Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:02 AM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,905 Year: 8,941/19,786 Month: 1,363/2,119 Week: 123/576 Day: 24/99 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 76 of 297 (544102)
01-23-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


marc9000 writes:

But I see this forum has one thing that I've seen so much of before, one poster that seems to gauge his success on how quickly he can bully someone out - make someone who disagrees with him stop posting.

Such behavior is discouraged here at EvC Forum, but moderators can't read everything that is posted, so we have a thread for members to post to when they're encountering difficulties: Report discussion problems here: No.2


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 01-23-2010 12:24 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 4:11 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 77 of 297 (544162)
01-24-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by marc9000
01-22-2010 11:16 PM


Explanatory power
marc9000 writes:

I appreciate it - you seem like an okay guy.

Thank you, and you as well.

marc9000 writes:

Briterican writes:

I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.

Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not implying that anyone has won this debate. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about clearly and succinctly expressing the reasons why we hold our opinions. This is precisely what many members have done in response to the propositions in your original post.

What we need from you now are clear and succinct explanations for why you consider ID hypotheses to be as rooted in science as the abiogenesis hypotheses are.

Allow me please to use wikipedia's entries as a starting point:

Let's look at wikipedia's description of ID:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Now let me contrast that with the description of the PAH world hypothesis (an abiogenesis hypothesis):

"the use of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) was a means for a pre-RNA World basis for the origin of life."

So - let's expand on the PAH hypothesis: (Please read this - it is all-important)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found in the interstellar medium, comets and meteorites. PAHs, when exposed to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, have some hydrogen atoms stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group (a compound containing an oxygen atom bound covalently with a hydrogen atom). The modified PAHs become far more soluble in water and are amphiphilic (possessing both hydrophilic and hydrophobic (corrected - thanks RAZD) properties). As such, they tend to organise themselves into stacks when in a solution. In such a stack, the separation between rings is 0.34nm, the same as that found in RNA and DNA. Small molecules will naturally attach to PAH rings, but because of a swiveling action that occurs while the PAH rings form, some attaching compounds are dislodged, resulting in an preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. At this point you have an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid to form.

WOW - there is huge explanatory power in that hypotheses. Here is a possible scenario in which non-living, naturally occurring molecules can lead to RNA and DNA, which as we all know are at the foundation of life on earth.

Now here's ID's hypothesis: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

I'd like anyone (but specifically you) to expand on that in a way that provides anything close to an abiogenesis model, or explanation for the origin of life from non-life.

Edited by Briterican, : Correction. Thanks RAZD.

Edited by Briterican, : PAH, not PHA. Title.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 11:16 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 12:19 PM Briterican has responded
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM Briterican has responded
 Message 88 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 2:48 AM Briterican has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 78 of 297 (544167)
01-24-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Briterican
01-24-2010 11:59 AM


correction?
Hi Briterican, small correction?

... The modified PHAs become far more soluble in water and are amphiphilic (possessing both hydrophilic and lipophilic properties). ...

in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis it says:

quote:
These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected.

The end result is the same.

Lipids, btw, can also form proto-cell like vesicles that can contain and concentrate the amino acids.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11675615?dopt=Abstract
http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

There is also an animation on youtube that shows a lipid protocell forming and concentrating amino acids.

Then the next stage is to look at self-replicating molecules.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 12:50 PM RAZD has responded

Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 79 of 297 (544172)
01-24-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
01-24-2010 12:19 PM


The power of explanation
Hi RAZD

Thanks for the correction, and the links.

I hope that marc9000 also appreciates that I am not implying that PAH is specifically "how it happened"; it is simply a good example of the explanatory power of such a hypothesis as opposed to the non-explanatory nature of statements such as "best explained by an intelligent cause".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 12:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 2:01 PM Briterican has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 80 of 297 (544175)
01-24-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Briterican
01-24-2010 12:50 PM


Re: The power of explanation
No problem Briterican

Thanks for the correction, and the links.

And see that we are not concerned just with mistakes made by creationist\IDers.

