Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 142 (93776)
03-21-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
03-21-2004 8:34 PM


The universe is quite capable of great complexity on it's own.
Whatever complexity is required, one thing is sure: the universe has already figured out what the solution is.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2004 8:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 142 (93781)
03-22-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by DNAunion
03-21-2004 5:35 PM


Re: Viruses, prions and implications
Facts are evidence. Viruses do NOT and CANNOT replicate themselves. That's basic BIO101 stuff. Now YOU have an open mind and reread what I posted from the several undergraduate biology texts.
Again, that information is limited to only certain environments and conditions. Only when every environment in all the pasts have been eliminated can you come close to making an absolute statement of that type. Of course Bio101 levels sometimes simplify things so as not to introduce too much at once ... you might want to try xenobiology 101 ... it may help.
Extremophiles are living - they're cellular.
sorry I thought you would understand I was talking about extremophile environments not the extremophiles themselves.
Notice that only a little while ago biologists were saying that life couldn't exist in such extreme conditions. Then they found it. Your argument against viruses is the same logic: we haven't seen it therefore it can't be true ... a limited argument.
The question was (and is) whether something else can provide the missing elements that are currently provided by living cells to allow {viruses or close cousins} to reproduce. Could that have been how the first replicators worked.
A random input of energy in a pre-bio soup? Pretty naive.
Your denial of possibilities is quite amusing. At some point in the search for the beginning of life you will have to get out of the cell as we know it ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by DNAunion, posted 03-21-2004 5:35 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DNAunion, posted 03-23-2004 10:57 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 42 by DNAunion, posted 03-23-2004 11:06 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 43 by DNAunion, posted 03-23-2004 11:10 PM RAZD has not replied

keith63
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 142 (93818)
03-22-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
03-21-2004 8:34 PM


Diamonds also arise on their own. Do you think that they are easy to duplicate?
What's the one difference here? We can make diamonds, although not easily, but we can't make a cell!!! With all our technology we can't make life.
Don't conflate "natural" with "simple", please.
I don't think anything about life is simple. That's why I always hate when textbooks refer to prokaryotes as "simple cells." I think life and the universe are unbelievably complex which is why I think it was created by a God. The God.
The universe is quite capable of great complexity on it's own.
That is a very anthropomorphic statement. You act like the universie is making decisions on it's own. I don't think the Universe is capable of anything on it's own. Natural processes can carve rocks that, with imagination, look similar to objects but it can't create life from non-life. How does the third part of the cell theory go again? Oh yes; All cells come from preexisting cells.
[This message has been edited by keith63, 03-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2004 8:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by kongstad, posted 03-22-2004 11:26 AM keith63 has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2004 11:33 AM keith63 has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 34 of 142 (93842)
03-22-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by keith63
03-22-2004 8:58 AM


Diamonds also arise on their own. Do you think that they are easy to duplicate?
What's the one difference here? We can make diamonds, although not easily, but we can't make a cell!!! With all our technology we can't make life.
I think you are missing the point. Consider that we have only been able to make diamonds for a few years of the thousands of years the human race has existed. Using your argument a person living under the reign of Ramses could conclude that diamonds could only be made by god, since man was unable to reproduce them.
Don't conflate "natural" with "simple", please.
I don't think anything about life is simple.
...
I think life and the universe are unbelievably complex which is why I think it was created by a God. The God.
Again you make the same mistake. Your argument is
simple -> natural
complex -> god-made
So you are making the exact error mentioned here.
The universe is quite capable of great complexity on it's own.
That is a very anthropomorphic statement. You act like the universie is making decisions on it's own.
No actually he is claiming that the universe is capable of generating great complexity. He is not claiming that the universe is making decisions.
/sren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by keith63, posted 03-22-2004 8:58 AM keith63 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 142 (93843)
03-22-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by keith63
03-22-2004 8:58 AM


