Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 415 (484966)
10-03-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 11:43 AM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
I'm on to you now...
You seem to be really dishonest.
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.
Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life.
In a previous message you wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.
And I've seen you argue a similiar line of reasoning in a previous thread.
You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life. Then you use the Law of Biogenesis, which refuted Spontaneous Generation, to claim that Modern Abiogenesis has been refuted.
But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same. And there isn't necessarily some "point" at which non-life becomes life.
If you think there is, then tell me in the following pic:
Where does yellow end and green begin?
How about where red ends and violet begins?
Its the same for identifying this "point" where non-life becomes life that your whole argument relies on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 11:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 107 of 415 (485118)
10-05-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid
10-03-2008 5:16 PM


Hi, Kid.
As per my promise on the Birthday Thread...
AOkid writes:
From History, you need to understand that spontaneous generation was "mainstream science".
AOkid writes:
Now the two opposing theories are clearly identified in Huxley's address.
You get a two-fer: I agree with both of these. Happy birthday!!
-----
AOkid writes:
Great ! Come to papa!
...Great! you took your first step!
...Halelujah! He took his second step!
...Mama! He just face planted. Poor thing, now let me help you back to your baby feet. If you had listened to papa...
You're an arrogant dick.
-----
AOkid writes:
The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature.
So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?
Edited by Bluejay, : I only really needed to insult him once. Sorry, AOkid.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-03-2008 5:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 10:30 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 11:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 108 of 415 (485194)
10-06-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2008 5:44 PM


Welcome back CS. I've missed you
Stop equivocating.
I'm not, you are.
In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms.
wiki writes:
In Biology, an organism is a living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism).
Is there any other kind of organism? This is not equivocation, this is the definitionof life and organisms.
Modern abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms. It is about the emergence of life, itself.
This whole sentence is nothing but illogical purposeful equivocation.
"Abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms." This is an outright lie.
wiki writes:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of a fully functioning living organism. If it isn't fully functioning, then it isn't alive.
"It is about the emergence of life, itself." And what is life itself? It is a fully funtioning living organism that can metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. Anything less, and you don't have life. I'm not the one equivocating, it is obviously you who is.
And who were these "many scientists"? Were they anything at all like scientists today?
In most cases they were scientists exactly like todays scientists. They were men seeking for naturalistic answers to questions about the world around them. The only difference I see is that they were men of honor, who did not devalue science with equivocating terms like you do.
If "life itself" is anything other than a simple living organism, then please bring forth evidence of this or drop this silly argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 109 of 415 (485203)
10-06-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
I'm on to you now...
You seem to be really dishonest.
Then point out what I am saying that is dishonest, and quit making these false accusations.
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.
Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life.
In a previous message you wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.
Yes these are my exact words and reasoning, and there is nothing dishonest here.
You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life.
No I don't think this, I know this. This is the definition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with origin of life.
wiki writes:
Origin refers to the beginning, starting-point, cause, or ultimate source, from which a thing is derived.
There is a beginning to life. There is a starting-point of life. There is an ultimate source, from which life is derived. There is a cause of life. That is what abiogenesis is attempting to discover.
Then you use the Law of Biogenesis, which refuted Spontaneous Generation, to claim that Modern Abiogenesis has been refuted.
Nope. The LOB did not refute SG. Individual experiments did. The LoB was recognized to be a universal truth of nature over many years. It is a descriptive law of how nature works today and in the past, and in the future. All life comes from pre-existing life.
The beauty of this is that germ theory relies on the LoB. Evolution relies on the LoB. Every biological process relies on the LoB.
But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same.
If I am wrong then please demonstrate how any single chemical reaction and self organizational event thoughout this supposed emergence process is not spontaneously generated. All of these events are spontaneously generated. There were many forms of spontaneous generation in the past. There are many forms of spontaneous generation in the future. What is the difference? There is none. At the foundation, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis was that life could come from non-living matter. Modern abiogenesis is life can come from non-living matter. There is no distinguishable difference except modern abiogenesis invokes the magic of untestability. The magic of millions of years.
If you think there is, then tell me in the following pic:
Where does yellow end and green begin?
At 570 nm wavelength.
How about where red ends and violet begins?
They are not contiguous. Red is 625-740 nm wavelength. Violet is 380-450nm wavelenth.
Its the same for identifying this "point" where non-life becomes life that your whole argument relies on.
This is a fallacy of false analogy. The reason is, you forgot one color. Black. Black is the absence of light. Now your analogy can work properly. Black represents non-living chemicals. Red thru violet represents living chemicals. Red thru violet requires a non-material energy carrying fundamental element. Black does not have that non-material energy carying fundamental element. The non-material energy carrying fundamental element is the dividing line between black and all other colors. The LoB suggests that there may indeed be a non-material entity that divides life from non-life.
Physics can recognize non-material entities. Why can't Biology? All of the non-material fundamentals of physics are a part of life. What prevents one or two more from being discovered. Maybe we will call it the "spiriton"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2008 12:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 122 by bluescat48, posted 10-10-2008 12:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 110 of 415 (485206)
10-06-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Blue Jay
10-05-2008 9:31 AM