Personally, I find the PAH hypothesis particularly compelling, as this helps form a bridge between my two building block threads:

RAZD - Building Blocks of Life (posted 3DEC05) and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II (posted 24JUN09)

The second also has a link to the animation on lipid protocells mentioned above.

I hope that marc9000 also appreciates that I am not implying that PAH is specifically "how it happened"; it is simply a good example of the explanatory power of such a hypothesis as opposed to the non-explanatory nature of statements such as "best explained by an intelligent cause".

And it is also an explanation of how life could form on other planets in other systems. Of course, I also end up with my conclusion from the first thread above:

quote:
... it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. ... These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time ...

... We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ...


A universe primed for life to develop and evolve.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 12:50 PM Briterican has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 992
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 81 of 297 (544187)
01-24-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Admin
01-23-2010 5:03 PM


Such behavior is discouraged here at EvC Forum, but moderators can't read everything that is posted, so we have a thread for members to post to when they're encountering difficulties: Report discussion problems here: No.2

I apologize for any trouble I’ve caused. I haven’t yet, and probably never will privately complain about anyone else. It’s just not me – I take no pleasure in seeing someone losing posting privileges. I can ignore what I don't like.

I have to do better at ignoring insults, condensing my replies to several different posters, and of course, better using the mechanics of the board. You’ll see an improvement in all three.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 01-23-2010 5:03 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

marc9000
Member
Posts: 992
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 82 of 297 (544189)
01-24-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Blue Jay
01-23-2010 12:19 AM


Re: Huxley
Hi, Marc.

You're doing a good job keeping up with a whole swarm of opponents. I'm woefully bad at it, and I always end up ignoring and offending some people.

It’s not possible to look dignified when drinking from a fire hydrant.

A few tips: many people will prefer that you respond with individual posts, using the "reply" button at the bottom right corner of a specific post. It helps them keep track of the conversation better.

Yes, you’re the first of several that have given me some much needed tips on that, I’ll have it all down pat soon.

At the time, I couldn't find any information about the term predating Huxley, but I’m not an expert on this topic, so I just assumed you knew something that I didn't. I don't care which of your two statements is true: I would just prefer that you stick with one story.

That was my fault – I was being careless in referring to the term vs the concept. I think we can move beyond all that from this point forward in this thread. I’ll detail that in my next response to Briterican.

First off, I wasn’t quoting Dembski: why did you say I was?

I don’t understand how that happened – all I did was copy/paste. I faintly remember seeing the words ~[dembski quote]~ in what I c/p’d, and it didn’t make sense to me then. I see it’s gone now from the original post. who knows, who cares. Nothing tricky on my part.

If I ever fail to respond to something you've said and you'd like me to, just ask again and I will - you're a good poster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:19 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

marc9000
Member
Posts: 992
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 83 of 297 (544197)
01-24-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Briterican
01-24-2010 11:59 AM


Re: Explanatory power
Don't misunderstand me. I am not implying that anyone has won this debate. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about clearly and succinctly expressing the reasons why we hold our opinions. This is precisely what many members have done in response to the propositions in your original post.

What we need from you now are clear and succinct explanations for why you consider ID hypotheses to be as rooted in science as the abiogenesis hypotheses are.

That’s what I would like to do – what you suggest goes along with the last paragraph of my opening post. I think it’s time to move on from the beginnings of my opening post, the “abiogenesis is a fact” statement of talkorigins, I don’ t claim “victory” there, but I certainly don’t admit defeat either. But what we need to do in this thread is end all reference to supernatural abiogenesis at this time – we need a term that references only naturalistic abiogenesis, the scientific theory of abiogenesis, maybe more accurately the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. Hopefully we can agree that THAT is not a fact. I think from now on if we just say “abiogeneis” it should be understood that it references only naturalism. If someone insists that we use some hyphenated way to reference the term, then I’ll do that.

So - let's expand on the PAH hypothesis: (Please read this - it is all-important)

As this describes organization, separation, swiveling action, formation, etc. – are these not descriptions of changes over long periods of time? It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?

What you’ve shown here is what looks like a good, solid theory at how science can get to a beginning of nucleic acid (amino acid?) Did you notice the link I provided in my message 56?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?

