Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:13 AM
23 online now:
Pressie, Tangle (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 1 of 305 (382592)
02-05-2007 11:19 AM


Oh sacred cow of evolution. I am sorry for disrespecting you. Please forgive me.
You are absolute oh Gog. Your priests will endure forever. Their great faith and extrapolating imaginations are higher than mine. Who am I to question the smartest people on earth?

It's just a's and g's, c's, and t's. It's not complicated. abiogenesis is the mother of life. Queen of the universe. An accident waiting to happen that did.

All there is is matter...

Oh great material force. Give me my way. lead me into the understanding that understanding is just a random variation within my kind. What's true for you is lie to me (except evolution... no compromise there) my apologies again.

Just give me the apple and let me be. I want to suck the pandas thumb.

and you know, w/o natural selection, you can't have evolution. sorry rob, but that's the way it is.

I do know Kuresu... And I understand. How complex of a creature do you need before a self replicating cycle is established?

And I do not mean what scientists can imagine (faith/ extrapolate)... I mean show me the simplest living cell available in the fossil record or that is currently alive. I want verification and evidence. That's what they keep telling me science is. Then explain to me how it arose by the process of abiogenesis.

No imagination necessary. Evolution makes sense because we imagine that life started out simple. Turns out not to be the case.

Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles). And it has to be produced in the first place before it can be reproduced. And the specifics of the genetic information just so happen to have all of the instructions for the building of those organelles.

Have I offended you and your elitist brethren? The smartest people on earth? Perhaps a man of higher learning is more credible to you than a stupid truck driver?

Phillip Johnson - author ‘Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley-

“With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately ‘real’, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from.

Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists."

You can still believe in evolution and abiogenesis. Just use your imagination Kuresu!

Jeremiah 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

just thought I'd copy this whole off-topic gem. instead of bringing "Is Science a Religion?" thread further off-topic, I'm bringing it here.

basically, the topic is abiogenesis, and fixing Rob's misconceptions of just what is required for DNA to come about and replicate.

I don't know much about the topic--my area of knowledge in biology is in evolution--which is only concerned with what happens after we have life. What I do know, is that Rob is mistaken in his statement that

Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles

What I'd like to see, I guess, is a compilation of current abiogenesis information--what we do know about DNA replication and creation.

The topics of science being a religion, or evolution being our modern "creation myth", are not the topic. i'm warning everyone now--talk about those two (or any other off-topic junk), and I will ask for a suspension.


Question. Always Question.

" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Doddy, posted 02-05-2007 6:27 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 7:10 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 11 by kalimero, posted 02-07-2007 7:02 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Rob, posted 04-11-2007 11:11 PM kuresu has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 305 (382594)
02-05-2007 11:27 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nathan, posted 03-06-2007 6:00 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 305 (382618)
02-05-2007 2:25 PM


kicking it off
okay, so I'll start with a link. not the greatest way, but. it's from wikipedia, and is woefully inadequate, but it does serve as an introduction to the ideas about abiogenesis.

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

in particular, I like this section:

1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism

ancient research, yeah, but the key point is in its simplicity. or rather, the simplicity of the first self-replicating organisms/molecules.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Matt P, posted 02-05-2007 4:45 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 4 of 305 (382645)
02-05-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by kuresu
02-05-2007 2:25 PM


Re: kicking it off
Hi Kuresu,
While several labs make their livings replicating DNA without using cells or organelles, or anything beyond an enzyme or two, that's probably not what Rob's looking for. Nonetheless, it dispells the blanket statement:
Genetic information cannot be reproduced without cell structures (oganelles).

However, there were two fairly elegant experiments performed in the early 1970s, one by Sol Spiegelman, the other by Leslie Orgel.

Spiegelman's experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster) took a strand of RNA from a virus and was able to replicate it without adding anything besides a few nucleobases (essentially food). It replicated on its own, eventually forming a strand of nucleotides ~220 units in length. Further work has continued to decrease its length. This work was important because it very clearly showed that replication, selection, and evolution act even on simple chemical systems, and that autocatalysis goes beyond paper-theory and is easy to observe at work in the universe.

Another approach was taken by Leslie Orgel, who, as opposed to Spiegelman's top-down approach (starting with viral RNA), used an RNA replicase enzyme to polymerize RNA to form long chains of RNA. Further work by Orgel, Jim Ferris, Dave Deamer, and others has continued to form long chains of RNA without the use of enzymes (using divalent cations, clays, and dehydration cycles with lipid vesicles, respectively), with these methods forming strands of nucleobases of a maximum of about 100 in length.

So the points to take home are 1) catalytic molecule self-replicating molecules can be small, and 2) making small molecules that could eventually be self-replicating is easy.

While personally, I think that there are other routes to the origin of genetic information than the pathways suggested by these researchers, these research projects are all promising and suggest that forming genetic information doesn't require cell-life.

Hope this helps!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 2:25 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jjsemsch, posted 04-11-2007 3:02 PM Matt P has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 5 of 305 (382670)
02-05-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
02-05-2007 11:19 AM


Then explain to me how it arose by the process of abiogenesis.

There are so, so many hypotheses that I couldn't tell you all of them. Do a little reading on the matter. The problem is that very little evidence is available to help support one hypothesis over another.