You're an arrogant dick.
I guess you and the moderators think that the above statements are representative of mature, intellectual, honest discuusion. Onifre previously invoked the "silly goose*" comments. So all I did was go with his metaphor of "baby steps". I think it was quite appropriate. I used no ad hominen attack. But I used his metaphor to destroy his argument.
That is effective debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 10-05-2008 9:31 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 5:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

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


Message 111 of 415 (485210)
10-06-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Blue Jay
10-05-2008 9:31 AM


AOkid writes:
The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature.
So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?
And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 10-05-2008 9:31 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 3:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 121 by DC85, posted 10-09-2008 10:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 415 (485218)
10-06-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 10:07 AM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
I'll combine the response for the last two posts.
From Message 108
In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms.
wiki writes:
In Biology, an organism is a living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism).
Is there any other kind of organism?
Yes and no.
Bacteriophage and ribozymes come to mind. These don't technically classify as "organisms" because as wiki puts it:
quote:
Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are incapable of "independent" reproduction or metabolism. This controversy is problematic, though, since some parasites and endosymbionts are also incapable of independent life.
Take a look at endosymbionts to see how this classification is problematic.
So to answer your question, no there are no other kind of organisms, but that is due to the flawed definition of what an organism is. So yeah, there are other "things" that could be considered as "life" in the the pathway from non-living to living that don't fit the definition of "organisms".
If it isn't fully functioning, then it isn't alive.
So endosymbionts are not alive?
You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases.
And what is life itself? It is a fully funtioning living organism that can metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. Anything less, and you don't have life.
Clearly this is not true. Endosymbionts are not fully functioning because they are not capable of independent reproduction yet they are alive.
From Message 109
I'm on to you now...
You seem to be really dishonest.
Then point out what I am saying that is dishonest, and quit making these false accusations.
That's what I did right after that line right here:
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.
Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life.
In a previous message you wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.
You're creating a false dichotomy and then claiming that the arguments that expose it are strawmen.
Yes these are my exact words and reasoning, and there is nothing dishonest here.
You claim that at one moment they're chemicals and the next moment they're life and that something is either life or non-life with nothing in between but also claim that its a strawman to say that your argument is that there's some point where life emerged.
You're also dishonest because instead of trying to understand what current models of abiogenesis actually do say, you're trying to pigeon hole them into something less so that you can claim that they're not possible. This way, you don't have to give up your preferred worldview that has life as some magical thing that you either are or aren't that cannot arrise on its own so therefore god must have done it (I presume*)
You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life.
No I don't think this, I know this. This is the definition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with origin of life.
But the current models on abiogenesis do not rely on some "point" where life becomes non-life. Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario.
The ribozymes that I linked to above fall into this grey area. Autocatalysis is one of the steps that needs to be taken on the path (as opposed to a point) from non-life to life.
The LoB was recognized to be a universal truth of nature over many years. It is a descriptive law of how nature works today and in the past, and in the future. All life comes from pre-existing life.
The beauty of this is that germ theory relies on the LoB. Evolution relies on the LoB. Every biological process relies on the LoB.
Funny that Biology classes don't mention the LoB then.....
Its because those theories don't "rely" on the LoB in the way your making it out to seem. Evolution relies on fully functioning organisms not spontaneously generating in a population, but it does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
Stop equivocating please.
But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same.
If I am wrong then please demonstrate how any single chemical reaction and self organizational event thoughout this supposed emergence process is not spontaneously generated.
More equivocation
Sontaneous Generation is a specific theory on how fully functioning organisms arrise (like maggots comming from rotting meat).
To generate something spontaneously just means that it happens on its own, which is important to Modern Abiogenesis (as shown above with autocatalysis). But this is different from Spontaneous Generation the theory.
There were many forms of spontaneous generation in the past. There are many forms of spontaneous generation in the future. What is the difference? There is none. At the foundation, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis was that life could come from non-living matter. Modern abiogenesis is life can come from non-living matter. There is no distinguishable difference except modern abiogenesis invokes the magic of untestability.
Wrong.
Spontaneous Gerenation deals with the emergence of fully function living organisms while Abiogenesis does not. Abiogenesis deals with the emergence of "life" along a pathway where there is no "point" where it becomes fully functioning.
Where does yellow end and green begin?
At 570 nm wavelength.
569 nm wavelength is not definately green.
How about where red ends and violet begins?
They are not contiguous. Red is 625-740 nm wavelength. Violet is 380-450nm wavelenth.
In the same way, Modern Abiogenesis proposes that life and non-life are not contiguous and that there is a grey area between them where some things are "sorta" alive. I have given examples of these things above.
Now, whether or not Modern Abiogenesis is accurate, you are falsely claiming that Modern Abiogenesis relies on a dichotomy between life and non-life. That is your biggest misunderstanding.
But the reason I really think your dishonest is because I don't think that you don't understand this. I think that you want Modern Abiogenesis to rely on this so you can use the LoB to argue against it. You keep trying to show that Modern Abiogenesis does rely on the dichotomy.
The LoB suggests that there may indeed be a non-material entity that divides life from non-life.
And this exposes the motive for you dishonesty.
Your woldview relies on life being this magical thing that is seperate from chemistry. If Modern Abiogenesis becomes accurate and it is shown that there is nothing magical about life, that there is no non-material entity that divides life from non-life, then the philosophy that you have built on this shaky foundation will come crumbling down.
*presumption fullfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 113 of 415 (485233)
10-06-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
09-26-2008 6:31 PM


