Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 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 241 of 415 (503414)
03-18-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 4:31 PM


Re: Strike two
I see your point but I also think there is a connection and have a sneaking feeling that you're trying to avoid it so I'll phrase the question to you.
Well, you're wrong that I'm trying to avoid something. What even makes you say that? Because I don't agree with you?
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
Not enough information....
All life that is currently alive on Earth began from other life, yes.
But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 4:31 PM alaninnont has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 242 of 415 (503415)
03-18-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 4:31 PM


Tense counts
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
We don't know for sure but I'd guess that there is a high probability that today with current conditions this is true. Close enough to 100 % that we can call it 'fact' in fact.
You did use "begins" that makes all the difference. As pointed out by others it is clear, whatever you believe, that this can not have held true for all time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 4:31 PM alaninnont has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 415 (503417)
03-18-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Taq
03-18-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Strike two
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
Given the finite history of our universe it is impossible for all life to have come from other life, and this includes the Earth. So I would have to disagree.
If panspermia is correct then all the life [i]on earth[i/] began from existing life. It just pushes the transition from chemistry to biology off of the planet but the point stands. Although, I'm not seeing a reason for making htat point in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 03-18-2009 4:53 PM Taq has not replied

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 244 of 415 (503433)
03-18-2009 8:29 PM


But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life.
This has probably been discussed other places and I may get my fingers slapped for going off topic but I'm new to the forum and just rummaging around these issues so .... What is the evidence you relied on for this belief?
As pointed out by others it is clear, whatever you believe, that this can not have held true for all time.
Yeah Canada. Go Leafs!! Agreed. All scientific theories are provisional but when there is a theory that has stood for 150 years, it does not seem logical to say that it may be wrong and so I'll support a different theory instead.

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 11:10 AM alaninnont has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 415 (503464)
03-19-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by alaninnont
03-18-2009 8:29 PM


Its better to use the little green reply button at the bottom right of someones post rather than the general reply because people will know who you're replying to and the discussion will be easier to follow. Plus, the board lets me know when I have replies waiting if you actually reply to me rather than generally.
But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life.
This has probably been discussed other places and I may get my fingers slapped for going off topic but I'm new to the forum and just rummaging around these issues so .... What is the evidence you relied on for this belief?
The science behind the current theories of abiogenesis. You can start reading up on them here.
All scientific theories are provisional but when there is a theory that has stood for 150 years, it does not seem logical to say that it may be wrong and so I'll support a different theory instead.
People don't support a new theory just because they think the old one is wrong. They support it because that's what the evidence suggests. Besides that the length of time a theory has stood doesn't really have anything to do with its veracity. How long did people think that spirits caused disease before the Germ Theory of Disease came out? Germ Theory too was very controversial when it came out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by alaninnont, posted 03-18-2009 8:29 PM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by alaninnont, posted 03-19-2009 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 246 of 415 (503511)
03-19-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 11:10 AM


Thanks. If you don't mind me asking, which of the models listed do you think is correct and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5224 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 247 of 415 (503996)
03-23-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by lyx2no
02-16-2009 3:00 AM


Re: You are Easily Confused
For the umpteenth time, NO!
---------------------------------------
Due to the reasons well known to you.
---------------------------------------
I say you're wrong because "spontaneous generation" has a meaning that you are ignoring for reasons known only to you, which introduces nothing but confusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not.The real meaning meaning of spontaneous genaration is life came from non life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd enjoy very much if you made a point
---------------------------------------------
I made a lot of point,but you din't enjoy it.
---------------------------------------------
I live to gain new understanding
------------
Well,fine.
------------
Matter of fact, if I ever make lots of money on some kind of block buster invention I'll leave the money to a foundation in my will that grants an annual prize to the best scientific discoveries in half a dozen disciplines. But they'll have to do better then a PRATT
First,of all I dont see any idiot invented things,secondly invention requires large dollop of complex intelligence,your idiotness in mathemathics show that the things you dreamed of is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 3:00 AM lyx2no has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5224 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 248 of 415 (503998)
03-23-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by lyx2no
02-16-2009 4:52 PM