Once you answer that one, we’ll move along on the abiogenesis part. Do you consider that a credible link? If not, why not?

Now here's ID's hypothesis: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

I'd like anyone (but specifically you) to expand on that in a way that provides anything close to an abiogenesis model, or explanation for the origin of life from non-life.

I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life. But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts. Some will accuse me of straying off topic - it's only intended to inspire thought on how quickly different people are to accept what they're told without question, depending on the source.

We live in a realm of rearrangement – that’s all we can see, all we can understand. We can’t create nor destroy, all we can do is rearrange, and our thinking can’t take us beyond it. Our limit to rearrangement is how the “big bang” theory was conceived, and I’m not the only one that finds that kind of speculation almost laughable. When we try to fit all of reality in our little world of rearrangement, we may be thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to think. Reality does not easily fit in that little world. People who casually refer to the big bang often refer to billons of light years like it’s a trip to grandma’s house. Have you ever done any size reductions to try to bring the light-years measure of distance into something fathomable? Again, the following is off topic, but it’s my way of illustrating that it can be logical to not always worship science.

The earth is about 8000 miles in diameter – light travels at 186,000 miles per second. So if we lined up 23 earths side by side, it would take light one second to cover that distance. Naturally, if we play God (ooops, sorry) and reduce the size of the earth to something we can look at, at arms length if we want, or in our front yard, we can slow the speed of light down proportionately. (I’ve figured this before without noting the exact numbers, and my memory might not be perfect – I’m not going to carefully do it all again.) But if I remember right, if we want to make light go 60 mph, a speed we can relate to in our interstate travel, earth would be a 4’ diameter ball. We’d have to go about 8 miles to get to the sun, and it would be about as big around as a 50 story tall building. But that still tells us nothing about a light year. To get light years to something we can relate to, we have to get the earth down to the size of a grain of sand. If earth is a grain of sand, the sun is about the size of an apple, about 22 feet away. The entire solar system would fit in the picture if we had a really big field, to include the outer planets. If this field was in New York City, one light year away would be the distance to Atlanta, Georgia. Four light years, the distance of the nearest star to the grain-of-sand-in-New-York earth, would be somewhere beyond LA, in the pacific ocean. How far would the speck-of-dust moon be from this grain of sand earth – about ¼ inch, give or take a hair? Just recently, about 40 years after that “giant leap for mankind”, we hear, “Hey man, the moon just might have WATER on it!!” What an amazing new discovery! And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today. Same amount of water there, too.”

I don't really doubt that the nearest star is in fact 4 light years away, or that some of the characteristics claimed as fact for our galaxy aren't accurate. They've been observed and studied by many people of many generations. But they all had roughly the same methods. The same methods can consistently give wrong answers.

How capable are humans in figuring out everything they want to know? Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? (less than 40 years) There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 7:08 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 85 by Iblis, posted 01-24-2010 8:20 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2010 11:32 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 90 by Briterican, posted 01-25-2010 2:48 PM marc9000 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 84 of 297 (544206)
01-24-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi marc9000, welcome back.

Did you notice the link I provided in my message 56?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?

Once you answer that one, we’ll move along on the abiogenesis part. Do you consider that a credible link? If not, why not?

No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:

quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. This process can (and has been observed to) result in speciation, nested hierarchies of common descent, and the increase in diversity of life. The theory of evolution (toe) is that these processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, prehistory, archeology, paleontology, geology and the fossil record, chemistry and the genetic record, and the rich diversity of life in the world today.

quote:
Berkeley University Biology Dept Definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

quote:
University of Michigan Biology Dept Definition
Definition 1:
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity.

You will notice that neither of these definitions used by these universities to teach university level biology to biology majors mentions anything about progression from simple forms to more complex forms. The reason is simple: evolution does not require that complexity (of any kind) result, or that there is any necessary progression from one form of life to another. Evolution is opportunistic, and sometimes that opportunity is realized by a reduction in the complexity of an organism (eg - parasites).

