Biogenesis

So?.....I know many brilliant atheists. I know many ignorant atheists. Most science papers are written by atheists. That should give my argument more weight. Did you realize that Thomas Huxley, the "Bulldog" of Evolution was an atheist, and he is my source for declaring that that abiogenesis is a philosophical faith and that biogenesis is a law of nature. It is indeed such a path. A path of faith. A religious path. Keep it out of the schools. thank you.

No I claim directly that the LoB creates a boundary that current abiogenesis hypotheses must overcome. A Law is a boundary. Any law in any construct can be broken. Don’t you understand the difference between a boundary and impossibility. Maybe you think that it is impossible to drive 66mph when the law says 65mph. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand. When you drive 66mph you are in jeopardy, because you have broken the law. In science, natural law, indicates the improbability of breaking the law. But with laws like Newton’s gravitational law we have see how they can be broken or bounded by a different set of rules.The probability of abiogenesis is very low and maybe close to zero according to LoB. But your magic of millions of years can diminish that probability. It just can’t be tested. See message 192. I cited seven quotes from me where I specifically addressed the issue of the “impossibility” of abiogenesis. In each case I argued that abiogenesis may be possible. But you ignored my words and continued to claim that I was contradicting myself. That verges on lunacy Rahvin. You have continued to argue the strawman that I am saying that abiogenesis is impossible. I never had, and while you are challenging for concessions, you need to concede, that I have never argued the impossibility of abiogenesis. No, let’s let Rahvin define life for us . .The cell is the smallest known form of life. That fact was established well before my birth. If you think viruses are alive, then cite one virus that can reproduce or grow without a host cell. Yes it is hard to comprehend your illogical statements and fallacies. Bio=Life, Genesis=Beginning. I know this is hard for you to comprehend. It’s just words. But words do have meanings! I know this is hard for you to comprehend the concept of falsification. A hypothesis that has been falsified has been done so through direct observation. We now have a “gazillion” observations that refute that life can come from non-living chemicals. It is falsified.YEC is also falsified. There are direct observational measurements that refute that the earth is young. But many still believe that the earth is young, and they are pursuing science that hopefully will contradict the falsification. It will take science to refute the falsification. They are pursuing this quest as a matter of philosophical faith, because there is no direct observation that the earth is young. They are starting with the conclusion, and then searching for evidence.Abiogenesis is exactly the same thing. There is no direct observation that life can come from non living matter. But people believe it is so based on philosophical faith. They have accepted the conclusion, and are pursuing evidence on faith and hope that they can overcome the falsification. Fine, then according to your argument YECism is just as valid. And what you don’t realize is what you just argued is that abiogenesis is on the same level as creationism. Both are philosophical faiths. See, I knew, even you could figure this out. See above comments. You are beginning to figure this out. If there was no life at one point, and then there is life today that means that Biogenesis must have occurred in the past. That is equally a valid conclusion. And it is much more scientific than abiogenesis.Why are you so angry about invoking a deity. Science is silent on deities isn’t it? But you don’t really care about science, you care about your deity. Nature. She will solve your origin of life problem, because she is the creator of heaven and dearth. She is omnipresent. She is all powerful. She is all knowing. She is omni-benevolent. You believe in her, don’t you? You do believe that she created life don’t you? Yes, and they exist in environments without any sign of life. Those same molecules are available in rotting flesh, bales of hay, and yeast soups. Big deal. Direct observation says that none of these produce life, including Titan. The hypothesis of abiogenesis was falsified with all these building blocks of life available. Why don’t you put rotting flesh into a M-U apparatus and maybe we could spark it to life in the early atmosphere. Maybe we could sink some down to those thermal vents. Wait, I think nature does that all the time. Sorry. I guess you can’t see the expectation of faith in your statements. Again, you are starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find the evidence. According to your evidentiary criteria then there is a universe full of evidence that God exists and that He is the intelligent designer of life. I can show you the complexity of cellular life, the anthropic priciples and on and on. But you would say that’s religious faith. I and Thomas Huxley recognize the same about abiogenesis. And