Eternally young life.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Biogenesis is all living matter comes from pre-existing living matter. Biogenesis is bacteria come from bacteria. Biogenesis is maggots come from flies. Biogenesis is dogs come from dogs. Biogenesis is tulips come from tulip bulbs. Biogenesis is corn comes from corn seeds.
The law of biogenesis sums up the observation that all contemporary life forms that we've examined come from other life forms.
"Life always comes from life", so far as we know, or as Wiki puts it:
quote:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia My bold.
The egg part was literally wrong, of course, but the principle still holds.
The assertion that "life always came from life" is a completely different one, and requires an eternal universe which is always in a state that could support life. This is in complete contradiction to all contemporary cosmological models, which show that life could not have existed in the early universe, meaning that some kind of abiogenesis must have taken place somewhere.
The attempt by young earth creationists to use an eternal life argument based, presumably, on a lack of understanding of the tenses of the verb "to come" is hilarious. Life is both young and eternal, apparently.
Edited by bluegenes, : wrong word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-26-2008 6:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 114 of 415 (485241)
10-06-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 11:17 AM


Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?
And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?
I didn't say anything about eggs or China.
How come my birds-in-a-cage example is irrelevant, yet an experiment of a parallel design falsifies abiogenesis?
From now on, whenever you bring up Pasteur, I'll just reply with the same line: "What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?"
It fits just as well.
-----
AOkid writes:
I used no ad hominen attack. But I used his [baby steps] metaphor to destroy his argument.
No, you used his baby steps analogy to insult him. There was no connection between the baby steps analogy and the argument you were making, so it was a pointless addition by you to get in a cheap shot at Onifre. This is probably why the moderators don't step in when other people insult you.
Besides, I didn't complain about an ad hominem: I complained about your arrogance. Stop arguing strawmen.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 11:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 115 of 415 (485261)
10-06-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2008 12:10 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
So to answer your question, no there are no other kind of organisms, but that is due to the flawed definition of what an organism is. So yeah, there are other "things" that could be considered as "life" in the the pathway from non-living to living that don't fit the definition of "organisms".
CS, these definitions are not problematic. Think about it for a moment. What if some chemical/evolutionary pathway was able to construct a virus, bacteriophage, or any of a number of endosymbionts. They would have a relatively short existance(due to the 2nd law of TD), because these things don't metabolize and reproduce without the higher life form, the host organism. Any obligate parasite, which there are many, cannot be the origin of life. Life must be a higher complexity than these. Parasites must come after life already exists. It is a chicken and the egg problem for abiogenesis.
So endosymbionts are not alive?
All endosymbionts , and viruses, inside their host organism are indeed alive. All life comes from pre-existing life. They get their life from the host. It is in complete agreement with the LoB.
Viruses and obligate endosymbionts are inorganic non-living matter outside their host organisms.
Not all endosymbionts are obligate parasites and can live outside of a host organism. They are alive.
You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases.
Then you can't have Biology and organic chemistry. There are good definitions of life. Each Biology book has them.
wiki writes:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction.
Now admittedly, there are many more attributes of life. But all scientists agree that you must have at least a metabolic stytem and a reproduction system for the chemicals to be alive. That's why you have "metabolism first" hypotheses within abiogenesis and "RNA/DNA first" hypotheses. Origin of life studies know they must have both at a minimum.
You're creating a false dichotomy and then claiming that the arguments that expose it are strawmen.
No Im not, and this exposes how little you actually know about life and this subject. When a single cell divides there are a gazillion chemical reactions and self organizing steps happening in a given moment of time. Before the moment you had one cell. After the moment, you have two cells. No single reaction created the second cell. It was a multitude of reactions and events all taking place at roughly the same time.