This is false thinking common to creationist poor interpretations of the science, or due to intentional misrepresentation (sometimes it is hard to differentiate). If the very second sentence in an article is patently false or misleading, then what value can the rest of the article have, being predicated on a false premise?

quote:
your creationist website:
... However, because it is part and parcel with the whole naturalistic scheme of evolutionary science, abiogenesis can rightly be said to fall under the broader rubric of "evolution" as the term is commonly understood in lay discourse, ...

This, sadly, is just an assertion that the claim is true, not any real demonstration of the link between them. Conversely, Message 73 shows why this link in fact fails to materialize:

quote:
Good, for then we can run down a number of scenarios to see how abiogenesis (life from chemicals) is linked (or not) to evolution (life from life):

  1. God/s come to the primordial earth and create a single living cell from clay and dust. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  2. Alien/s come to the primordial earth, and innoculate it with a single living cell they have designed. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  3. Alien/s discard their trash on the primordial earth, and one of their bacterial organisms survives in this new environment. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  4. Meteors fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  5. God/s designed the universe so that meteors would fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.

Can you tell me which ones of these origin scenarios cannot involve evolution as the explanation for how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified from the original source? If you cannot differentiate them, then evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, all it depends on is having life as the starting point, and how that life began is irrelevant to understanding how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.


Personally, I think this a battle that you don't need to fight (eg beat your head against). We can agree that the term 'abiogenesis' refers to the development from chemicals, and that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation -- is rooted in the present day, and applying what we see in life around us to the fossil record to see if it explains the diversity of life as we know it, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in history, and in the world around us.

Abiogenesis is rooted in the past, a past so distant that there are no surviving fossils or records of how life began on earth. The first known fossils, some 3.5 billion years old, show life already fully developed in the form of cyanobacteria. We just don't know what preceded those organisms. It could have been any one of the five hypothetical scenarios quoted above, or it could have been something entirely different.

quote:
search for "abiogenesis" on Berkeley website
Your search - abiogenesis - did not match any documents.

quote:
search for "abiogenesis" on UMich website
Your search - abiogenesis site:http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/ - did not match any documents.

quote:
Berkeley on a common Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Whatever caused the first life to form is irrelevant to the study of life since then, evolution is the study of life since then.

Note that within the field of biology, the study of origins (abiogenesis) is pursued, but it is not seen as critical to the study of evolution.

So that is two false or misleading claims for two claims -- not a very productive beginning eh?

quote:
your creationist website:
Probably anyone who has ever taken a biology course from a public university has encountered the orthodox abiogenetic theory in their textbooks. ...
Those who have taken biology courses are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment. This was an experiment carried out in 1953 ...

Starting with 50 year old research that was done at the beginning of a new field is hardly presenting the up-to-date thinking on the subject, and the attempts to portray new thoughts is as factual as the portrayal of evolution at the beginning. Most of the argument against them is just the argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Curiously, I wrote an article over 4 years ago that is more up-to-date than the information in your website:

RAZD - Building Blocks of Life (posted 3DEC05)

This is what Berkeley says about Miller-Urey experiment:

quote:
The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, for example, simulated early Earth's atmosphere with nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids. Now, scientists have learned more about the environmental and atmospheric conditions on early Earth and no longer think that the conditions used by Miller and Urey were quite right. However, since Miller and Urey, many scientists have performed experiments using more accurate environmental conditions and exploring alternate scenarios for these reactions. These experiments yielded similar results - complex molecules could have formed in the conditions on early Earth.

This experimental approach can also help scientists study the functioning of the RNA world itself. For example, origins biochemist, Andy Ellington, hypothesizes that in the early RNA world, RNA copied itself, not by matching individual units of the molecules (as in modern DNA), but by matching short strings of units — it's a bit like assembling a house from prefabricated walls instead of brick by brick. He is studying this hypothesis by performing experiments to search for molecules that copy themselves like this and to study how they evolve.


They then proceed to discuss more up-to-date information than your site presents.

  • Scientists have made self-replicating molecules
  • Scientists have formed protocellular vesicles from the materials available
  • Scientists have shown that such vesicles can concentrate the amiino acids used to make self-replicating molecules

Denial of these facts will not make them go away.