you are beginning to realize this as well as cited above. No you are crying because you’ve been called out for strawman arguments and lame arguments. Correctly so. I have corrected your wording of my arguments many times now and you still continue to restate my position. It’s a fallacious approach. Rahvin, with all due respect, my words are opposite of what you are saying. It’s in blue and white for you to read, but it is obvious that you are totally dishonest, or totally illogical, or you just can’t read and comprehend. That’s the scientific evidence that I have, when you quote me directly, and then totally reverse my argument. Way to go sit on your strawman. Like I’ve said, all along. There is no evidence that suggests the hypothesis. The hypothesis is suggested on the philosophical faith that there is a natural solution. That still is a philosophical faith. The faith preceded any evidence other than the triviality that life exists, which in no way shape or form suggests abiogenesis except under the philosophy of naturalism. That philosophy doesn’t negate faith. No, I’m expecting evidence that suggests that there are such things as “pre-cellular” life. Do you gave any direct evidence? Do you have any geological/fossil evidence? What we do have is chemicals doing chemical things. That’s all. The suggestion of abiogenesis comes from the interpretation of these chemical reactions which is based on the philosophical faith. This faith is fine. I am not against it in any way, but it is not something that should be taught as opposed to other faiths. Once you have some evidence that actually suggests abiogenesis, then I think the argument changes. But by your own admission, you don’t have any. Yes, let’s equivocate. Then we can confuse everyone, and prove our science. Science based on equivocating “gray” areas is illogical and fallacious. Biology is the only science that does this. If you choose this path then I will call it what it is . Equivocation. Life is highly recognized, identifiable and defined. Viruses are not alive. Gasoline has many properties similar to water. Not quite all, but gasoline is excellent evidence that the properties that we identify as water are not so much as black/white, water/gasoline binary, but rather a spectrum of gasoline on one side and water on the other, and a lot of gray area in between. This argument is just silly. This statement is clear evidence of the faith. You believe in pre-cellular organisms that you have zero evidence for. The evidence you do have is nothing more than equivocating definitions by trying to blurr the line between life an non-life. LoB establishes that line. That is science. Abiogenesis must hurdle that line. It hasn’t even jumped yet. You don’t understand faith. Faith is a belief that is based on evidence. It is basically trust. That trust is always based on some evidence. Not all evidence is empirical. Much evidence is testimonial or experiential. 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. You don’t even realize when you use these fallacious arguments. That is why I’m smart enough to avoid this trap about the impossibility of abiogenesis. Just because we’ve never seen evidence of something doesn’t mean it cannot be true. I could have used the same argument regarding abiogenesis, but my mind doesn’t work fallaciously like yours. So I didn’t use this argument, even though you have fallaciously claimed that I have ad infinitum. Abiogenesis has been falsified and is well documented since Pasteur. Just because it has been repackaged in a different form does not overcome the falsification. All life comes from pre-existing life. This is not lack of observation, this is overwhelming observational evidence that is direct and directly refutes abiogenesis. Just because it is a different environment that you or anyone else cannot define is irrelevant. Life has been generated in innumerable environments including anaerobic environments without oxygen. As a matter of fact, we have witnessed anaerobic life in great abundance in nature, created in a prebiotic soup deplete of oxygen, but rich in all the building blocks of life. Yet we can barely sustain anaerobic microbes in a laboratory environment. Direct evidence provides the falsification Rahvin. No negative needs to be disproved. And once again, you don’t understand the history of this debate. Biogenesis and abiogenesis have always been about the origin of life. It’s in their names. But you can believe as your faith teaches you. Well I guess by this criteria The Theory of Evolution is absolutely refuted by the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and the zero evidence of any transitionals in the Precambrian. Great, I’m glad you agree that it has been absolutely refuted, and is impossible. Great, then old rocks don’t refute YEC, because their age is not absolute. BBT doesn’t refute creationism, because it is not absolute. ToE doesn’t refute creationism, because ToE is not absolute. And on and on.Please cite for me one thing in the physical sciences that is absolute. Please do.
But please don’t quit replying, I’m having a lot of fun. You are making about as much scientific sense as a not fully formed pre cellular organism can.