What's the one difference here? We can make diamonds, although not easily, but we can't make a cell!!! With all our technology we can't make life.
How long did it take us to learn to make diamonds?
Give us time. We'll make the minimum organism. Just you wait. I'lllay dollars to doughnuts it happens within 20 years.
Oh yes; All cells come from preexisting cells.
Except, obviously, the first one. No matter where that first cell came from, surely we can agree on that? Unless you think God is made of cells?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by keith63, posted 03-22-2004 8:58 AM keith63 has not replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 36 of 142 (93858)
03-22-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DNAunion
03-21-2004 6:38 PM


chances
It sounds like the event you are looking for to tie the components together into DNA is similiar to getting a monkey to type a novel. You can get a computer and buy a monkey and bring them together to the point where the monkey actually starts typing on the keys. But to go from that to a readable novel is another story.
Unless the monkey's typing matches some agreed upon context as to what the charater combinations mean, the typing is rambling nonsense. In order to get an agreed upon context you need an infusion of intelligence and that is very hard for me to see happening by chance, since DNA strands are the characters of an assembly language on how to build something. Your model leaves even the creation of intelligent infusion to random chance and that's an even greater stretch or leap of faith to me then the self assembly of DNA to start with.
In other words, even if the DNA could create itself through random chance and time, what is this stuff supposed to do with itself once it comes into being without some force guiding it's implementation?


"If I stand jin the middle of the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Yeah!!



This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DNAunion, posted 03-21-2004 6:38 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 1:42 AM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 44 by DNAunion, posted 03-23-2004 11:22 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 142 (94020)
03-23-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lizard Breath
03-22-2004 1:57 PM


Re: chances
what's wrong with this picture:
http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/documentation/
ahahahahaaa
(ps html no work in sig lines)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lizard Breath, posted 03-22-2004 1:57 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Lizard Breath, posted 03-23-2004 8:16 AM RAZD has replied

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 38 of 142 (94092)
03-23-2004 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
03-23-2004 1:42 AM


Re: chances
Interesting web page. Thanks for the html tip. Why doesn't it work in the sig lines though?
"If I stand in the middle of the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Yeah!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 1:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 11:32 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 142 (94121)
03-23-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Lizard Breath
03-23-2004 8:16 AM


Re: chances
html is turned off in the sig lines - you'd have to ask the adminfolks why.
(and the answer is yes ... she'll find out about it anyway.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Lizard Breath, posted 03-23-2004 8:16 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

Black
Member (Idle past 5184 days)
Posts: 77
Joined: 11-28-2008


Message 40 of 142 (94192)
03-23-2004 5:30 PM


Hello again, Chis
If abiogenesis were possible, we would expect to observe certain things. We would be able to predict that certain things were possible, namely:
(1) Amino acids could form naturally
(2) Amino acids could link together (as peptides) and reproduce naturally
(3) RNA could form from amino acids
edit: I meant peptide nucleic acid, not amino acid peptides.
(4) RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication
These are what's predicted. We now know all these things can happen. So the only logical conclusion I make is that abiogenesis is possible and probably happened.
[This message has been edited by Black, 04-10-2004]
[This message has been edited by Black, 04-10-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DNAunion, posted 03-23-2004 11:33 PM Black has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 142 (94282)
03-23-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-22-2004 12:15 AM


Re: Viruses, prions and implications
quote:
DNAunion: Facts are evidence. Viruses do NOT and CANNOT replicate themselves. That's basic BIO101 stuff. Now YOU have an open mind and reread what I posted from the several undergraduate biology texts.
quote:
AbbyLeever: ... Only when every environment in all the pasts have been eliminated can you come close to making an absolute statement of that type.
Wrong. Science can and does make claims based on what is known, all the time.
Now, by your reasoning, we can't say that a star can't just turn into a cat or a computer overnight. After all, just because we've never seen it occur doesn't mean we can come close to ruling it out. Gee, there are all those billions of billions of stars out there...anything is possible! Right?
Science knows of reasons why a star can't just turn into a computer, and also why a virus can't replicate itself.
quote:
AbbyLeever: Of course Bio101 levels sometimes simplify things so as not to introduce too much at once ... you might want to try xenobiology 101 ... it may help.
Nope, your evidence didn’t help at all. In fact, the word VIRUS doesn’t even appear once on the page you linked to!
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2004 12:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:02 AM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 142 (94283)
03-23-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-22-2004 12:15 AM


