Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 271 of 312 (478325)
08-14-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by dokukaeru
08-13-2008 11:35 AM


Again you prove you are just a one liner
doku writes:
Message 203
In message 203, I pointed out:
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.
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 article
Now the smallest prokaryotes are mycoplasma. The smallest ones are .002-.0015 m in diameter. mycoplasma
Note 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.
doku writes:
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
CS calls you out on this in Message 221
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....
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.
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.
wiki writes:
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are suspected of involvement in some autoimmune diseases, in particular with multiple sclerosis. In this disease, there appears to be a specially associated member of the familly of human endogenous retrovirus W known as "MS-associated retrovirus (MSRV).[3] [4].
Investigations also suggest possible HERV involvement in the HELLP syndrome and pre-eclampsia. There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments[5]). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because most are just long-lasting traces of the original virus, having first integrated many millions of years ago. However, there is one family of viruses that have been active since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees. This family, termed HERV-K(HML2), makes up less than 1% of HERV elements but is one of the most studied. There are indications it has even been active in the past few hundred thousand years, as some human individuals carry more copies of the virus family than others. But the absence of known infectious members of the HERV-K(HML2) family, and the lack of elements with a full coding potential within the published human genome sequence, suggests that the family is less likely to be active at present.[6]HERV's
doku writes:
AOKid writes:
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.
YOU WANT TO BACK THAT UP WITH SOME DOCUMENTATION? No? Because it is WRONG
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.
doku writes:
AOKid writes:
Viruses on their own do nothing. They don't grow, reproduce or evolve.
Sorry AOKid...WRONG AGAIN They do evolve:
wiki writes:
However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection.
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.
doku writes:
Now, Taz has a new thread that sites this new article in Scientific American
It shows that some viruses infect other viruses. So AOKid, How does this fit into your assertion that viruses are not alive?
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.
It’s a seemingly simple question, but actually not: On the one hand, viruses can copy themselves and affect the health and behavior of other organisms. But, they require the machinery of other organisms to do any of that.
But, according to Claverie, if mimivirus can both pirate another organism's DNA-copying machinery and fall prey to another virus that does the same to it, then mimivirus is most certainly alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by dokukaeru, posted 08-13-2008 11:35 AM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 10:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 276 by dokukaeru, posted 08-14-2008 4:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 312 (478327)
08-14-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Again you prove you are just a one liner
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.
You're just defining "agent of death" in a way that includes all viruses. Its a meaningless definition. According to it, even humans would be considered "agents of death".
You be saying just as much with the claim that all viruses are "servants of shit".
If the virus does not immediately kill, and the host is allowed to reproduce, then the virus is not an "agent of death" by any meaningful definition. That the host eventually dies doesn't matter because everything dies eventually, with or without a virus.

As far as the topic of this thread:
How are you ever going to reconcile that the Law of Biogenesis requires that life existed forever when the Universe shows us that at some point in the past there was no life at all?
If all life comes from life, then the first lifeform could never have arrose because it wouldn't have had a lifeform to come from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 9:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 12:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 273 of 312 (478338)
08-14-2008 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
08-14-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Again you prove you are just a one liner
CS writes:
As far as the topic of this thread:
How are you ever going to reconcile that the Law of Biogenesis requires that life existed forever when the Universe shows us that at some point in the past there was no life at all?
If all life comes from life, then the first lifeform could never have arrose because it wouldn't have had a lifeform to come from.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 12:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 312 (478341)
08-14-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 12:12 PM