I suspect, that if abiogenesis is even possible that there will be similar events taking place. Self replication is not just a single chemical reaction. It's many. So is metabolism. But there will be a definable moment in time where at one point there was no metabolism and reproduction, and after that point there is metabolism and reproduction. The number of chemical reactions and self organizing events is irrelevant. The moment is not. Origin is a moment, a definable moment.
You claim that at one moment they're chemicals and the next moment they're life and that something is either life or non-life with nothing in between but also claim that its a strawman to say that your argument is that there's some point where life emerged.
It is not a strawman that there is a point where life is created. That is substance of my argument. It is the origin of life. It is a strawman, that one single reaction creates that moment.
You're also dishonest because instead of trying to understand what current models of abiogenesis actually do say, you're trying to pigeon hole them into something less so that you can claim that they're not possible.
You are dishonest by constructing this strawman. I have never said that abiogenesis was not possible (in any thread). And I do understand these theories rather well. They all use equivocation of terms thoughout.
This way, you don't have to give up your preferred worldview that has life as some magical thing that you either are or aren't that cannot arrise on its own so therefore god must have done it (I presume*)
My world view would never invoke magic. However yours does. It invokes millions of untestable millions of years of strong emergence. Scientists have declared that as being magical.
quote:
Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:
"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)
But the current models on abiogenesis do not rely on some "point" where life becomes non-life.
You can't have the study of the origin of life and not have a point at which life is created. Your whole argument is an equivocation on the word "origin." The geological record suggests an origin of life. That is a point or moment.
Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario.
No actually, they do realize this boundary and it is demonstrated in their "metabolism first" and "replication first" models. They know they need both to have life. That does not constitute a "grey area". The "grey area" is just equivocation on the definition of life. This equivocation keeps the funds rolling in. It's called job security.
The ribozymes that I linked to above fall into this grey area. Autocatalysis is one of the steps that needs to be taken on the path (as opposed to a point) from non-life to life.
Ribozymes are not alive. No scientist worth his salt would even indicate that this was anywhere close to life. If your goal is to stand on a roof. The origin of completion of that goal is when you place both feet on the roof. When you start clibing the ladder, you are in between the roof and the ground. This "grey area" just means that you aren't on the roof. Every step could be defined as a grey area, but you still haven't reached the goal until both feet are on the roof. To say that each step is "pre-roof stepping" is just riddiculous. So is calling something "pre-life".
Funny that Biology classes don't mention the LoB then.....
Not funny. Extremely sad. A travesty of science. The LoB is probably the most easily observable truths that can be demonstrated in any school labratory.
Its because those theories don't "rely" on the LoB in the way your making it out to seem. Evolution relies on fully functioning organisms not spontaneously generating in a population, but it does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
So do you think that bacteria from the air growing in a soup aren't spontaneously generating? They are. They just aren't spontaneously generating from the soup. Do you think maggots don't spontaneously generate? They do. They just don't generate from the dead flesh. Do you think that cell division and conception are not spontaneously generated? They are. They just don't come from chemicals. All of these spontaneous generations come fom pre-existing life. The question is where does life come from? The answer is from pre-existing life and not any other chemical arrangement. That was the hypothesis of Biogenesis which became the LoB.
It is you and others who equivocate the definition of spontaneous generation. "Spontaneous generation" was not disproved, spontaneous generation from pre-existing chemical arrangements was disproved by many experiments. And that hypothesis was abiogenesis.
You stop equivocating.
Evolution does rely on fully functioning organisms spontaneously generating. It doesn't rely on them spontaneously generating from anything other than pr-existing life. The LoB.
evolution... does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
You'll have to tanslate this one for me. If you are trying to say that evolution is not dependant on the origin of life, then fine. I agree. But the origin of life is dependant on evolution.
I'll finish the rest later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2008 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2008 10:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 415 (485264)
10-06-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 10:30 AM


