Can I request that AOkid and whoever wants to turn Abiogenesis/Biogenesis into a great debate?
I feel AOKid has glossed over several important points including the synthesis of the polio virus, Miller-Urey experiments, and Dr. Szostak's video. It seems to me it would be harder for him to dodge these if it was set up as a great debate.
Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today? It is probably one of the most widely used laws in biology and biological studies, but the law and the history of the law is ignored. I'm a firm believer in teaching science in schools, and not teaching non-science matters which are religious. How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?
I want to go back to this OP. You admit that there is little evidence of abiogenesis. Little evidence is still evidence. I will get to this in a bit.
In the end of message 198 Bluejay asks you whether it is just abiogenesis or all current science research you have a problem with. Let us compare abiogenesis, a largely hypothetical biological science with quantum mechanics of the 19th an 20th century, largely a hypothetical physical science at that time. The work that some in that field produced was nothing more than the extrapolation of equations. For instance, Satyendra Nath Bose predicted based on his calculations that there was a new type of matter that formed near absolute zero (0 K, -459 F). The work was rejected by peer review until Einstein attached his name to it. There was no way to test this at the time. Absolute zero is still considered impossible. In 1995, the first Bose-Einstein condensate was observed to form at .00000017 K! It took 70 years for the theoretical matter to be observed. There was no real evidence during that time. Should Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman have pursued the unknown realm based almost entirely on the assertion of Bose that a form of matter should exist? What if they were never taught about absolute zero and the possible formation of condensates? I am not implying that they learned of it in public schools, but the possibility did exist.
If it is just the lack of evidence to abiogenesis that you have a problem with please point out in my next post or in someone else thread how the evidence is faulty.
Do you have another natural explanation other than abiogenesis you would like to share with us so that we may teach it in public schools?
This quote is from the wiki post on Abiogenesis, which I suggest you read. Please point out any errors in this quote or in the entire article so science can correct it:
Wikipedia writes:
Current models There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953. 2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane. 3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis). 4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent. 5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use. The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:
Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-). Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either rare or absent.
As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life. Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell Bernal suggested that evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.
Like many others have pointed out, can you show where any of the above is faulty?
This has also been pointed out to you: In 2002 researchers at SUNY made the polio virus from its chemical code. (Wiki Polio Virus). They literally mail-ordered the DNA pieces and had it assembled by a gene synthesis company. The DNA was then converted back into RNA which was used to make the virus polypeptide. So they took chemicals (non-life) and created a virus (life). That is abiogenesis. You can argue that a virus is not life because it does not meet all the criteria for life. Eventuall this will not matter. It is only a matter of time until this process is accomplished with single-celled organisms.
Evidence of abiogenesis is some hint of observation that there really is a chemical pathway. Instead we have an infinite number of steps and nothing suggesting the linkage of all those steps together.
We do have a linkage. We do have a finite number of steps. Did you forget about the video you were shown?
AOKid writes:
The LoB applies to all life. It is that simple. I don't know what "modern fully formed" life is. Is there such a thing as "non-fully formed" life? You see, this is why this crap should not be taught, because you believe there is such a thing.
We should move away from this "fully-formed" idea and more towards the idea that as life evolved, it picked up new accessories. When Ford's Model-T came out in 1908, it had very little in common with a 2008 Thunderbird.
I would consider a virus bordering on what is life. I would consider prokaryotes-archaea and bacteria to meet all the criteria for life. They are the simplest forms known and agreed upon. Prokaryotes lack many cell organelles including the cell membrane. If you look at this graph from wiki, we can see that there is an overlap in size between the smallest prokaryotes and the largest viruses. This is contrary to what you claimed in message 96:
AOKid message96 writes:
Viruses are about 400x's smaller than the smallest known cell.
In fact, there is less than an order of magnitude between the largest proteins and the samllest known living thing.
Its not your logic but your ignorance in biology that fails
Again you IGNORE the evidence presented to you then write
In the case of abiogenesis, there is no evidence upon which the hypothesis could be inferred.
Now before you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you really have no idea what you are talking about could you address the evidence presented to you? Please AOKid, no more hand waving.
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
This is another example of your lack of understanding. Viruses are not only agents of death. Have you ever heard of a bacteriophage?
Wikipedia writes:
Replication Bacteriophages may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle, but a few viruses are capable of carrying out both. With lytic phages such as the T4 phage, bacterial cells are broken open (lysed) and destroyed after immediate replication of the virion. As soon as the cell is destroyed, the new bacteriophages viruses can find new hosts. Lytic phages are the kind suitable for phage therapy.
In contrast, the lysogenic cycle does not result in immediate lysing of the host cell. Those phages able to undergo lysogeny are known as temperate phages. Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid The virus remains dormant until host conditions deteriorate, perhaps due to depletion of nutrients, then the endogenous phages (known as prophages) become active. At this point they initiate the reproductive cycle resulting in lysis of the host cell. As the lysogenic cycle allows the host cell to continue to survive and reproduce, the virus is reproduced in all of the cell’s offspring.
Sometimes prophages may provide benefits to the host bacterium while they are dormant by adding new functions to the bacterial genome in a phenomenon called lysogenic conversion A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy.
You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
AOKid writes:
It takes faith to believe in natural solutions for all of these. To trust in a natural solution for all of these is trust in the supernatural. As Author C Clarke points out:
any science beyond current scientific explanation and understanding is considered "Magic", mystical, or supernatural until or unless it can be described by science. Conversely any claimed "science" which has not been proven is by definition supernatural or beyond science supernatural
You do realize that Clarke was an Atheist?
