Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
154 online now:
caffeine, Faith, PaulK (3 members, 151 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,042 Year: 2,790/23,288 Month: 981/1,809 Week: 100/313 Day: 17/39 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 286 of 415 (513496)
06-29-2009 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Peg
06-29-2009 7:41 AM


Interactions
Aah Peg,

You're ignoring the key word. Take another look.

Dr Adequate writes:

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.

Interactions, yes? The chemicals may or may not be present (and I have a strong feeling that many chemicals start to break down immediately after death), but the processes by which they interact are no longer functioning.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 7:41 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 9:41 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 327 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 9:42 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 287 of 415 (513553)
06-29-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Granny Magda
06-29-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Interactions
grannymagda writes:

Interactions, yes? The chemicals may or may not be present (and I have a strong feeling that many chemicals start to break down immediately after death), but the processes by which they interact are no longer functioning.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to life

life is obviously much more complicated then a chance chemical reaction...to believe otherwise is to believe contrary to observable facts such as that which you have stated here.

Abiogenesis is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 06-29-2009 7:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Rahvin, posted 06-29-2009 9:45 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 289 by bluescat48, posted 06-29-2009 11:20 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:06 AM Peg has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 288 of 415 (513554)
06-29-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Peg
06-29-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Interactions
its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to life

life is obviously much more complicated then a chance chemical reaction...to believe otherwise is to believe contrary to observable facts such as that which you have stated here.

Abiogenesis is impossible.

Argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you cannot see how it may be possible does not make it impossible.

To disprove abiogenesis as a possibility, you must provide a mechanism that prevents nonliving chemicals from arranging themselves into a living thing, or you must explore every single possible chemical pathway and eliminate all of them as routes to life.

You have done neither. Abiogenesis remains an unproven possibility, with ongoing research that has so far yielded promising results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 9:41 PM Peg has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2606 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 289 of 415 (513558)
06-29-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Peg
06-29-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Interactions
life is obviously much more complicated then a chance chemical reaction

Except it is not a chance chemical reaction. Most chemical substances only combine in a small number of ways.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 9:41 PM Peg has not yet responded

RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 3768 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 290 of 415 (513795)
07-01-2009 5:05 PM


Peg writes:

Abiogenesis is impossible.

Rahvin writes:

Argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you cannot see how it may be possible does not make it impossible.

If he would of said its nearly impossible it would not be a invalid argument or fallacy. Abiogenesis is a rather silly concept it seems similar to spontaneous generation.I think in the distant past while in school I did read that it was somehow connected to sg. Wonderful. GIDdidit seems just as credible. GID=God the intelligent designer.

; {>

ps I have my anti god word filtering software software on, it helps me stay calm, but some replies are almost all blanks... hee hee....

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:11 PM RevCrossHugger has responded
 Message 293 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-01-2009 5:19 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

Perdition
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 291 of 415 (513797)
07-01-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by RevCrossHugger
07-01-2009 5:05 PM


If he would of said its nearly impossible it would not be a invalid argument or fallacy.

It is if he doesn't have any numbers to back it up. Considering the amount of organic material found in space, the odds of a chemical reaction taking place that leads to a self-replicating molecule, given a long enough time and large enough area, makes the probability more and more likely. It may even be inevitable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:05 PM RevCrossHugger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:14 PM Perdition has responded

RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 3768 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 292 of 415 (513799)
07-01-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Perdition
07-01-2009 5:11 PM


It is if he doesn't have any numbers to back it up. Considering the amount of organic material found in space, the odds of a chemical reaction taking place that leads to a self-replicating molecule, given a long enough time and large enough area, makes the probability more and more likely. It may even be inevitable

I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

; {>

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:11 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Theodoric, posted 07-01-2009 5:24 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:25 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded
 Message 296 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-02-2009 7:52 AM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 293 of 415 (513800)
07-01-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by RevCrossHugger
07-01-2009 5:05 PM


Automatic
I tend to adhere to the idea that abiogenesis is automatic. That is to say it happens automatically almost without exception, given the prerequisite conditions. I consider people that cannot accept the idea of abiogenesis cognitively dissonant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:05 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7042
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 294 of 415 (513803)
07-01-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by RevCrossHugger
07-01-2009 5:14 PM


Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...

Very limited??

15 billion years is very limited?

Wow. Faith just lets you not accept anything you don't understand or can't conceive.

This is called Argument from Incredulity. A logical fallacy.