The trump card comes out
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.
But we're not dscussing creationism. And this is a science thread.
So I guess your answer is: "I cannot reconcile the LoB with the observations we have without invoking God."
You have created a false analogy.
I didn't even create an analogy at all
There had to be something "before" the Big Bang.
And there you show your misunderstanding of BBT. There is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. It is the beginning of time, itself.
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.
Even if I grant you God as the infinite power, this still doesn't reconcile the problem of the LoB saying that living organism have to have existed forever. We know that at a point in the past there were no living organisms.
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.
Again, it doesn't matter if it was nature or God. Since there was no life at some point and then there was life after that, the LoB is wrong in saying that all life must come from life. Whether God or nature did it doesn't matter.
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 didn't say that there wasn't any life in the universe before the BB. There was a point in time in the universe, after the BB, where there wasn't any life. Hell, there weren't even atoms.
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.
But at some point in the Universe, there couldn't have been living organisms like the ones the LoB is talking about. Even if God did it, he couldn't have created the first living organism from another living organism. It wouldn't have been the first one if there was one before it.
The LoB couldn't have been talking about God as a living organism that life arrose from. And even if it was, then what living organism did God come from? If he didn't come from a living organism then the LoB is still wrong in saying that all living organism come from pre-existing ones, because God would be the exception to the rule.
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.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You're just making up bullshit up now.
So that's my reconciliation of the existense of life before time. It is consistent with science and the scripture.
Actually, you failed miserably.
What is your reconciliation of an infintie gravitation source before time and the BB?
"Before" indicates a timeframe. Before "time" means a timeframe when there was no timeframe. Your question is nonsensical.
You've already expressed your faith in the creative power of chemicals without any evidence.
So, you don't know what faith is either?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 275 of 312 (478366)
08-14-2008 3:43 PM


In Summation
Since it has become clear that this thread is not going to progress any further, I will present here a sort of closing argument and summary of the debate.
Semantic Argumentation
My assessment of the situation is that AlphaOmegakid has nothing to argue except semantics, and that further debate with him will only cause the emergence of more terms whose definitions and etymologies he can exploit and blaspheme in an effort to constantly shift the burden of proof to his opponents, thus avoiding any need for him to bring up any of his own evidence. Perhaps Catholic Scientist was correct to call him a troll, though I personally believe that the Kid’s trollish behavior is not intentional, but is, in his own special way, sincere.
AlphaOmegakid does not entertain debate about the validity of the definitions he supports, insisting that to do so is only “equivocation” or “blurring the line.” And, apparently, he fails to note that definitions are inherently descriptive, and not proscriptive. When a definition is challenged, it is on the basis of real-world observations, which frequently defy discreet definitions; but, in the Kid’s mind, the definition is authoritative, and its integrity must be upheld because, once an experiment is run, every letter of the write-up enters into the holy canon of science.
He argues that “life” is defined as a cellular entity that can metabolize and reproduce (not of itself an irrational statement). However, he has further asserted that “life” cannot arise from “non-life,” and has dismissed our attempts to hypothesize at possible transitional forms by simply asserting the definition of “life” as prohibitive of transitional forms. When a discussion arose about viruses and their possession of genes, he promptly equivocated on the definition of “gene,” failing, apparently, to note that, even if only some viruses had genes, it would still prove the point of the person who posted it.
On another thread, he has followed a similar line of reasoning with the word “species,” again insisting that reproduction is the defining characteristic. Only, this time, he complained that the myriad of conflicting definitions of “species” is simply a tool employed by scientists to permit equivocation in defense of our theory, failing to note that scientific data does not revolve around definitions, but around data.
The Scientific Method and Falsification
Everyone is familiar with his complete failure to understand the term “falsify,” and it took us until almost message 200 before we realized that he was laboring under a different definition than we (to my own unending shame, to be sure), and not just misunderstanding the implications of the appropriate definition. Yet, even now, at the end of the thread, he is still asserting his own usage of the term, and has reverted to simply ignoring the many times where his usage has been shown to be incorrect by multiple posters.
He believes that “falsification,” like acceptance of a theory, is tentative, but fails to realize that, even if Abiogenesis was falsified under a tentative usage of the term, there would still not be any reason to omit Abiogenesis from textbooks, because tentativity would effectively render falsification impotent. The only thing science does definitively is disprove, and that’s really the power behind science: it discovers which ideas are wrong by showing how the evidence conflicts with them. As long as the evidence remains within the explanatory power of a theory, the theory is not falsified.
AlphaOmegakid has asserted that falsification occurs when predicted positive evidence fails to be found. But, this is a fallacy of composition: the lack of a specific piece of evidence does not preclude the possibility of other evidence, and so, cannot falsify a theory on its own. In an analogy, the absence of a gun at the crime scene does not falsify the hypothesis that the victim was killed, simply because a gun is not the only way for a victim to be killed.
He frequently commits the fallacy of composition, insisting that, since spontaneous generation was falsified (he used the word properly in this case, but, I think it was just incidental), every other possible mechanism for Abiogenesis was falsified alongside it. He also fails to realize that the evidence for Biogenesis (which is the same evidence that falsified Abiogenesis in his mind) was all collected within a timeframe that he knows is too short for Abiogenesis to have occurred in. Attempts to point this out to him have been met with “magical time” libel and no contradicting evidence. He also fails to note that a world without pre-existing life (such as the hypothetical primordial earth of Abiogenesis) is inherently a very different environment from a world with life already abundant, thus rendering any conclusions gained from a world with life invalid to the discussion of a world without life.
Abiogenesis and the Rest of Science
AlphaOmegakid believes that, since we failed to prove spontaneous generation (our equivalent of a gun at the crime scene), Abiogenesis is falsified. Clearly, this is a fallacy of composition. Since the evidence has clearly not come down against the gradual mechanism proposed by science for Abiogenesis, but only against a sudden, untransitional mechanism, the current hypotheses of Abiogenesis are still viable and tenable hypotheses. Furthermore, many plausible steps of an Abiogenetic process have been discovered by scientists (e.g. formation of amino acids, homochirality of amino acids, RNA self-catalysis and spontaneous bilayer formation by lipids), and no evidence that any of the as-yet undiscovered steps could not have happened has been found.
Meanwhile, our colleagues in cosmology and physics have pieced together a model for the history of the universe that is remarkably well-supported. This model shows clearly that there was a point in time at which life simply did not exist in the universe, at least not in any sense that holds scientific meaning. Any “life” (including God) that may have existed when the universe had no carbon or even atoms does not satisfy the definition of “life” provided by LoB or Cell Theory, which AlphaOmegakid has used extensively in support of his argument. Therefore, if such “life” gave rise to “life” as defined by Cell Theory, this process still constitutes Abiogenesis. Furthermore, AlphaOmegakid’s assertion that God both is “life” and was existent when carbon was not is simply equivocation on the definition of “life.”
Conclusion
Even though his entire premise for this thread has been the alleged poor logic and bad science of his opponents, AlphaOmegakid has relied heavily on inconsistent, fallacious and perhaps even dishonest arguments to support his claim that Abiogenesis has been falsified. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, science has upheld Abiogenesis as the only tenable possibility for an origin of life simply because that’s where the objective observations and mathematical models of multiple fields of study have pointed us. The overarching point is that we were not led to this conclusion by a philosophical belief, but by an honest search for a parsimonious answer to the questions about nature. That’s what makes it science, and that’s what qualifies it for science textbooks. As of right now, it’s the only idea that qualifies, so, logically, we teach it.

Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 4:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 278 by bluegenes, posted 08-14-2008 4:35 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 3:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 276 of 312 (478368)
08-14-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 9:37 AM


WRONG WRONG WRONG AOKid
AOKid writes:
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 article
Now the smallest prokaryotes are mycoplasma. The smallest ones are .002-.0015 m in diameter. mycoplasma
Note 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 you are saying that mycoplasma is visable to the naked eye?
You are just plain WRONG AOKid. Your sited article agrees with the Wiki chart.
Your article:
The size and varieties of mycoplasma have proven successful countermeasures to our numerous precautions. At 0.15-2 m in diameter,these beasties can pass through sterilizing filters commonly used in cell culture labs.
wiki on mimivirus writes:
Mimivirus is the largest known virus, with a capsid diameter of 400 nm. Protein filaments measuring 100 nm project from the surface of the capsid, bringing the total length of the virus up to 600 nm. Variation in scientific literature renders these figures as highly approximate, with the “size” of the virion being casually listed as anywhere between 400 nm and 800 nm, depending on whether total length or capsid diameter is actually quoted.
That is .00000015m - .000002m. Compared to the mimivirus which is at least .0000004m, possibly .0000008m.
AOKid writes:
just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that.
Are you suggesting wiki doesn't want us to know microscopic life is 3 dimensional?
Why would they talk about shape under virus then:
wiki just above that size chart writes:
Icosahedral architecture was employed by R. Buckminster Fuller in his geodesic dome,
Now onto viruses and genes:
AOKid writes:
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.
What exactly are you implying here?
wiki on genes writes:
gene is a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions and/or other functional sequence regions.[1][2] The physical development and phenotype of organisms can be thought of as a product of genes interacting with each other and with the environment.[3] A concise definition of a gene, taking into account complex patterns of regulation and transcription, genic conservation and non-coding RNA genes, has been proposed by Gerstein et al.[4] "A gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products".
wiki on genome writes:
In biology the genome of an organism is its whole hereditary information and is encoded in the DNA (or, for some viruses, RNA).
Now onto AGENTS OF DEATH
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT MOST VIRUSES CAUSE CELL/ORGANISM DESTRUCTION. We are saying that there are other functions.
wiki writes:
Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid.
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.
There is an example for you AOKid....and I already know what you are going to say...."see look it just makes the bacteria an agent of death"
AOKid writes:
Evolution 101.
Is there such a class?
You know why I keep using one-liners?(not all true, go look at my post about quantum physics Message 199)
That is all I need to show your ignorance.
Wish I had time to point out more.
Edited by dokukaeru, : clarity
Edited by dokukaeru, : double negative & link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 9:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 10:52 AM dokukaeru has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 277 of 312 (478372)
08-14-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Blue Jay
08-14-2008 3:43 PM