And, when dealing with genetic information, you don't have to assume that it started off on the same sort of media as we see now (any more than we'd assume that digital MP3s have always existed to store music, and neglect vinyl records as possible).

You don't necessarily need DNA or even RNA to have replication. For example, mad cow disease is caused by a prion (a replicating protein).

Another form of storage of information has been proposed by British biochemist Graham Cairns-Smith (as is mentioned in kurusu's wikipedia link). He suggest that clay crystals were the first form of biological information storage, until the organisms upgraded to nucleic acids.


"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 11:19 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4119 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 6 of 305 (382678)
02-05-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
02-05-2007 11:19 AM


Question; Why did you quote an entire off-topic gem if it is not open for discussion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 11:19 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 7:14 PM anastasia has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 7 of 305 (382681)
02-05-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by anastasia
02-05-2007 7:10 PM


the whole quote of rob's post is off-topic in "is science a religion?" thread. he's talking about abiogenesis (mainly--there's some other junk in it too) in it. which is the topic of this thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 7:10 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 7:47 PM kuresu has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4119 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 8 of 305 (382694)
02-05-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kuresu
02-05-2007 7:14 PM


kuresu writes:

the whole quote of rob's post is off-topic in "is science a religion?" thread. he's talking about abiogenesis (mainly--there's some other junk in it too) in it. which is the topic of this thread.

Good, then take out the 'other junk', explain what is wrong with Rob's understanding of abiogenesis, and ask for support for your position. No need for derogatory comments and threats about suspensions. It is a normal thread in which the mod's can judge for themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 7:14 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 7:53 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 305 (382696)
02-05-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by anastasia
02-05-2007 7:47 PM


when you're an admin, you can make those decisions about people's threads. take this to the moderation thread if you don't like the set-up of my OP.

i included the threat of suspension because I know that this topic will most likely go off-topic, in a short period. you're already doing that. i want this thread to stay on topic as much as possible.

take it to the moderation thread if you feel that an admin should've told me to rework the OP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 7:47 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4117
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 10 of 305 (383013)
02-06-2007 4:54 PM


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

...would be a good start for an overview on the subject.


kalimero
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 11 of 305 (383351)
02-07-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
02-05-2007 11:19 AM


"Biochemical" evoluton
Here are some links to the biochemistry text book "Biochemistry, Fifth Edition"/Jeremy M. Berg, John L. Tymoczko and Lubert Stryer, whicha re relevant to abiogenesis. The text may be a little technical but if one wishes to understand the origin of life - there is no other way IMHO.

Key Organic Molecules Are Used by Living Systems

Evolution Requires Reproduction, Variation, and Selective Pressure


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 02-05-2007 11:19 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
lovefaithhope
Junior Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 12
From: richmond, bc, canada
Joined: 02-15-2007


Message 12 of 305 (385412)
02-15-2007 2:38 PM


the seed is able to grow
Let's take the seed... it has the ability to grow and to bear fruit!
You wanna know the facts? The seed has everything it needs to become a full grown plant.

Now for evolution... this is false for you say that we evolve into something while lacking the ability to become the evolved product.

Remember to become something you need to have the ABILITY to become something. And finally let's take the growth of children... the growth of the child which he/she will experience is already predetermined by the ABILITY to grow to a certain height.

Now take yourself for an example... you were predetermined to grow up the way you have.

Of course what we do with our numerous ABILITIES is up to us.

Now ask yourself who is able to create us having all these abilities... someone with the same abilities.
Abilities --------> Abilities.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 02-15-2007 4:22 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 02-15-2007 4:45 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 643 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 305 (385424)
02-15-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lovefaithhope
02-15-2007 2:38 PM


Re: the seed is able to grow
lovefaithhope writes:

Now ask yourself who is able to create us having all these abilities... someone with the same abilities.

And who is able to create "someone"? Someone else with the same abilities? And who is able to create "someone else".......?

Welcome to the forum!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lovefaithhope, posted 02-15-2007 2:38 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded

lovefaithhope
Junior Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 12
From: richmond, bc, canada
Joined: 02-15-2007


Message 14 of 305 (385426)
02-15-2007 4:39 PM


God is able to do anything!
In the garden of this world we have an assortment of flowers or people.

You say how can he create someone then someone else... notice we all have some of the gifts or abilities of God including learning new things then applying our abilities to do great things and THAT is how we get the other man for he learned (ability) new ways to express himself for it is our choice how to use our abilities.

In the bible it is written that we are the breath of God and another message for you is to recongnize that we speak LIFE from our mouths.

ALL YOU EVOLUTION PEOPLE the reason you do not know the truth is because to you everything is a chemical (I ask you is your voice a chemical and if not how can you hear it... does the words (substance) come from inside the ear when pressure waves hit it... negative the words are life.

all you see is chemical changing and say this is where life comes from... negative God is our creator!


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2007 4:57 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 02-15-2007 5:29 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4076 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 15 of 305 (385428)
02-15-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lovefaithhope
02-15-2007 2:38 PM


Re: the seed is able to grow
Welcome to EvC!

lovefaithhope writes:

this is false for you say that we evolve into something while lacking the ability to become the evolved product.

This is a great example of "begging the question". You assume there is no way for the product to form, and use that to prove why the product can't form. You assume your own conclusion in order to prove your conclusion.


"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lovefaithhope, posted 02-15-2007 2:38 PM lovefaithhope has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019