Dr Adequate has a good explanation on SkepticWiki

Argument from Incredulity -

quote:
an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:14 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

Perdition
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 295 of 415 (513804)
07-01-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by RevCrossHugger
07-01-2009 5:14 PM


I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

That's the wrong way to look at it. You've got 14 billion years, billions of planets, blillions of points on each planet, and billions of molecules interacting at each point. That's billions upon billions upon billions of chances for a self-replicating reaction to take place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:14 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 12:41 AM Perdition has not yet responded
 Message 298 by Peg, posted 07-03-2009 10:03 AM Perdition has responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 296 of 415 (513854)
07-02-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by RevCrossHugger
07-01-2009 5:14 PM


RevCrossHugger writes:

I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

Rev,

I would have concur to w/ Perdition that given the number of galaxies in the known, observable universe(not counting the possibility of nearly an infinite # of multiple-universes) (approx 1011- 1012 galaxies) with the averaged number of stars in each galaxies (1011 to 1012) for a grand total of 1022-24 stars (that is approx 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe). If we averaged that there are 3 planets around each star (some stars have no planets, some have many more than 3) than this would figure to be approx 3021 planets in the universe. Estimates with the 300+ known extasolar planets we have discovered within the past decade are that nearly half of them could be condusive at some point in the main sequence evolution of the star. Even if we are ultra-conservitive and say only 1/4 of these solar systems have 1 planet that could have at one point in its history have potentially harbored life. Considering that the universe is approx 15 billion years old, the average size of the planet is the size of the earth and with over 221 potentially life-habitable planets, is life really unique only to Earth? Or is this just a form of anthropocentrism.

BTW, I went to college near Elizabethton, TN. Very beautiful place to live. My wife and I just spent time up there at a B&B on the other side of the mountains in Boone earlier this year (she's from Hickory, NC).

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-01-2009 5:14 PM RevCrossHugger has not yet responded

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 415 (513975)
07-03-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Perdition
07-01-2009 5:25 PM


quote:

Posts: 396
From: Wisconsin
Registered: 05-15-2003

Message 295 of 296 07-01-2009 04:25 PM
I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

That's the wrong way to look at it. You've got 14 billion years, billions of planets, blillions of points on each planet, and billions of molecules interacting at each point. That's billions upon billions upon billions of chances for a self-replicating reaction to take place.


Actually the numbers you have are way too low. Consider that one mole of a substance has a number of molecules equal to 6.02X10^23. And moles of the substance would probably be at most in the hundreds of grams, so you are talking about absolutely massive amounts of molecules all combining and recombining for billions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 298 of 415 (514048)
07-03-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Perdition
07-01-2009 5:25 PM


perdition writes:

That's the wrong way to look at it. You've got 14 billion years, billions of planets, blillions of points on each planet, and billions of molecules interacting at each point. That's billions upon billions upon billions of chances for a self-replicating reaction to take place.

and in all those billions of places and possibilities, only 1 spot produced life?

spontaneous generation/abiogenesis was demolished by Pasteur's experiments a long time ago. It certainly does not occur in our world today, and you would think that if anything, the probablility of it occuring in a world full of life and with all the right conditons, it would happen. They cant even replicate it in the lab under controlled conditions.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by bluescat48, posted 07-03-2009 12:33 PM Peg has responded
 Message 306 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 10:30 PM Peg has responded
 Message 307 by subbie, posted 07-03-2009 10:34 PM Peg has responded
 Message 348 by Perdition, posted 07-06-2009 1:57 PM Peg has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 299 of 415 (514049)
07-03-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Peg
06-29-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Interactions
I missed this first time round,

quote:
its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to life

Except that you cited the fact that dead things don't spontaneously spring back to life as proof that life could not start unaided in the first place. This is like suggesting that if a certain chemicals fail to react in one circumstance, they must fail in all circumstances, whatever the conditions. This is clearly a false premise.

No-one is suggesting that the conditions for the first life were anything like the conditions inside a dead human body, so you are wasting your time with this false comparison.


quote:
spontaneous generation/abiogenesis was demolished by Pasteur's experiments a long time ago.

No it was not. Pasteur didn't take early Earth conditions into account in his experiments. He didn't do this because he was not investigating abiogenesis.

You can't compare the conditions for early life with a bit of meat in a jar. You are conflating two different phenomena.

quote:
It certainly does not occur in our world today, and you would think that if anything, the probablility of it occuring in a world full of life and with all the right conditons, it would happen.

No, you would think the opposite. Primitive life would have no toehold on a world already crowded with much more advanced organisms. You can't compare early conditions for life with a modern Earth with wildly differing chemistry and a super-abundance of highly evolved competition in the form of more advanced life.

None of your points address the fact that Earth at the time when abiogenesis is theorised to have taken place was a very different place. There is no reason why we should expect a dead body, a bit of meat in a jar or any part of the modern earth to replicate the process.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Expanded post.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 9:41 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Peg, posted 07-03-2009 10:12 AM Granny Magda has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 300 of 415 (514050)
07-03-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Granny Magda
07-03-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Interactions
Granny Magda writes:

Except that you cited the fact that dead things don't spontaneously spring back to life as proof that life could not start unaided in the first place. This is like suggesting that if a certain chemicals fail to react in one circumstance, they must fail in all circumstances, whatever the conditions. This is clearly a false premise.

yes your right, thats a good pick up.

I guess i used this example because the dead thing contains all the chemicals required for life...but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.

If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????

What kept them interacting throughout the creatures life?

It creates more questions then it answers.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:06 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:32 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 303 by Taz, posted 07-03-2009 1:33 PM Peg has responded
 Message 304 by Blue Jay, posted 07-03-2009 5:42 PM Peg has responded
 Message 308 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 10:38 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020