Re: In Summation
Hi Bluejay,
science has upheld Abiogenesis as the only tenable possibility for an origin of life simply because that’s where the objective observations and mathematical models of multiple fields of study have pointed us.
Sorry to be picky, and by the way great post, it was very to the point and I doubt AOK will respond with anything but his/her usual semantical bullshit but, isn't Panspermia,
Panspermia - Wikipedia
also a tenable possibility? I only mean it in the 'tenable' aspect.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by bluegenes, posted 08-14-2008 4:40 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 278 of 312 (478374)
08-14-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Blue Jay
08-14-2008 3:43 PM


Re: In Summation
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, AlphaOmegakid’s assertion that God both is “life” and was existent when carbon was not is simply equivocation on the definition of “life.”
I thought that AOkid's assertion that his God is life was the funniest part of the thread. I was wondering, according to the AOkid interpretation of Pasteur's law that life comes from life, who his god's parents were, and who they in turn descended from. Or, is his God the exception to the law? Did AOkid's living God emerge spontaneously from a mountain of bullshit?
The second funniest part was watching someone regularly equivocate on the word "equivocate".
That's a well written and accurate summary, Bluejay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 279 of 312 (478376)
08-14-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by onifre
08-14-2008 4:13 PM


Re: In Summation
onifre writes:
isn't Panspermia, also a tenable possibility? I only mean it in the 'tenable' aspect.
It requires abiogenesis somewhere. The point that we've been making, that once there was no life in the universe, then there was, is not about where it originated, just that it must have done so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 4:13 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 5:58 PM bluegenes has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 280 of 312 (478382)
08-14-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by bluegenes
08-14-2008 4:40 PM


Re: In Summation
The point that we've been making, that once there was no life in the universe, then there was, is not about where it originated, just that it must have done so.
Cool, agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by bluegenes, posted 08-14-2008 4:40 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 281 of 312 (478432)
08-15-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by dokukaeru
08-14-2008 4:03 PM


more one liner hand waiving form doku
doku writes:
You know why I keep using one-liners?
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 Search
What 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.
doku writes:
Now onto AGENTS OF DEATH
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT MOST VIRUSES CAUSE CELL/ORGANISM DESTRUCTION. We are saying that there are other functions.
wiki writes:
Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid.
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.
There is an example for you AOKid....and I already know what you are going to say...."see look it just makes the bacteria an agent of death"
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.
doku writes:
That is all I need to show your 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by dokukaeru, posted 08-14-2008 4:03 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2008 12:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 292 by dokukaeru, posted 08-17-2008 9:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 282 of 312 (478440)
08-15-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 10:52 AM