My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?

Yes.

But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts. ...

Arguments from incredulity, aside from being totally irrelevant. Let's get to the real issue: evidence that ID can be viewd as science.

I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life.

We will be waiting for specific answers and examples of why you consider ID to be scientific in a general sense, and at or above the level of abiogenesis in a specific sense.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : mre clrty

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:45 PM RAZD has responded

Iblis
Member (Idle past 2059 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 85 of 297 (544219)
01-24-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html

My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?

We normally refuse to debate websites, but we appear to be making an exception in this case specifically because your site is so ill-informative. In the future though, please cut-and-paste small portions and summarize relevant arguments in your own terms to make this a better experience for the readers.

Yes, the experiment successfully produced some amino acids, but it did so only as a result of the use of an atmosphere specifically engineered to yield amino acids, since simple molecules containing all the needed atoms were conveniently provided. Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidising agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct.

This shows a clear failure to understand reduction and its meaning in the study of earth's biosphere. Free oxygen is not a normal condition in the universe! The reason is that hydrogen is ubiquitous, what we tend to think of as "empty space" is actually very diffuse hydrogen. Combine this with the sharp variances in temperature normal to such a near-vacuum, and you have a situation where any existing free oxygen tends to combine with hydrogen to become water vapor and then precipitate into ice. Water is a relatively stable molecule and retains its structure through various elemental states, becoming more complex as other items are dissolved in it.

Several of the "soup" simulations I have witnessed started with free oxygen. It doesn't make any difference, the effect of the electrical discharge is to combine it with the abundance of hydrogen provided to increase the amount of water in the tank. There is no free oxygen left at the water level at the point where the amino acids begin forming.

Your site makes similar mistakes in understanding ultraviolet light; only they aren't mistakes, they are intentional deceptions.

Interestingly, if there had been an early reducing atmosphere when this abiogenesis was going on, the lack of an ozone layer would have meant that any amino acids formed in the primitive atmosphere would have been almost immediately destroyed by the intense ultraviolet radiation. Thus, it's a lose-lose situation for evolutionists on this count.

This is false on two counts. First of all, reduction by natural oxidation of hydrogen to produce a watery surface doesn't preclude the existence of O3 at a much higher elevation, where it could form an ozone layer. But beyond this, and more importantly, the penetration of large amounts of ultraviolet to the surface is not only not bad for the experiment, its essential, because uv at positive angles degrades right-handed compounds to a greater extent than it does left-handed, providing one key part of the best explanation for chirality.

We know that your site is aware of this second part, and ignoring it to confuse the issue, because they discuss it later in a weird misrepresentation of circular polarization in nebulae. Nor are their further arguments any more honest.

There has been no evidence found for the existence of this same sort of "sludge" anywhere in the geologic column, even though it should have been produced abundantly and laid down systematically throughout the entire period during which evolutionists propose that the process of abiogenesis was occurring.

The "sludge" is a key ingredient in hypotheses for the development of metabolism such as the nearly-universal "sandwich" model for the production of lipids and bases. Nor is there any big mystery as to why it isn't stored in the geologic table, it's volatile, it degrades over short periods of time unless energy is provided in a closed environment to generate more stable complex chemicals.

So then, after a vast misconception of what Miller-Urey does, what's the one substantial modern theory we see dissected? The pitiful 40-year-old clay, which was never made for us at all, it was always made for you, the believer.

One of these routes is to rely upon certain types of organophilic clays which are proposed to have served as "directors" for the reactions needed to produce simple biologic molecules, first proposed by the Scottish chemist Cairns-Smith.

Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith found in working with clay that it had certain properties that were useful in explaining (not accounting for, just explaining) the sort of crystalization-and-solution behavior that peptides and bases would have had to go through to become structured enough to become life. He also favors a quantum model for human thought and various other "new age" non-science models; on the other hand he's a good chemist. His "clay" only caught on specifically because it mirrors the bible account in some ways, making it the most appealing model for popular propaganda literature like The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

It was already known to be a dead end at the time it began being used to describe the sort of thing that would have to be true to get to the RNA world, the real theory it is used to spice up as an "alternative" for (read, different angle on.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:51 PM Iblis has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 297 (544222)
01-24-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


Marc9000 For ID
marc9000 writes:

I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me. I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of most posters here, but am not surprised that one or two obviously wish I would stop posting.

