to look at a particular Codon and work out which protein it codes for without knowing the cellular systems that unpick it.
* - technically, this is not quite true, there are certain patterns in DNA that make organisms less susceptible to damage through mutation and coding errors, but there are many, many patterns that could satisfy these constrains and only a tiny, tiny number of different coding schemes actually used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2008 10:55 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2008 11:28 AM Dr Jack has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 135 of 312 (476998)
07-29-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Jack
07-29-2008 11:06 AM


Re: More than chemical reactions
Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes:
There is a translation step that takes DNA and turns it into meaningful chemistry, with tRNA, mRNA and the other various bits of pieces involved in turning DNA into proteins, it's inert.
I somewhat agree with you. You could make a case for the genetic code constituting information, and I wouldn't complain too much, but the overall analogy falls apart for the reasons Rahvin gives.
In my own words, Rahvin's argument goes like this:
A computer can be built with all its hardware in place, then you can program all kinds of software onto it, and the software provides a "code" that dictates what the hardware does. One can also change, add or remove software without changing, adding or removing hardware.
In contrast, the cell can be built with all its "hardware" in place, but you cannot then progam all kinds of "software" onto it, because what information-theory-IDists call "software" arises directly from the "hardware." So, the software cannot be changed, added or removed without changing, adding or removing hardware.
So, in the cell, the "hardware" is in control, and the "software" is just an effect that arises from the "hardware," whereas, in the computer, the "hardware" is the active agent of the "software."

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Jack, posted 07-29-2008 11:06 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Jack, posted 07-29-2008 11:47 AM Blue Jay 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