Re: more one liner hand waiving form doku
AOKid, I don't know what to say other than you're an idiot.
You've stated that viruses don't have genes and don't evolve, and yet that's the farthest thing from the truth. You've stated that they cannot be alive because they are "agents of death," and while your conclusion is debatable, your reasoning is, to put it mildly, stupid.
And here's why:
Viruses do contain RNA. They do contain a genetic code. They simply cannot express their own genes - that's why they need a host cell. They do evolve, and as evidence I point to the common flu, and HIV, two of the most rapidly-evolving organisms we know of. The entire reason we have such difficulty with HIV, and the reason you hear about "bird flu" and all of the other varieties, is because the pathogens mutate extremely rapidly.
As far as "agents of death" not being alive, well...as I said, that's stupid. Many bacteria are "agents of death." Technically speaking, nearly all non-plant organisms (and some plants, too) live only by the death of other organisms, making them (including us) "agents of death."
That viruses are or are not alive is a very debatable subject. They occupy a grey area somewhere in between living and nonliving matter. They cannot reproduce on their own...but then, neither can many parasites like tapeworms, who require a host in order to procreate. They cannot express their own genes...until they invade a host cell, at which point their genes become expressed and they start churning out viral copies. They're made of the same stuff all other known life is made of, the same compounds, simply using RNA instead of DNA (note that RNA is nothing more than a more "simple" version of DNA - Ribonucleic Acid as opposed to Deoxyribonucleic Acid - with only a single helix as opposed to the double helix of DNA). They seem to meet most of the definitions of life (reproduction, metabolization, passing genetic info to offspring, etc) when in the environment of a host cell, and only not meeting them while not in a host cell. But then, do spores meet those definitions while remaining dormant until they reach their suitable environment? Viruses bear all of the hallmarks of being that fuzzy area between living and non-living matter, sometimes behaving identically to life, but lacking a great deal of the complexity exhibited by other forms of life.
Your reasoning that they are not alive because they are "agents of death" is plainly wrong because all other "agents of death" are considered alive, and most things that are not alive are also not "agents of death."
All of this?
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.
Completely irrelevant. "Agent of death" is not a useful definition for determining living vs. nonliving matter.
Your reasoning that they are not alive because they "don't have genes" or "don't evolve" is obviously just factually wrong.
This?
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.
Entirely irrelevant. Whether you're right or wrong, you're defining all viruses as "non-alive." If some viruses do in fact posess genes (and they really all do, but thats still irrelevant), you can't say that all viruses are not alive because some do not. That's like saying that becasue some people are tall, all people can reach the rim of a basketball hoop.
And of course, you are wrong. It's irrelevant to the reason your logic is flawed, but I really can't let you think you're right when you're not, either. From Wiki:
quote:
Biologists debate whether or not viruses are living organisms. Some consider them non-living as they do not meet all the criteria used in the common definitions of life. For example, unlike most organisms, viruses do not have cells. However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection. Others have described them as organisms at the edge of life.
I really don't think you even took Biology 101, let alone anything further. Again, viruses occupy a gray area where the definition of life becomes fuzzy and difficult. Honestly, the biggest reason I see that viruses are often not considered alive is because they are not composed of cells - which is an arbitrary and silly definition of life when we have an example of a non-cellular organism that meets all of the other known properties of life. You may as well arbitrarily define that only individuals over 6' tall are human beings, even though individuals who are shorter meet every other definition for humanity.
The fact that viruses occupy such a gray area is actually some of the best evidence in favor of abiogenesis beyond the simple "life didnt exist before and nw it does" logical conclusion. An organism that challenges our very definition of what is and is not alive should also challenge ideas like Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, since a reproducing organism that is both alive and not alive depending on how you measure it simultaneously conforms to and refutes the idea that all life must come from pre-existing life. It also strikingly shows that the complexity of life really is a sliding scale, and that not all life needs to be as complex as Paseur's maggots, or indeed even a unicellular amoeba. The fact that viruses meet so many of the properties of life while being so much closer to non-living simple organic chemicals than cellular life shows that the idea that life may have arisen as a gradual process from non-living organic self-replicating molecules into the variety we see today is in fact a plausible one. Viruses, in fact, completely refute many of the different arguments you have made in this thread, from the claim that there "is no evidence for a gradual formation of life" to your very definition of life itself.
AOKid, you live in a very black-and-white world. To you, a thing is either alive or it is not, and the mere concept of life being a non-binary judgment is anathema to you. But this is a fallacious mode of reasoning. In much the same way we have the words "tall" and "short" and yet height itself is a sliding scale with many people being somewhere in between, so is the delineation of living matter a sliding scale with many examples of "living" and "non-living" things with many organisms, like viruses, existing somewhere in between the two. Modern hypotheses regarding abiogenesis tend to focus on those gray areas, and inquire into wat really defines life, and whether non-living matter can, in fact, give rise to a living thing. This is not bad science, this is not faith, this is a perfectly reasonable exploration into a possibility suggested by objecteve evidence. We should teach abiogenesis in biology classrooms because students need to know that life is not a black/white judgment, so that they don't make the same fallacious conclusions you have. We should teach it for the same reasons and to the same extent we teach kids about quantum physics or other "bleeding-edge" sciences, so that they can learn about what is currently being researched and be prepared to join their elders in the lab when they graduate.
Your attempts to conflate the real science of abiogenesis with faith are transparent and fallacious. You're using the same idiotic reasoning that all Creationists use when they say "your belief in evolution is based on faith, so its just as valid as my beliefs." Abiogenesis research, like evolution, is not based on faith, but is instead based on following the objective evidence wherever it leads and sharing the results. Your beliefs in special Creation and your deity, however, have no objective evidence. The two are not comparable, and your attempts to conflate them are foolish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 10:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 283 of 312 (478454)
08-15-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Blue Jay
08-14-2008 3:43 PM


