Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
38 online now:
Aussie, Diomedes, jar, PaulK, xongsmith (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,114 Year: 12,862/23,288 Month: 587/1,527 Week: 26/240 Day: 7/19 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 312 (473049)
06-26-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
06-25-2008 8:17 AM


Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today?

That's not what the law of biogenesis states.

quote:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

source

How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?

Abiogenesis isn't full of faith :rolleyes:

quote:
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.

3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

source


Phail.

...and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?

What scientific evidence suggests that life cannot arrise from non-living matter? The LoB is based on the idea that we haven't observed life arrise from non-living matter, not that something prevents it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. It seems there is faith in biogenesis.

Also, Creationists love the LoB and try to use it against evolution. That's how I know its B.S.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-25-2008 8:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 312 (473051)
06-26-2008 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AlphaOmegakid
06-26-2008 5:00 PM


Re: Ad hominen attacks
Wow....

You gotta read more that the first paragraph in your links.

From your own source:

quote:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false


:laugh:

Just because an argument insults you personally doesn't mean that it is a fallacy. The insult has to be one of the premises that the conclusion is based on.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-26-2008 5:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 312 (473140)
06-27-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 9:44 AM


I'm not sure what you mean by "fully developed life". It seems like equivocating language to me. Is there any life that is not fully developed? I don't think so. If you do, then please provide some support for your argument.

Abiogenesis suggests that life did not form, fully-developed, from non-living matter.

If you look at my Message 19 you will see a simple outline. First, organic molecules need form from inorganic ones (Miller-Urey), then phospholpids, then RNA then later DNA then...

The point is that it is a gradual process. There is no "point" where life comes into play.

No I'm afraid the hypothesis of abiogenesis is referring to spontaneous generation.

Absolutely not! Spontaneous generation is fully formed living organism comming from non-living material while abiogenesis is a gradual process.

Actually it has been shown that organic matter can come from inorganic matter. This has nothing to do with life coming from organic or inorganic matter.

Sure it does. You need the organic material for life to form from. If inorganic material couldn't form organic material, then that would be a big problem for abiogenesis. A much bigger one than the law of biogenesis (which doesn't say what you think it says).

You haven't been accurately taught that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is enormous evidence for biogenesis. Why is that?

Evidence for biogenesis is that we see living organisms comming from living organisms. This is not evidence that living organisms cannot form from non-living matter.

And there is evidence that suggests that abiogenesis is possible.

You might be interested in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 9:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 312 (473141)
06-27-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 10:07 AM


Re: I didn't say.....the strawman
Dr Adequate writes:

Well, the difference between them is:
(1) We know that abiogenesis has taken place.

We know no such thing. Just because the geological record shows evidence of life not existing on earth in some previous eon is not evidence for abiogenesis. This is however, viable evidence for panspermia, and of course there are creation theories which modern day science doesn't allow.

Panspermia only pushes the question back farther. Where did that life come from?

When know that at some point in the past, there was no life in the universe. Then at some point after that, there was life in the universe. That life could not have formed from pre-existing life, since life didn't exist before it. Therefore, life, at some point in the past*, had to have come from non life. The objection to this is that life has always existed, which we know is impossible.

*not implying that it wasn't a gradual process by referring to a "point" at which life emerged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 312 (473148)
06-27-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 10:43 AM


Re: The "point" of life
Uhm... You have reached a logical dilemma. If there is no "point" where life comes into play, then there is no abiogenesis.

Wrong. Abiogenesis is a gradual process. Life doesn't emerge at some "point". Organic molecules gradually combine in the formation of life.

This is all just a bunch of silly equivocation on the definitions of life. It's all a logical fallacy. The same applies to the undefined phrase "fully developed".

The only equivocation I've seen in this thread is the ones you've used for biogenesis and abiogenesis.

They aren't like you've described them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 10:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 312 (473161)
06-27-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 12:12 PM


Re: Your Own Source Disagrees withYou
Abiogenesis today is the same gradual process that Huxley imagined. But he had no evidence to support it. We still don't.