Hi Marc. Just an encouraging note to tell you that you're the kind of ID proponent balance needed here at EvC for both ID proponents like me and for opponents who need to be challenged. They don't like twidling their thumbs waiting for a challenging debate.

I hope you don't become discouraged from posting. It's always tough for the minority PoV. You're doing great, teaching me and others including readers (not members) in layman's terminology.

I hope you hang in here and help us out with the kind of balance needed to make EvC even better.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 01-23-2010 12:24 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:53 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 861 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 87 of 297 (544234)
01-24-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi, Marc.

marc9000 writes:

you're a good poster.

Thanks. You too. I echo Buzsaw’s sentiment: I hope you and Minority Report (the other new guy) both stick around, and even work together occasionally. We so rarely get two quality creationists at one time.

-----

marc9000 writes:

But what we need to do in this thread is end all reference to supernatural abiogenesis at this time – we need a term that references only naturalistic abiogenesis, the scientific theory of abiogenesis, maybe more accurately the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. Hopefully we can agree that THAT is not a fact. I think from now on if we just say “abiogenesis” it should be understood that it references only naturalism.

I accept your conditions: the term “abiogenesis” shall only refer to “naturalistic abiogenesis" in my usage.

-----

marc9000 writes:

It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?

You’re right: they are very similar in some ways, and they do have some things to do with one another. But, similarity and relatedness do not automatically translate into interdependency. Just because they are similar doesn't mean that one can't exist without the other.

Furthermore, similarity doesn’t mean that arguments against one count as arguments against the other. Certainly there are some of the “shared logical fate” issues that I talked about earlier, but the simple point here is that created things can evolve in the same way that naturally-formed things can evolve, so evolution is not dependent on naturalistic abiogenesis.

Agreed?

-----

marc9000 writes:

Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? ...There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.

This is a statement that I really wish Christians would stop making. I don’t know any people who do worship science in the same manner that people worship deities and religion. And, there is good reason for this: science never proclaimed itself to be absolute truth, nor even capable of discovering absolute truth.

Rather, we scientists fully expect that, at some time in the future, we will become obsolete, and all our work and all our theories will be improved upon such that future generations of scientists will no longer need to rely on our accomplishments to explain the world around us. That’s the whole point of science: you don’t learn or progress by simply upholding what has always been upheld.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why people feel that ancient ideas are somehow superior to modern ideas. Read Genesis 30 for some good examples of the way the ancients thought: apparently, they believed that, if sheep conceived in front of striped sticks, they would bear striped young, and Jacob was able to manipulate this in his favor by controlling which sheep would bear striped young (which he had been granted as payment for his services).

If this is generally the quality of ancient knowledge, it seems foolhardy to claim that things of ancient date are superior to things of modern date. Do you agree with me on this?

Edited by Bluejay, : A space after my Genesis 30 url


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:03 PM Blue Jay has responded

greyseal
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 88 of 297 (544243)
01-25-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Briterican
01-24-2010 11:59 AM


Re: Explanatory power
marc9000 writes:

Briterican writes:

I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.

Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.

I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or vindicated.

You complained that talk origins (among others) called "abiogenesis" a fact - when it is.

You complained that an incomplete theory (as part of a chemistry lesson, it would seem) is discussed in a science classroom, yet you want religion taught by the state in clear opposition to your own constitution.

You complained about ID not being accepted in the scientific community - when it has produced nothing that can be.

You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.

You complained that your religiously biased websites say that other, unnamed scientific sources make "outlandish claims" - yet your religious websites are wrong and demonstrably so about these claims.

If I'm wrong, show me. that you don't like the (correct) usage of the word "abiogenesis" does not mean you can call those who use it (correctly!) "liars" or are worthy of a smackdown by the ACLU. As I said, teaching chemistry is not against the law, but the state teaching religion IS.

