|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| 4petdinos | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days)  Posts: 96 Joined: |
Nope, not rhetorical. Here’s the references: Vogel, G., RNA study suggests cool cradle of life, Science 283(5399):155–156, 1999 Miller, S.L., A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions, Science 117:528–529; p. 528, 1953 (Where he describes his experiment) http://www.americanairandwater.com/uv-hospitals/index.htm (For the hospital reference) Traps: Miller http://wiki.answers.com/...enetrate_water_and_to_what_degree Peptide bonds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis homochirality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry) Racemate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
Yes, that's what I meant, Percy. Sorry about the mix-up. I tend to do that even in class. (Got scolded multiple times for mixing a "point" and "line"  )
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member  Posts: 16673 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.9
|
I'd consider that an argument in favour of abiogenesis. If viruses have some of the characteristics of life but not all, then the distinction between living and non-living matter is blurred.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coragyps Member Posts: 5393 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.5
|
You lost me in there somewhere. Can bacteria "metabolize on their own?" Synechococcus, for example?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 16097 Joined: |
Uh, no, you need to incorporate bacteria if you think they're alive.
Well, creationists usually claim that God is alive. (And, of course, dead people too.) So it would be nice if one of them just once would provide a definition of life under which this would be true. Is God "an organism that can metabolize on its own"? Not according to conventional ideas of the Godhead. So ...
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
Actually, I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
Yes I did. Sorry, I meant God. And, oh, no God is not bacteria...  My thinking error
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
quote: My error... quote: You see. I don’t claim God is alive. I rather view it as God is beyond death.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16097 Joined: |
"The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted." --- Psalms 18:46 Of course, if you don't want to take the Bible literally ... then you could stop being a creationist now.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member Posts: 16673 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
Viruses are pretty successful as they are. What environmental "pressure" would there be for them to evolve a fundamentally different lifestye?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coragyps Member Posts: 5393 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.5
|
I've never seen a virus that was a bacterium, even on the evening shift. "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.8
|
First, understand that no one is proposing that metabolizing life evolved from viruses, not that that isn't a possibility deserving of consideration, but no one here is making that argument. Ringo was only saying that there can be gradations of life, that some "organisms" can have some but not all of the qualities of life. But second, I'm concerned about the "I"ve never seen" part of your message. To put the concern in a context familiar to you, have you ever seen Noah's flood? Have you ever seen Jesus resurrected? How much of the things that you think you know have you ever seen? You may want to do some thinking and investigating about the actual methods scientists employ to establish confidence in what they think they know. --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
I have told phat in a private message that I adhere not to a literal reading of Scripture, but to a literal-historical-grammatical-contextual reading (I think I said that somewhere on the forum too) And yeah, it was a private message......
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined: |
Which means that they would not evolve the ability to metabolize, right? So they can’t be intermediate. They are simply too successful.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LimpSpider Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 96 Joined:
|
Re: Ringo. Ok got it quote: Good thinking. Here’s the fundamental difference between the two. We can’t experiment on a one time event. However, if life evolved from non-life in the past, it should still be able to do so now, right? There is a distinction between the two. The first is historical science, and the second is operational science. Historical science is interpreting data of one-time events according to a framework and on which we can’t do experiments. Operational science is where we can do experiments. quote: ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’ Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14 Not that I agree with everything he says.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