Clarke writes:
Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral.[
The Times Online writes:
Clarke’s work was infused with an enthusiasm for the future. Two constants were the technological wonders that could complete Man’s evolutionary destiny ” taking him down from the trees and sending him up to the Moon ” and the spiritual imperative that drove him towards this new age.
Although his oeuvre was not explicitly religious ” “Any path to knowledge is a path to God ” or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use”, he said ” he did give Man’s journey a mystical significance and a quasireligious intensity.
Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
AOKid in message 53 writes:
The best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Arguments are just that, nothing more than words.. ..Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.
Synthesizing a Genome from Scratch Scientists say the results represent a new stage in synthetic biology. Friday, January 25, 2008 By Emily Singer
Singer writes:
We consider this a second and significant step in a three-step process of our attempt to create the first synthetic organism
Singer writes:
The researchers' next step will be to show that the synthetic genome functions as it should.
Singer writes:
"It really is groundbreaking that you can synthetically build a genome for a bacterium," says Chris Voigt, a synthetic biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the project. "It's bigger by orders of magnitude than what's been done before."
So in 5 years we have gone from a virus that is 7741 base pairs to a bacteria that is 582,970 base pairs. Is this Abiogenesis?
Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Catholic Scientist writes:
We all know that he'll cling to the semantics and refuse to argue the evidence presented, because, well.... that's what trolls do.
"AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM"...Ignore Evidence.....Hand Waving......"Act of Faith".....Ignore Evidence......"STRAWMAN STRAWMAN"....Ignore Evidence......Backpedal....Ignore Evidence....."AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM".....
Im begining to see a pattern here.
I think every scientist here would abandon abiogenesis in a heartbeat if the evidence showed otherwise.
I guess the next step here would be to compile a list of what has been presented to AOKid and see if he will respond to it.
You are still ignoring the evidence presented...do you concede?
AOKid writes:
However, you and every one else in this forum is arguing dogmatically that abiogenesis is the only solution to the question of the origin of life. That’s why it is dogmatic philosophical faith and should not be taught.
NO ONE.... I repeat NO ONE here is arguing that abiogenesis is the only solution to the question. We are arguing it is the only solution presented that fits the evidence. As I just said in message 232 that we would abadon abiogenesis if the evidence showed otherwise.
You have failed to respond to the evidence presented. You have failed to explain your ignorance(dishonesty) that I pointed out in microbiology. You continue to argue semantics in spite of even posting that the best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Could you please respond to the evidence? Pretty please? We all really want to know what (exactly what...be specific) is the problem with the video presented in message 101.
Edited by dokukaeru, : Changed message number from 51 to 101
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to message 101.
It is really amazing at how much this law of nature bothers people. Having your faith challenged is tough, I know. Unfortunately for you, not only does Biogenesis mean the origin or beginnng of life, the law also addresses all life. That would seem to me from both the statement of the theory and the title of the theory that the law applies to primal, extinct, and extant.
It is not the principle of biogenesis that bothers people, it is your lack of understanding of it and your insistence that you are the absolute authority on it. Top that off with your denial of the evidence and semantic banter. I feel pity for you. You have an oppurtunity to really learn something here, but instead you want to make this into an argument of logic principles. It is not our faith, but yours that seems to be tested. You seem to place limits on God to a 2000 year old book, while I place no such limit on His Power.
Your argument can be reduced to 2 words HAND WAVING
AOKid writes:
1. It's a cartoon! Graphics and animation. I have accused people who believe in this stuff as having a great philosophical faith. This video is strong evidence of that. It is full of imagination with little or no evidentiary content.
It is a "cartoon" that summarizes 20 years of his work. This animation shows in an easy to understand way, the experiments he has carried out. Did you miss this page of his peer reviewed published papers? Szostak Lab: Publications
This is a cartoon:
AOKid writes:
3. The whole of Dr. Szostak's work in abiogenesis can be wrapped up in one word. EQUIVOCATION. With this logical fallacy invoked from the beginning, wonders of science can happen in magical mystical ways to like minded fallacious thinkers.
Your lack of understanding is profound!
AOKid writes:
early life" that differs from life as we know it today and as it is presented in the rocks. So "early life" is assumed with zero evidence and zero definition. Talk about mind numbed robots.
I am sure you are aware that the fossil record does show that the earliest forms of life were simple single celled organisms.
AOKid writes:
Now while waiving my magical equivocation wand, he declares that as "cellular growth".
Way to put words in his mouth. The only person "equivocating" is you AOKid. This is not cellular growth this is growth of a vesicle. This is not cell division it is splitting of a vesicle.
I could not have said what you are doing any better than you did yourself
AOKid writes:
The reality is that lipid bilayers and vesicles do grow and divide. The deception is in the equivocation of terms. . and later: . This is nothing more than an equivocating game which is wrong.
AOKid writes:
This cartoon, is NOT PLAUSIBLE
Oh, but it is. Every step of this has been tested, reviewed, and repeated in a lab.
AGAIN AOKID YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO MORE THAN WAVE YOUR HAND AT THE VIDEO
Could you please present some evidence that contradicts ANYTHING presented in the video?
I would consider a virus bordering on what is life. I would consider prokaryotes-archaea and bacteria to meet all the criteria for life. They are the simplest forms known and agreed upon. Prokaryotes lack many cell organelles including the cell membrane. If you look at this graph from wiki, we can see that there is an overlap in size between the smallest prokaryotes and the largest viruses. This is contrary to what you claimed in message 96:
AOKid message96 writes:
Viruses are about 400x's smaller than the smallest known cell.
In fact, there is less than an order of magnitude between the largest proteins and the samllest known living thing.
Then in Message 215 I show you how viruses are not all agents of death. You misrepresent this view in Message 220 by trying to say it agrees with you that they are all agents of death. WRONG
™ Version 4.2