Now, Now, let's not get nasty. The only reason I haven't responded to you is for lack of time. That's all. 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. Yes, speculation. Have you ever considered that none of the current hypotheses within the field of abiogenesis propose viruses? Maybe you ought to be the "wise" bird and propose one. But maybe not, I think there a valid reasons as I have earlier stated why scientists don't propose viruses as an early form of life.And finally definitions are crutial for logic. Without clearly defined things in science, people start to use the logical fallacies of equivocation. We wouldn't want to do that in science would we? I guess birds of a feather flock together. So are you perched with Rahvin now?. Please cite where I claimed that the failure of M-U is "falsification" for abiogenesis. I hope you enjoy sitting on a new strawman for a change. I wouldn't brag about your knowledge of falsification. You claim that "because pigs fly over China", that that falsifies the God portrayed in Genesis. Please explan how that is a falsification of anything?The theory of Biogenesis did falsify the theory that life could come from non-life. But that's OK with me that you want to pursue abiogenesis. Just don't teach it. It is bad science.

I will respond to this, I have watched it twice now,and have taken notes. I will be out of town for the next two days. I will respond asap.

Well since you asked so nicely, I guess I will oblige. I have already responded to this video twice now, but this one will be in detail. I have asked for evidence for abiogenesis, and this video happens to be the best offered, so lets examine this evidence.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.2. The video starts by making this statement... Yeah. Right. Why then do you (the video maker) and Dr. Szostak invoke evolution so early on in the process of abiogenesis. The whole reason creationists accuse evo's of using evolution throughout their various constructs is because they do. In this case evolution is hypothesized light years in development before a genome was present and light years before life was present. Some type of natural selection must act on complicated molecules. In the case of this mythology, evolution must start acting as soon as the lipid vesicle contains some sort of polymer nucleotide sequence. Evolution was invoked before life, reproduction, and genetic material. Let alone a genome.Not only do you have the mythology of chemicals coming to life. You also have the mythology of evolution acting on those chemicals.Now to support this here is a quote directly from Dr. Szostak's page: So let's get this straight! Every abiogenetic postulation/model requires a new theory of evolutionary natural selection for success.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.In the video, it begins by comparing current life with early life. What? What is this early life? It certainly isn't alive! So let's just see how equivocation can work it's magic."Early life must have been extremely simple"... There you go. Now you have your unsuspecting, non skeptical followers all convinced that there is such a thing as "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.4. Now we perform another act of mythological magic by equivocating on the word "growth". Growth in a cell is caused by many functions, but metabolism and the ATP process is fundamental to cellular growth. But not with simple "early life". "Early life" can start with simple lipid bilayers that can form vesicles. With a thermodynamic energy source, these vesicles can bump into each other and one vesicle may "consume" another mechanically. Now while waiving my magical equivocation wand, he declares that as "cellular growth".Did I just miss something? Or did this highly educated scientist just describe cellular growth as being comparable to growth of crystals, stalagmites and stalactites and a whole host of other chemical systems that grow. But that's why there is a differentiation between life and death, because life's growth is self contained. Food is imported through the membrane, processed, and energy is created. No energy source is needed. Only organic matter is needed. But with the magic of equivocation, we can have "growing" lipid cells.5. But we are not finished yet! Now let’s make one vesicle magically grow into two! That’s “cell division”. Man that wand is important. With thermal energy provided the “simple cells” can bump into each other and mechanically divide. Hallelujah, we have replication.So now we have “simple cells” “growing” and “dividing.” I do love magic shows and this one is the best I’ve ever seen. And all he uses is the magic wand of equivocation. With each magic act, there is an element of reality and an element of deception. The reality is that lipid bilayers and vesicles do grow and divide. The deception is in the equivocation of terms.6. Now for the final act. Let’s create genetics. Monomers come into the “cell membrane” through simple osmosis. Then they join with other monomers already inside and become RNA like polymers. That’s like putting one rabbit in the hat and then pulling ten out. This part is really glossed over. Just the right monomers must enter, and no oxidizing agents can be allowed. And they all must be chiral. But remember, you can’t see into the hat, only the magician knows what’s happening inside. So now we have the beginnings of a “genome”. There goes that magic equivocation wand.7. Now comes another magician. Evolution and natural selection. Even though these “cells” aren’t really growing or dividing now we are going to use the magic of evolution. That magic selects which vesicles that have the polymers inside survive and thrive. And there is more “cell growth” and “division.”8. Wait! I forgot millions of years. He is the greatest magician of all times. He can make anything happen. He can take simple vesicles with simple polymers inside to complex protein producing, metabolizing , and DNA reproducing life. Wow!Shame on Dr. Szostak and all the EVC Forum followers. To allow a legitimate field of science to become overrun by such fallacious use of language. But that is what religious faith can do. I’ve seen it many times.This is nothing more than an equivocating game which is wrong.And to top it off, please review the first quote above from Szostak’s page. This cartoon, is NOT PLAUSIBLE. You people have been advocating that this stuff is plausible, but the good Dr. is not so brazen. He is searching for plausibility. Yet you have the audacity to submit this as scientific evidence. This crap should definitely be kept out of the schools.