Re: Viruses, prions and implications
quote:
DNAunion: Extremophiles are living - they're cellular.
quote:
AbbyLeever: sorry I thought you would understand I was talking about extremophile environments not the extremophiles themselves.
So you’re claiming that if we put viruses in extremely salty, or extremely acidic, or extremely high pressure, or similar extreme conditions that they would then be able to self-replicate? Your support for this Nobel Prize-worthy "finding"?
quote:
Notice that only a little while ago biologists were saying that life couldn't exist in such extreme conditions. Then they found it. Your argument against viruses is the same logic: we haven't seen it therefore it can't be true ... a limited argument.
So you believe that a star can turn into a computer overnightright? That conclusion follows from the same logic you’re using against me.
quote:
AbbyLeever: The question was (and is) whether something else can provide the missing elements that are currently provided by living cells to allow {viruses or close cousins} to reproduce. Could that have been how the first replicators worked.
Oh no, that’s not the question at all. You made flawed statements about viruses and prions specifically, and I pointed out the problems with those statements of yours. Now you’re trying to slyly move the goal posts.
As I said, if you are going to SWITCH to discussing self-replicating ribozymes then do so, but don’t try to call them viruses.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2004 12:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:00 AM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 142 (94285)
03-23-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-22-2004 12:15 AM


Re: Viruses, prions and implications
quote:
AbbyLeever: Your denial of possibilities is quite amusing.
No, it's your overactive imagination that's amusing.
quote:
AbbyLeever: At some point in the search for the beginning of life you will have to get out of the cell as we know it ...
And where did I say otherwise? Nowhere. You're confused.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2004 12:15 AM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 142 (94287)
03-23-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lizard Breath
03-22-2004 1:57 PM


Re: chances
quote:
LizardBreath: In order to get an agreed upon context you need an infusion of intelligence...
That's where we disagree (I'm talking about the origin of life, which your analogy addresses).
The key is INFORMATION, not intelligence. While I agree that a large amount of information would be needed for an RNA to replicate itself, I don't agree that it would require a God or ETI's to supply that information.
quote:
LizardBreath: In other words, even if the DNA could create itself through random chance and time, what is this stuff supposed to do with itself once it comes into being without some force guiding it's implementation?
Just what life today does...reproduce. That's the primary function of life...to produce more of itself.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lizard Breath, posted 03-22-2004 1:57 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 142 (94288)
03-23-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Black
03-23-2004 5:30 PM


Re: Hello again, Chis
quote:
Black: If abiogenesis were possible, we would expect to observe certain things. We would be able to predict that certain things were possible, namely:
(1) Amino acids could form naturally
(2) Amino acids could link together (as peptides) and reproduce naturally
(3) RNA could form from amino acid chains (peptides)
(4) RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication
These are what's predicted. We now know all these things can happen.
We do? Let's look at them one at a time.
quote:
(1) Amino acids could form naturally
Correct.
quote:
(2) Amino acids could link together (as peptides) and reproduce naturally
This has never been demonstrated. If you believe it has, please post your support.
quote:
(3) RNA could form from amino acid chains (peptides)
RNA is not even made of amino acids...it's made of nucleotides.
quote:
(4) RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication
That's the theory. No prebiotically plausible experiment has accomplished this.
The only actually supported point you have is that amino acids can form naturally. The rest is theory, not fact demonstrated by experiments carried out under prebiotically plausible conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Black, posted 03-23-2004 5:30 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Black, posted 03-27-2004 7:35 PM DNAunion has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024