It's not that I'm trying to smother your voice, it's that you're not saying anything new.

To do you a favour, in this thread I will say "naturalistic abiogenesis" to differentiate between it and "theistic abiogenesis" - but do please understand that you can wish the word meant something other than it does all you want, but it won't change the meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM Briterican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:09 PM greyseal has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 297 (544249)
01-25-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


marc9000 writes:

Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that – a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference


Actually, Talkorigins is an archive, not a website "made up of many scientists". Also, could you provide me a reference that shows thtat a large part of the scientific community regard it as a scientific website?

Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way.

But, the only way for sceince to research something is in a naturalistic way. Do you want scientists to als research gravity in a "less vague (naturalistic)" way?

If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.

But athesim has nothing to do with it. Being a scientist (and thus examining the natural world) has nothing to do with being atheist. There are many religious scientists.

If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a “fact”.

But it's definition is not vague. In fact it is very precise. In science it means "Life from non-life through naturalistic ways", in all other uses it means "life from non-life".

Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.

Oh please. Being atheist has nothing to do with it. It's not because of atheism that science can only study the natural world. That's due to the fact that only the natural world can be studied reliably. Tell me, how would you study a supernatural world, where everything can change in a heartbeat and react completely different than the way it did before. There can never be reliable conclusions when studying the supernatural. And so, science cannot study it.

Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things.

Of course they can be studied, that's called psychology.

Origin of life may fall into that category.

Well, we won;t know unless we study it, now will we?

At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment.

No it doesn't. Science doesn't do philosophy. It studies the natural world.

(education/university grants, etc.)

And what's that got to do with philosophy?

AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.

They do those things because it's not science, but religion wanting to supplant science. Religion's fine, in religious classes, not in science classes. If they really are doing science, let them prove it by doing science, not by playing political games.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:12 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 90 of 297 (544344)
01-25-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power (or lack thereof)
Hi again marc9000

Let's get the irrellevant stuff out of the way:

  • " I think it’s time to move on from the beginnings of my opening post, the “abiogenesis is a fact” statement of talkorigins" - agreed, it is not relevant to the primary point in your OP: the notion that abiogenesis hypotheses are no more scientific than ID. (side note: I believe that abiogenesis, in some form, is a fact, but I'm happy to set that issue aside for the sake of argument)

  • "I think from now on if we just say “abiogenesis” it should be understood that it references only naturalism." - agreed.

    marc9000 writes:

    As this describes organization, separation, swiveling action, formation, etc. – are these not descriptions of changes over long periods of time? It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?

    As RAZD capably pointed out in his post above, "evolution" in its strict definition deals with "the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation". In the sense of "gradual change over time" - sure, I have no problem with you applying that idea to the PAH stack formation process. HOWEVER, even if you do this, you can nonetheless see that what we started with were non-living molecules that can by no means be considered "living", that the process (potentially) leads to RNA/DNA - and life, and that the process would proceed without an intelligent agent controlling it. Abiogenesis and the ToE are discrete, separate entities, regardless of your opinion. You don't need the "big bang theory" to appreciate the theory of gravity, and likewise, you don't need abiogenesis to appreciate the theory of evolution (RAZD's comments about the mistaken notion that evolution means "simple to complex" is an important one as well, and I hope you have read his post thoroughly).

    Which dovetails nicely into the studytoanswer link you provided, which has also been skillfully dealt with in the above posts. As RAZD points out, it is misleading, and Iblis continues by giving specific examples of errors in the article.

    marc9000 writes:

    My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the “reducing atmosphere” problem as described in this link?

    Thoroughly dealt with in Iblis' post, but for the sake of completeness I will reproduce one of his comments here:

    Iblis writes:

    The reason is that hydrogen is ubiquitous, what we tend to think of as "empty space" is actually very diffuse hydrogen. Combine this with the sharp variances in temperature normal to such a near-vacuum, and you have a situation where any existing free oxygen tends to combine with hydrogen to become water vapor and then precipitate into ice. Water is a relatively stable molecule and retains its structure through various elemental states, becoming more complex as other items are dissolved in it.

