Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:08 PM
23 online now:
Diomedes, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   I need an answer
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 46 of 58 (567919)
07-03-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-03-2010 2:43 AM


Peg writes:
Charles Darwin wrote in his conclusion on Page 484

"I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype....Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."


Thus he is clearly distinguishing between evolution and abiogenesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 2:43 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 58 (567920)
07-03-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-03-2010 4:29 AM


Peg writes:
Darwins states that he believes that all living things descended from "one prototype"

i think that explains full well his belief and why the religous community objected to his theory.


As best I can tell, the religious community objects because they have this ridiculous, made up, non-biblical theology of original sin, and it was hard to square that with the idea of evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 4:29 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 48 of 58 (567928)
07-03-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


theodoric writes:

Care to provide the quote? I do not own the book.

You can read it yourself here

try pages 14-18 where in brief he says:

The Selfish Gene writes:


the account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative by definition nobody was around to see it happen. The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth.

Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy....artificial stimulation of primordial lightening.

Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the primeval soup...the organic substances became locally concentrated...under ultraviolate light from the sun they combined to form larger molecules. At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed called a Replicator.

Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life, they were our founding fathers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2010 9:59 AM Peg has responded
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 11:09 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 49 of 58 (567932)
07-03-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:44 AM


Spontaneous Generation is Not Abiogenesis
Hi Peg,

Don't you ever tire of being wrong? You must enjoy it, because even the simplest search for the term "spontaneous generation" would have put you right, but no...

What Dawkins describes in the extract quoted is abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation; that's something else.

Wiki writes:

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:44 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:22 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2270 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 50 of 58 (567938)
07-03-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peg
07-03-2010 3:02 AM


Well not always, lets be honest about that. Spontaneous Generation preceeded the current term 'abiogenesis' by many centuries...that is that flies are produced from rotten meat for example....Louis pasteurs experiements put the belief to rest until 1924 when Alexander Oparin revived the spontaneous generation argument by speculating on earths primitive conditions and the primordial soup.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenisis are 2 different things. SG is life from dead life whereas Abiogenesis is life from non life. Again you are using two different ideas as the same.


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 37 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 3:02 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 51 of 58 (567940)
07-03-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:44 AM


Not spontaneous generation
Nope. Your wrong again.

Maybe you should research the term.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:44 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 52 of 58 (568006)
07-03-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
07-03-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Spontaneous Generation is Not Abiogenesis
yes fair enough, i should be using the term abiogenesis which is 'non biological' matter springing to life
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2010 9:59 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2010 12:12 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 12:20 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 53 of 58 (568132)
07-04-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Spontaneous Generation is Not Abiogenesis
'non biological' matter springing to life

I understand you are want to hold this view for your own reasons, but it is a false view. None of the abiogenic hypotheses identify some "ka-ching" moment when non-life became life. Only religionists believe that.

Identifying life in the gross, like between a rabbit and a rock, is easy. In the fine-line chemical continuum of abiogenesis no such distinction can be made. In the end "life" is a human construct, not a reality. We are but complex chemistry in action. Something I'm sure your view cannot support.

Regardless, abiogenesis is not matter "springing" to "life" except within a religious context. The non-religious abiogenic hypotheses posit considerable time and identify no such demarcation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:22 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 54 of 58 (568133)
07-04-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Spontaneous Generation is Not Abiogenesis
abiogenesis which is 'non biological' matter springing to life

Wrong again. Have you looked at any of the the current hypotheses for abiogenesis? In none of them does life "spring"

Maybe if you thought of where the line is between non-life and life, you could have a better concept. Do you know where the line is between life and non-life? I think a lot of people would give a lot of different answers.

ABE
Oops. Sorry if this was piling on. I see my comments are very similar to AZpauls. I should have read his comments first.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:22 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
RyanVanGo
Junior Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 06-16-2010


Message 55 of 58 (568143)
07-04-2010 1:11 PM


oh man
it's getting pretty heated. i appreciate the breakdown of the creationist theory. However you take a much less literal point of view than others i talk to, who believe it took 6 days, it's 10000 years old and so on and so forth. they way you put it is basically the catholic school point of view saying "when they said days they meant like...God's days...which could be millions of years...cuz god has no sense of time." this i have been taught, but i appreciate a creationist getting in the fray. i haven't been ignoring my own thread, just like to see the argument steer away from "Ryan, you're silly for believing this. don't be agnostic be an atheist". keep it up everyone i'm learning things which is never a loss.

Ryan


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by BobbyCrick, posted 07-07-2010 10:33 AM RyanVanGo has not yet responded

    
BobbyCrick
Junior Member (Idle past 3094 days)
Posts: 1
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 07-07-2010


Message 56 of 58 (568634)
07-07-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RyanVanGo
07-04-2010 1:11 PM


Re: oh man
Sounds like a dilemma I had. My parents were both methodists, and I enjoyed church for quite a few years. When I got to High School I really started to enjoy science, in turn this got me questioning anything a lot more. My minister at church didn't like the questions, and he certainly didn't give me the answers. I also started to question the idea of believing because I was told to. Without writing my autobiography, this led me to being an atheist. I do not believe in God, or any Gods. I have yet to get proof of the existence of any supernatural being.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RyanVanGo, posted 07-04-2010 1:11 PM RyanVanGo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 07-07-2010 11:33 AM BobbyCrick has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 57 of 58 (568636)
07-07-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by BobbyCrick
07-07-2010 10:33 AM


Re: oh man
Sounds like a dilemma I had. My parents were both methodists, and I enjoyed church for quite a few years. When I got to High School I really started to enjoy science, in turn this got me questioning anything a lot more. My minister at church didn't like the questions, and he certainly didn't give me the answers. I also started to question the idea of believing because I was told to. Without writing my autobiography, this led me to being an atheist. I do not believe in God, or any Gods. I have yet to get proof of the existence of any supernatural being.

Growing up I had no problem reconciling my religious beliefs and my love for science. However, as I grew older I found that my religious beliefs were no longer important to me. They felt like extra baggage that I was carrying around for no other reason than to make my family happy. Once I was out on my own I stopped going to church and have not regretted it since.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by BobbyCrick, posted 07-07-2010 10:33 AM BobbyCrick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 07-07-2010 12:36 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3815
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 58 of 58 (568640)
07-07-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
07-07-2010 11:33 AM


Re: oh man
Once I was out on my own I stopped going to church and have not regretted it since.

This may not seem it at first but this is (or will be) on topic. I will get to abiogenesis, specifically stone springing into life. Just bear with me.

It is not that I regret not going to church. I use to have a great time going to church. Then I got barred. I mean legally barred. The Archdiocese of Louisville took out an Injunction against me. I cannot enter any of their churches. By extension the other Archdioceses filed and the courts agreed to extend the Injunction to all. I cannot go in to a church. The matter has been referred to Rome, but even though the Pope has not made it formal, I have been informed that I am not welcome to enter Vatican City let alone any of the buildings there.

It used to be great fun, and I thought, and still do feel, innocently so. When I enter a church all the statues jump up screaming, crash through the stained glass windows, and run away. I was costing the archdiocese a fortune every month.

I had once maintained that I have been, somehow, divinely rehabilitated but no one wants to bear the potential cost of testing that hypothesis.

Edited by AZPaul3, : correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 07-07-2010 11:33 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019