AOKid writes:
Onifre previously invoked the "silly goose*" comments. So all I did was go with his metaphor of "baby steps". I think it was quite appropriate. I
Mines was funny and creative...yours lacked a bit. But, if it helps it was not at all inappropriate...just hacky.
AOKid writes:
And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Here again...very lame.
But I used his metaphor to destroy his argument.
The only thing you destroyed was comedic timing...
*To moderators: Sorry for the off topipc reply. But seriously, I can't watch comedy tragically die at the hands of the wickedly lame.
Edited by onifre, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 10:30 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 5:41 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 117 of 415 (485270)
10-06-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by onifre
10-06-2008 5:07 PM


onifre writes:
Mines was funny and creative...yours lacked a bit. But, if it helps it was not at all inappropriate...just hacky.
Here again...very lame.
The only thing you destroyed was comedic timing...
I see. So you have chosen not to try and defend your position. Instead you make off topic jokes. Wise decision. You are learning.

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 5:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 6:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 415 (485274)
10-06-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 5:41 PM


AOKid writes:
So you have chosen not to try and defend your position.
No, I think those who you are currently debating are arguing in much the same fashion as I have, and expressing the same points too.
You simply have a concept about the emergence of 'life' that is very black and white. You do not debate with honor and you do not concede to move the topic further when it is warrented, you simply argue just to argue. I am not going to waste time on debates like that.
I defended my position quite well,(not being a Biology major). I presented my side of the argument and presented a citation that gave clear examples of what was considered spontaneous generation, the exact conditions that were thought to spontaneously generate life, and it showed exactly how it was disproven. You simply said "thats not true". You showed no citations about abiogenesis being SCIENTIFICALLY defined as spontaneous generation, you just keep giving us YOUR definition of abiogenesis. You are a troll that quotes creationist websites and tries to learn by arguing outside of your level of comprehension, in the meer hopes that you can eventually muster up enough of an argument to sound semi-intelligent. You do not impress anyone. And most importantly, you are not funny...I think that is the real reason I have chosen to ignore your position.
Instead you make off topic jokes. Wise decision. You are learning
Your entire position on abiogenesis is an off topic joke.
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"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 117 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 5:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2008 10:30 AM onifre has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 415 (485319)
10-07-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
10-06-2008 6:12 PM


You do not debate with honor and you do not concede to move the topic further when it is warrented, you simply argue just to argue. I am not going to waste time on debates like that.
I concur but I'm simply arguing to waste time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 6:12 PM onifre has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 415 (485320)
10-07-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid
10-06-2008 4:54 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases.
Then you can't have Biology and organic chemistry. There are good definitions of life. Each Biology book has them.
This is false.
I know someone who is taking Biology 111 at an accredited university right now.
In the beginnning of Chapter 2 section 1: What is Life? it says right up front: "There is no good definition of life".
Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario.
No actually, they do realize this boundary and it is demonstrated in their "metabolism first" and "replication first" models.
That their models propose one before the other shows that there is a grey area. Things that replicate only and/or things that metabolize only are the things that are "semi" alive.
evolution... does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
You'll have to tanslate this one for me.
Evolution doesn't rely on Spontaneous Generation in the sense that you're using it to say that Abiogenesis couldn't have happened.
The rest of your replies boil down to: "Nuh-uh!" or are unsupported assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 4:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024