No you are way wrong. I was asked to comment on the evidence in the video. I did. This video goes way beyond Dr.Szostak's work. He does not make the claims this video (as evidence) does. This video is hand waiving equivocation. Period. No, I didn't. I did my research before I commented on the video. The question is did you? Have you read any of his work? If so, why don't you try and cite one of his articles and try to write more than a couple of legitimate sentences about it. I will be happy to talk technical with you rather that endure your silly little claims and one liner hand waiving comments. Sticks and stones... I think your lack of understanding is profound. You certainly have'nt been able to make a legitimate argument about anything. Instead, you rely on these juvenile comments. CS take note, this is what real troll activity is all about. Then how, pray tell, is this evidence of the formation of life? Please try and string a paragraph of word together in your argument. If you can. Crystals grow and crystals are mechanically divided. Is that evidence of the origin of life also? There are many examples of evidence of chemical substances that grow and divide in the same manner as vesicles. They are dead. Non-living. The only way for this to be assumed as evidence for the origin of life is an equivocation of terms that would make one think that this is similar to cellular activity. It is not at all similar without the equivocation. Your dishonesty is evident with your techniques of quotemining my words. Absolutely not!. Vesicles grow just like many other chemical arrangements do. Vesicles divide just like many other chemical arrangements do. RNA can self replicate under certain labratory conditions. This has all been tested, reviewed, and repeated in the labratory. RNA naturally spontaneously forming and later self replicating in a vesicle has not happened. Replication of vesicles with RNA has not happened. And no natural selection of self replicating vesicles has happened. That's the real evidence.What truly has been seen by science is that certain dead chemical arrangements grow and divide. That's evidence of death, or non-living matter. This is not evidence that supports that life can come from chemicals.And the main point that need to emphasized is that Dr, Szostak doesn't make the wild unsubstantiated claims your silly little cartoon does.From the words of his own web page... Dr Szostak doesn't claim to have a plausible pathway to a primitive cell. He is working on a hypothetical model. He doesn't have one and has not published one. He does not have enough evidence that suggests the things you think he is suggesting or the video is suggesting. The evidence does not support a legitimate pathway at this time.Now why don't you stop waiving your tiny one liner hands, and actually put up a well thought out argument if you think this evidence is plausible.

Bluejay my dear friend. I tried my best to help you, but the way your mind works, it is closed to recognizing fallacies. Yes, I constructed a strawman. It was obviously done on purpose. "Pigs flying over China" is a rather large clue. It was an absurdity to show you and others how dishonest strawman arguments are. That's why I constructed one for you that was obviously absurd. The absurdity was intended for you to recognize, but you didn't.And still you thought I was actually arguing this. This just goes to show how a mind that has been trained in fallacies cannot recognize them. It bothered you that I made this ridiculous claim. It should. All strawman arguments are ridiculous, deceptive, and dishonest. Many have been made against me, and they aren't obviously ridiculous like the one I constructed for you. They are slight twists to my words, but are equally deceptive dishonest and ridiculous.Now I hope, that at least you will think twice before you claim that I am arguing a certain way. Be sure of what I am saying, and not what you are hearing. If you argue what you hear, you may be constructing a strawmen.I respectfully and laughingly withdraw my obviously ridiculous strawman of the pigs flying over China.Please forgive me for such a stunt, but I felt it was long overdue to make this point.

Yes this is the kind of credibility that is represented in this forum.