Re: In Summation
Bluejay writes:
Semantic Argumentation
My assessment of the situation is that AlphaOmegakid has nothing to argue except semantics, and that further debate with him will only cause the emergence of more terms whose definitions and etymologies he can exploit and blaspheme in an effort to constantly shift the burden of proof to his opponents, thus avoiding any need for him to bring up any of his own evidence. Perhaps Catholic Scientist was correct to call him a troll, though I personally believe that the Kid’s trollish behavior is not intentional, but is, in his own special way, sincere.
I appreciate your assessment of this debate, but of course I hope you will likewise appreciate my rebuttal. My experience in reading forums, is once a loosing argument can no longer stand logistically then the charge of “using semantic argumentation” comes up.
That’s quite interesting to me, because I thought there was no other type of debate. You and my other opponents have been arguing about the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. That’s an argument of semantics. You and others have argued that viruses are “close” to life and may be in a gray area in between. That is semantics. You and other have argued over the “law” status of biogenesis. That is an argument of semantics. The fact is, that all debate, no matter what side you’re on is just semantics. This is all just a bunch of words and logic given by many different people. It is all semantics. Semantics are extremely important to legitimate debate, and without semantics, there is no such thing as science. Semantics and logic are just as important to science as observations and data.
And yes, the purpose of debate is to shift the burden of proof on your opponent. You say I avoid bringing up evidence. I have presented historical evidence of the entire topic from scientific peers at the time of discovery. Those documents clearly provide evidence of the hypothesis of biogenesis and the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the philosophical faith of a chemical evolutionary pathway to life. My opponents have submitted no evidence to the contrary other than their words. I have cited many scientific papers throughout, while you and others have avoided the use of scientific papers to support your arguments.
And yes, I have been called a troll. But trolls don’t make legitimate arguments. They make one liner inflammatory comments like doku and often CS does. They don’t defend their arguments like CS saying that “he doesn’t have time to look things up”. That is trollish behavior. I appreciate that you don’t completely agree with CS on this matter. And I assure you that my arguments are sincere as you detect.
Bluejay writes:
AlphaOmegakid does not entertain debate about the validity of the definitions he supports, insisting that to do so is only “equivocation” or “blurring the line.” And, apparently, he fails to note that definitions are inherently descriptive, and not prescriptive. When a definition is challenged, it is on the basis of real-world observations, which frequently defy discreet definitions; but, in the Kid’s mind, the definition is authoritative, and its integrity must be upheld because, once an experiment is run, every letter of the write-up enters into the holy canon of science.
You are right that I will defend definitions. Definitions in science are extremely important. Definitions in science are slow to change and difficult to change. And when they do change, they are usually backwards compatible. That’s why we have debate in science. Just because some scientists see “gray” areas in definitions, does not mean all scientists do. The people who see those “gray” areas must generate the observations worthy of changing the definitions. Then they must submit those redefinitions for peer review. Then those redefinitions must eventually become accepted by the scientific community. If they can’t then it is just equivocation of existing definitions. The article I cited on the redefinitions of “genes” is a good example. That has followed the scientific process. It would not be right to teach that genes are much more complicated than we originally thought, before we had the evidence to support the argument and the redefinition.
To redefine life today, and teach this stuff just because you and some others believe it to be true is not scientific in any way shape or form. That’s where the philosophical faith comes in. This is a highly debatable topic in the scientific community. It is not settled science, and it shouldn’t be taught as though it were. That’s why I am debating this topic, and I am constantly requesting the real scientific evidence. If anything has been lacking in this debate, it has been evidence that life can com form non-living chemicals.
Bluejay writes:
He argues that “life” is defined as a cellular entity that can metabolize and reproduce (not of itself an irrational statement). However, he has further asserted that “life” cannot arise from “non-life,” and has dismissed our attempts to hypothesize at possible transitional forms by simply asserting the definition of “life” as prohibitive of transitional forms. When a discussion arose about viruses and their possession of genes, he promptly equivocated on the definition of “gene,” failing, apparently, to note that, even if only some viruses had genes, it would still prove the point of the person who posted it.
I argue this definition of life, because that is the currently accepted and observed definition of life. I assert that “life” cannot arise from “non-life”, because that is what all the observations of life and non-living chemicals prove. That’s why it is a law of nature. If there are hypotheses of abiogenesis today, I have said they are unfalsifiable and therefore do not qualify as a hypothesis. If they rely on an environment that cannot be determined, and rely on millions of years, then they are unfalsifiable unless they can show observable repeatable evidence that nature could do such things in an environment. We haven’t observed any kind of chemical arrangement that has the capability of reproducing itself and metabolizing itself and passing on that genetic information to it’s offspring. The phenomenon doesn’t exist. The environment doesn’t exist. It is a faith that it once existed in the past.
Bluejay writes:
On another thread, he has followed a similar line of reasoning with the word “species,” again insisting that reproduction is the defining characteristic. Only, this time, he complained that the myriad of conflicting definitions of “species” is simply a tool employed by scientists to permit equivocation in defense of our theory, failing to note that scientific data does not revolve around definitions, but around data.
I’m not trying to be trollish here, but you just created an argument that is a tautology. I think you may have meant that “science” does not revolve around definitions, but around data. If that is your argument, I disagree.
wiki writes:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Science is as much about reasoning, definitions and logic as it is about data. Viruses and observable evidence about viruses is data. The rest is reasoning. Some equivocate the definition of life and reason that viruses are alive. I and many others don’t equivocate the definition of life and say they aren’t alive. It’s that simple. The data doesn’t change for either perspective. If viruses are alive, then why aren’t dead people or dead organisms alive. They have cellular walls, proteins DNA, RNA, catalysts, organelles ect. There is a definitive difference between something that is alive and something that isn’t. Alive things die. What is the difference? The difference is what defines life. And you don’t have to be a scientist to recognize this.
Actually most organisms consume some sort of dead tissue that once was living. Does that make a dead zebra a transitional form of a lion? No. Things are alive. And things are dead. The gray area only exists for those who equivocate without evidence to support a definition change.
Now Bluejay, you are much quicker at typing than I am. I am going to ask that you don’t respond until I have fully responded to your post. I should have this completed by tonight at the latest. You have been polite in this essay, and I hope you think I have as well. We disagree, but we can agreeably disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2008 3:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2008 10:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 312 (478456)
08-15-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 3:06 PM