Ah! you misunderstand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.The thing that cave diver found inconslstency of your grammar is a good hint that your own is not exemplary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As,I pointed out you do a good job if you a good job if you trot out
yourself first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by traste, : wrong spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 4:52 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by lyx2no, posted 03-24-2009 5:12 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5224 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 249 of 415 (504002)
03-23-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Wounded King
02-10-2009 11:25 AM


Re; Pasteur showed that. life came from life
Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of,course I can,Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterelized water protected from contamination.The message of Pasteur's experiment is so loud and clear that you and your co supporters keep on getting around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you further make a clear argument showing how those experiments disproved the possibility of abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth through chemical evolution?
Abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration implies the same thing.You and your co supporters keep on running around around due to the reason well known to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment you seem to be taking a set of experiments with very specific goals and applying their results to something almost completely unrelated except by semantics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think should I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2009 11:25 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Wounded King, posted 03-30-2009 11:58 AM traste has replied
 Message 259 by Brad McFall, posted 04-06-2009 9:20 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5224 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 250 of 415 (504005)
03-24-2009 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Coyote
02-14-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Conclusions
What the on-line lecture I referred you to upthread shows is that genetic systems can come about naturally, no deities needed.
Do you have any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they are program to do that,like the computer it was program to do something.If,say you that those organanization just happened,that means you are losing your head.hahahahaha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any specific arguments against that, or are you just going to continue preaching?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I,ve already give alot of arguments taht you and your co supporters keep ,on ignoring for reasons.In,fact I can provide some 400 references that debunked evolution,ironically some of those reference are come from proponents of evolution.If you asked me why I did not share there conclusion,it's because I dont like to share there logical inconsistency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 6:42 AM Coyote has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 5011 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 251 of 415 (504009)
03-24-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-04-2004 5:19 PM


sidelined writes:
Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for suoernatural intervention?
for the same reason that we cannot bring the dead back to life
Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?
Life is more then just chemical elements, environment and physics.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2004 5:19 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2009 10:41 AM Peg has replied
 Message 258 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-30-2009 11:03 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 263 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 4:44 AM Peg has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 252 of 415 (504112)
03-24-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by traste
03-23-2009 10:58 PM


Is "traste" the Bulgarian Word for Lame-o?
Snappy comebacks sort of lose their snap eventually. Let me see, March 23 minus February 16 that's Ok 28 days in February; so, 28-16=12, and 12+23=35 Ok So, if I got the math right, you're, like, 39 days past the best if used by date.
And that's still not as lame as your "Pasteur disproved abiogenesis" argument.
Edited by lyx2no, : Had to correct some less then exemplarily English.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 10:58 PM traste has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by cavediver, posted 03-25-2009 2:57 AM lyx2no has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3725 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 253 of 415 (504187)
03-25-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by lyx2no
03-24-2009 5:12 PM


Re: Is "traste" the Bulgarian Word for Lame-o?
Edited by lyx2no, 03-24-2009 10:13 PM: Had to correct some less then exemplarily English.
I particularly like the deliberate misuse of "then" instead of "than"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by lyx2no, posted 03-24-2009 5:12 PM lyx2no has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5224 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 254 of 415 (504519)
03-30-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by lyx2no
02-16-2009 2:02 AM


Re: A Passel of PRATTS
Not everyone is a uninformed as you are. You offer no insite here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The right thing to say is not everybody as informed as me.I did not mean insite,but I mean insight,you are good in twisting things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your list has been so often repeated and refuted the acronym PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand TimeS)has been applied to them
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In your dreams.I don't see any experiment refute that thing.Also your arguments bear the acronym PRABTS(POINT REFUTED A BILLION TIMES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah! And a mechanic in a shop and a tornado in a junk yard have the same odds of putting together an engine by your math
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah,you make a point here.An engine formed by blind force is ridicoulousssss!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 2:02 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by lyx2no, posted 03-30-2009 5:07 PM traste has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 255 of 415 (504528)
03-30-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Peg
03-24-2009 12:07 AM


Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?
Because it is impossible to miraculously breath life into non-living things, since the necessary condition for life is a set of chemical interactions, not miracle breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 12:07 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 7:41 AM Dr Adequate 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