Yes, you did. I made it obvious, so you would. That is the only strawman that I have made in this large thread and it was on purpose. Again, please accept my apologies. However, you and others don't reconize your own strawmen when you create them. That was my point. Over and over, I have called these out. Yes, that's the purpose of strawman arguments. To divert the thread. That's why I have been persistent in calling them out, over and over again, because you and others have been diverting the thread by constantly using them. My intent is certainly not to mock or make fun of scientists. If I had evidence that a scientist was in this thread, then he/she should be doing a fine job defending whatever line of argumentation they were presenting. So far I can't imagine a scientist in this thread. (argumentum ad ignoratium.) Certainly no one has been mocked more than creationists in this thread. But I don't request anyones sympathy for it. I'm not sure what you are talking about. As far as definitions go, I am the only one who has cited a definition in the past. Here it is again... I have stated in the past, and will state here again that the hypothesisi of abiogenesis (that life can comes from non-living matter) has been falsified. It was falsified with Pasteur by experiment and direct observation. It remains falsified today by countless experiments and observation. In fact, every single experiment within the field of origin of life confirms that life does not come from non-living matter. Now I have also argued that some hypotheses in the field of origin of life are unfalsifiable. These are the hypotheses that are a part of the philosophical faith that says life must have started chemically. Therefore, I have argued that abiogenesis should not be taught in the schools. Especially at the expense of a thorough understanding of the law of biogenesis which is excellent science and is easily observable and teachable.Now to your other concerns... I can see why you may be confused by these supposed conflicting statements. Maybe it is because you quotemined me from Message 89. So let's review... Here is what you said first As you can see I was confused by you phrase "origins biogenesis". That's the first time I saw that phrase anywhere. I assumed you meant the very first lifeform on this earth. With that assumption, I declared that the LoB is silent. LoB say that all life comes from prexisting life. It is silent about the first life from which life on this planet came. But it is not silent that it must have come from a pre-existing life. Read those two statements closely. They do not conflict.The BBT is similar. To have the Big Bang in the "beginning" there had to be either an enormous source of energy to create the matter, or there had to be an enormous amount of matter present before the BB. The BBT is silent on this issue, but it is not silent that the universe was created from the BB.That is the current state of the LoB. Until some scientist limits the Lob (a type of falsification) through experiment or direct observation then the LoB should be taught. Bluejay, the reason I believe abiogenesis should not be taught is because of ridiculous arguments like this one which are creeping into our books. Viruses are not alive, and they do not behave like life. The word virus means toxin or poison. They (all of them) truly are agents of death. Even retroviruses until they are mutated as useless are detrimental to life.Viruses cannot metabolize and the cannot reproduce on their own. These are the two main criteria for life. They can only reproduce inside a host cell. It is a chicken and egg problem. Viruses came after life, not before. That is why no hypothesis within the origin of life study suggests anything about viruses. They are a dead end. They are only used in argumentation to put forth the equivocation fallacy that life is not something much different than a bunch of chemicals. It is different. That's what should be taught and reveered. What's the big deal about life if someone is murdered? They are just a bunch of chemicals. Right? (that's a red herring) Withdrawn...Now, I hope I have covered all of your message. I will respond to 197 in a little bit.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added red herring comment

You keep claiming this lame argument so back it up. Cite for me a historical/scientific document declaring the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. I have cited documents referring to the hypothesis that life can come from non-living matter which is referred to as abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the evidence/observation/phenomena that supported the theory of abiogenesis. So let's see your support for your claim.Also while you are at it, provide a scientific document that says abiogenesis is the gradual emergence of life.

Yes, fires are alive. They grow and they reproduce. They also evolve. I get it. Their alive! And by the way, many viruses do not have genes.Unfortunately for you, we have a field of study called Biology. The study of .......L-I-F-E.......... To study it you have to identify it. That has been done. Quite well I might add.Viruses on their own do nothing. They don't grow, reproduce or evolve. Sorry that's the facts. When they penetrate a living cell, then they can do those things. They are the perfect example that life can be given to the non living by a pre-existing life source. That's exactly what the LoB says. And viruses confirm the Law. Interesting unsupported and untrue argument. Please cite your sources. Did you learn this in abiogenesis school, or are you parroting this from evo forums? Well, you certainly should abandon your Dr. title after this bizarre argument. Bacteria are necessary for most complex life forms. You certainly have billions living inside you, and you couldn't live without them. Most bacteria are beneficial toward life. Bacteria are much more an agent of life than an agent of death. There are many bad bacteria, yes, but there are many bad people also. I think you may want to crack a book on bacteria some day. E. coli is a good thing. Oh my. What we are teaching in our schools. How can I argue with such obvious wisdom and argumentation? If you are in any way one of those people that Bluejay keeps referring to as a "scientist" then creationists do have alot to worry about.