Re: In Summation
And yes, I have been called a troll. But trolls don’t make legitimate arguments. They make one liner inflammatory comments like doku and often CS does. They don’t defend their arguments like CS saying that “he doesn’t have time to look things up”. That is trollish behavior. I appreciate that you don’t completely agree with CS on this matter. And I assure you that my arguments are sincere as you detect.
Okay, if you have been sincere then I'm sorry for calling you a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I realize that you not really a troll, you're just an idiot.
All the while you've been talking about abiogenesis, you've been talking about spontaneous generation. Meanwhile, your opponents have been talking about the current theories on abiogenesis (the emergence of life, itself, instead of living organisms).
I took your equivocation and conflation of the word abiogenesis to be diliberate trolling because I was assuming that you weren't that dumb.
Turns out, I was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 3:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 285 of 312 (478460)
08-15-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by New Cat's Eye
08-15-2008 3:18 PM


Fallacious Idiot
CS writes:
All the while you've been talking about abiogenesis, you've been talking about spontaneous generation. Meanwhile, your opponents have been talking about the current theories on abiogenesis (the emergence of life, itself, instead of living organisms).
Talk about idiots. People who believe that there are theories on abiogenesis are indeed idiots. They don't exist and you can't name one. It's like believing in fairies I guess. But of course, you do believe in the nature fairy of strong emergence.
wiki on emergence writes:
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)
Nothing like a little MAGIC thrown in with the emergence of "life itself".
So you admit that life is a "self". Sounds soulish to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2008 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2008 11:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024