    I'm in agreement with the above posters that the link provided is simply wrong at best, and intentionally misleading on some points. There is also virtually nothing on the link provided which would give me any insight into the qualifications of the author(s) and/or any research papers or other sources to support their suppositions. I would make one other point: The main page's subtitle is "A Resource for a Reasoned, Respectful, and Ready Defence of the Christian Faith". What does the "Christian Faith" have to do with biology, and why do they feel the need to "defend" that faith from objective scientific research? I'll answer that for you: because their faith is contradicted by the evidence of objective scientific research.

    NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:

    I expanded on the PAH World Hypothesis to give you an example of the explanatory power of a real hypothesis. My brief (1 paragraph) paraphrasing of source material provided (hopefully) most of the main points.

    I then asked you if you could expand on ID to give us an example of its explanatory power in helping to understand the world around us, to which you replied:

    marc9000 writes:

    I'll need time - I do have a busy life.

    As do the rest of us marc. But if you can find the time to say things like this (from your original post) ...

    marc9000 writes:

    It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.

    ... then you should be prepared to support those comments with some form of evidence. We are all also busy people.

    marc9000 writes:

    I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life. But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts.

    Not good enough. You may say "you're asking a lot" - but you are the one that implied in your original post that ID's propositions are as scientific as abiogenesis hypotheses, so I'm simply asking you to support this proposition with an example.

    The fact that you don't have an example off the top of your head is cause for concern, considering that despite this you seem convinced that ID is something that should be taught in schools. With that sort of conviction, I would expect you to be able to provide even a small example of ID helping to explain or understand abiogenesis (or anything for that matter). But you cannot. I challenge you - with no time limit - to give us ANY example of an ID hypothesis (or anything!) that is of any value in explaining or understanding anything.

    marc9000 writes:

    Some will accuse me of straying off topic - it's only intended to inspire thought on how quickly different people are to accept what they're told without question, depending on the source.

    At the risk of sounding rude, you're right - off topic and not relevant. The next 3 paragraphs consist of nothing more than you chatting to us about what kind of guy you are and what you think. The one thing I gleaned from this is that you, like others, have this odd notion that people "worship" science. What's that about? I can assure you that I do not awake in the morning and annoint myself with Dawkins' oil, or pray to my copy of "Life: An Unauthorised Biography" by Richard Fortey.

    I'm also not able to make any sense of some of your apparent objections to science.

    Example:

    marc9000 writes:

    Just recently, about 40 years after that “giant leap for mankind”, we hear, “Hey man, the moon just might have WATER on it!!” What an amazing new discovery! And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today. Same amount of water there, too.”

    What? I'm trying desperately to understand the point you are trying to make here. If there is one, but I cannot find it. The fact that evidence is piling up of water on the moon IS an amazing discovery - one that has been predicted and expected by many - the fact that the evidence is becoming concrete is exciting. What's this got to do with abiogenesis or ID?

    And more:

    marc9000 writes:

    And if I ask; “when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see” – I know what answer I’ll get – “nope, no revisions today.

    Eh? Would you expect to see revisions? Would you expect there to suddenly be a galaxy where there wasn't one before? Why? And if not, then what is the point of this comment? The Hubble is utilised to great benefit, and to imply that scientists utilising it are sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying "Nope, nothing new today" (if that was your intended implication, hard to tell) - is just ridiculous.

    More meaningless nonsense:

    marc9000 writes:

    How capable are humans in figuring out everything they want to know? Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? (less than 40 years) There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.

    If you wish to discuss specifics relating to abiogenesis (as per the OP title), please... by all means do so.

    (PS - don't be offended by the snippy nature of my comments. As you've seen, others are far worse. I have only become "snippy" now because I feel that you haven't even tried to support the comments made in your original post. Despite this, I am grateful for your participation in the discussion and hope you will continue.)

    Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 6:27 PM Briterican has responded
     Message 100 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:37 PM Briterican has not yet responded

      
  • Prev1
    ...
    45
    6
    78
    ...
    20NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019