Thank you for citing this site. It is great evidence to support my argument that spontaneous generation of various different lifeforms was indeed the OBSERVATION that eventually led to the hypothesis of abiogenesis that life can come from non-living matter. The observations cited all show life forms spontaneously generating from some environment. Hence the hypothesis which explains the observations. That's how science works.Biogenesis on the other hand was the contrary hypothesis which had little evidentiary support prior to the 1800's. Biogenesis was not proven in one experiment. It was proven and abiogenesis was disproven or falsified over a series of experiments over many years. Pasteurs was one of the final nails in the coffin. The LoB was declared many years later after the sustantive evidence continued to grow and be universal.The article correctly states that the LoB does not make abiogenesis impossible...as I have stated many times. Then the article goes on to discuss life's first origin.... This is the primordial soup concept which still is in the textbooks and still is one of the philosophical faiths of modern day abiogenesis. And it today argues for the slow gradual emergence of life.However, as correctly identified by your citation, at some point this mythical pre-life thing must reach a point where chemically it can metabolize and genetically reproduce. At that moment it will have spontaneously generated life. That's why this is bad science, because it relies totally on fuzzy words and undefined equivocating terms.And finally, no where in your article does it mention anything about the HYPOTHESIS of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. That's because spontaneous generation was the observation that led to the HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENESIS which states that life can come from non-living matter. Hypotheses are falsified, not observations. The hypothesis of abiogenesis was falsified, and the LoB triumphed victorious, and remains so as good observable, verifiable science today.The slow gradual emergence of life over time is a philosophical faith. It is not a hypothesis, and it is not fasifiable.

I wouldn't be so quick to do your victory dance with just WIKI quotations and charts. They are often wrong or misleading. My claim of 400x's smaller came from my memory. This was correct in 1992 before the discovery of the mimi virus which measures .0004 m in diameter. science mag articleNow the smallest prokaryotes are mycoplasma. The smallest ones are .002-.0015 m in diameter. mycoplasmaNote there is no overlap as the wiki article claims. In fact by diameter the smallest cell is 4x's smaller. But true size is better measured in volume and not diameter, because these creatures just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that. In volume, the smallest cells are 60x's larger than the largest virus.So I will humbly admit that I was in error in this irrelvant argument over virus size, however, I think you need to humbly admit that your wiki citation is wrong as well. Wrong again doku and CS. You can't name a virus that isn't an agent of death (cellular or the complete organism). If you will reread the wiki cite in Message 221 you will see the underlined words.... Yes in a lysogenic cycle the cell can live and reproduce with the virus inside. However, the dormancy doesn't last forever. Eventually the virus lyses the cell. It is an agent of death.CS then erroneously cited the wiki article on endogenous retroviruses. I assume he did a cursory reading like you to see that these viruses do not immediately kill. But they eventually do. Endogenous retoviruses are bad news. They are agents of death. Just because the death is not immediate doesn't mean that the virus is still not a "poison" or "toxin" to the cells/organism.Please cite for me any virus that does not cause some cellular death. They all do. The only retro viruses that exist in our non coding DNA are those that have mutated away from their original form and no longer cause disease. They now exist in the non-coding area of the DNA. Evolution made these agents of death into inoperative genetic material. Doku, you may want to start doing a little research and reading before you fire off these posts. The only one showing their ignorance is you. Viruses all have genetic material, but not all viruses have genes. Some viruses have DNA and they have genes. Some viruses only have RNA, and they don't have genes. The RNA molecule can reverse transcribe itself back into DNA in the case of retroviruses and then it is a gene. But RNA viruses do not have genes. Genes are sections of DNA. Biology 101. Ignorance abounds. Do I have to teach you evolution and natural selction? Evolution is a population change. Natural selection works on populations. A mutated virus does not evolution or natural selection make. It is an individual. It cannot reproduce on its own. It can only have mutated offspring inside a host cell. At that time, there would be a population for natural selection to work on. Not before. Evolution 101. That's how it works. On their own, viruses or mutated viruses do not evolve without a host cell. You may want to try and learn this stuff rather than totally embarrasing yourself. It's quite simple. The mimvirus is not metabolizing and reproducing on its own. The sputnik virus inside the host mimivirus is not metabolizing and reproducing and lysing the mimivirus. The infected mimivirus is not metabolizing and reproducing on its own. This is nothing more than one protein capsid chemicall reacting with another protein capsid just like they do when they infect a living cell. The difference is that they can usurp the life from the living cell where they cannot from the mimivirus.The only way to "see" life in this phenomenon is to fallaciously equivocate on what life is.Note the equivocation in these two paragrphs from your citation.

With creationism this is not a problem. In the beginning God... God was alive... the scriptures over and over again claim that God is responsible for life.You have created a false analogy. There had to be something "before" the Big Bang. You must have either a source of energy or matter. You cannot have a sigularity without a gravity source. That source would be infinite. That is infinite power. That certainly parallels the descriptions of God. If God caused what you say nature caused (the BB) then we have a source for everything.If you believe in the BBT then you believe there was an infinite gravitational source. What's the difference in believing in an infinite God? You can't detect either from any of your senses. But their presence can be infereed from your thoughts. What you have scientifically observed, you have entitled "natural gravitation." What I have observed I call God. My observations and your observations are the same.You see, in the past 100 years or so, the definition of the word nature had a different meaning that it does today. In the past, there could be a supernatural entity by definition. The current definition of nature is infinite. Therefore there can't be anything supernatural. Nature is omnipresent. It is everywhere in the universe. Normally that attribute would be reserved for God. Nature is all powerful. All the power in the universe is part of nature. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. Nature created the heavens and the earth. That attribute would normally reserved for God. Nature created life. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. Nature is all "knowing". All the intelligence in the universe came from nature. That attribute would normally be reserved for God. There is no descriptive words for God that naturalism hasn't already usurped in modern definitions. From my perspective man has just repackaged nature as a god. That's the end result of philosophical naturalism.You say there wasn't any life in the universe before the BB. But you can't say that there wasn't an infinite creative source of power before the BB. Because there was. You call it Nature. I call it God. The evidence is the same for both of us.I believe that infinite source of power is God. Part of His power is life. That life pre-existed the universe. You have recognized this scientifically. Now you just have to recognize this mentally.Also, you term "forever" is relative. That is "theory of relativity" In an ininite source of gravitation ever existed, time would be stopped. Literally. That's physics. So there was no time before the BB or before BC (Biblical Creation). Literally. That's physics, and scripture.So that's my reconciliation of the existense of life before time. It is consistent with science and the scripture. What is your reconciliation of an infintie gravitation source before time and the BB? You've already expressed your faith in the creative power of chemicals without any evidence.

Because that's all you are capable of doing. You struggle to show simple irrelevant mistake that I may or may not be making while adding nothing to the OP.You argue that I made a mistake on the size of viruses. I admitted a partial mistake. And evidentlty, I now have made another mistake with decimal places. Big deal! CS, this is the Prime example of troll like activity. It has nothing to to with what life is, whether viruses are alive or whether you can present any evidence for a plausible chemical pathway to life. You can't argue any of these things so you wave your hands and try to discredit someone for making a mistake. Big deal. That is exactly what trolls do.And in regards to "genes" in viruses. I partially withdraw my claim there. The wiki article you cited refers to a paper that can be found here and was published in 2007 (very recent)What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition With the NEW PROPOSED definition of GENE, a virus does have genes. However, none of this can be found in any current textbooks. And most definitions that can be cited for GENES still have the clarification that GENES are a part of the DNA.define:Gene - Google SearchWhat you don't realize doku is that I learn from science. I am an avid reader, I work in the field of science, and I constanly learn in environments like these discussion forums. But you evidently don't.You still claim that viruses are on the "edge of life" and they can evolve on their own. I can see that you have been trained to argue this subject, but the person who really doesn't know very little about viruses is you. Do you have a point here other than proving my point? You read it, you write it, and then you ignore it. That my friend is the definition ignorance. So let me summarize....I make a mistake on virus size, and you get lucky with a propositional definition change to genes. And I admit the mistakes, and that makes me ignorant.You on the other hand argue that viruses evolve on their own when they don't and that they are somehow part of an evolutionary example of how life evolved from chemicals while they are all causers of death to living organizms. And while after being shown you are wrong, you continue your hand waiving accusations that are meaningless to the OP. That is what troll like activity is CS.I will glady accept the label of misinformed or mistaken on a few minow issues, but ignorant people ignore facts which you do.I destroyed your silly cartoon video, yet you haven't responded to any legitimate argument... by the way, there are spelling mistakes that I've made also. Pardon my ignorance.