That's where you're wrong. There is evidence to support abiogenesis.

Did you even click on the link to the thread that I provided in Message 38?

ABE:

Here is was this thread.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : had wrong message number

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added link to thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-28-2008 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 312 (473196)
06-27-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OMFG! I cannot believe you just wrote that.

That is what we have been screaming at you.

Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material?

The Law of Biogenesis states that fully formed life doesn't come from non-living material, and it isn't even meant to be an antithesis to abiogenesis.

So when are you going to stop talking about it and start being about it?

Please don't become a hypocrite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 312 (473381)
06-28-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 5:54 PM


I assume you may believe in Dawinian evolution which supposedly started with one common ancestor some 3.8 or so billion years ago. Since that suposed time, we have seen evidence all over the world that life begets life. There has been no evidenc of life since that suposed time that has gradually arisen from non-living chemicals. That's 3.8 billion years worth of evidence, and countless demonstrations in the labs.

And none of that evidence suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

Now to the contrary, present evidence that life can gradually arise from non- living chemical. Go ahead, let's see what you have.

You haven't presented any evidence that it can't yet....

And I can tell by your sarcasm that you're going to be one of those people where the presented evidence just isn't "enough".

And I've already linked to a thread here (twice) that discusses some evidence for abiogenesis. Plus, you can just google for evidence for it. Here is the first page that comes up:

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-10-2008 9:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 312 (476529)
07-24-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 1:30 PM


Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is.

But the law of biogenesis is not a scienific law. A quick google scholar search doesn't provide any scientific papers dealing with the law of biogenesis. Do you know of any scientific papers that deal with it? If science, itself, doesn't consider it a law well then, it ain't.

It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life.

Sure, and what science is finding is that this probably is not true. That advancement is being made in how the first living cells came to be, science is realizing that somewhere along the line, life had to come from something that was non-living. And the logical extension of the law of biogenesis is that life has always existed. There could never have been the "first" life because it wouldn't have had anything to come from.

Also, saying that all life comes from life IS saying that abiogenesis impossible.

Just because we have only observed life comming from life does not mean that life cannot come from non-life.

The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law. Can you provide a source for a scientific paper that even mentions the law of biogenesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 312 (476553)
07-24-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 4:29 PM


Since you cannot present a scientific paper that even references the law of biogenesis, I assume you have conceided the point that it is a scientific law and will no longer claim it as such. Thank you.

Maybe you should read this thread. I have presented substantial evidence that it is a law.

You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.

All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.

Baloney detector has just gone off. If you really believe this then show some evidence that life came from non-living chemicals. Science has not shown anything of the sort.

Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.

Actually a theory that life has always existed would be logical in light of the law of biogenesis. It certainly is what I believe. Your last statement is a matter of perspective. Time is a relative thing you know. Maybe life came form somewhere outside of our current time relativity. That's what I believe.

That's just made up bullshit, though.

Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible. SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe. Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.

CS writes:

Just because we have only observed life comming from life does not mean that life cannot come from non-life.

I'll agree with this argument if you'll agree that just because science does not consider the metaphysical supernatural that it doesn't exist.

Science's inability to detect the supernatural in no way suggests that the supernatural does not exist.

So, you're going to stop posting that the law of biogenesis means that abiogenesis couldn't have happened, right?

CS writes:

The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law. Can you provide a source for a scientific paper that even mentions the law of biogenesis?

It is. Your claims do not make it not. If you want to present some evidence other than your ignorance on the subject, then please do so. I have presented evidence that it is indeed a law of nature. The ball is in your court.

"Reading is the magic key to take you where you want to be." Please read the thread.

I have read the thread. And no, you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the LoB is a scientific law. Law's of nature don't mean anything. If all I have ever seen is white people, then I could claim that Only White People Exist is a law of nature. But that doesn't make it true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 4:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 312 (476914)
07-28-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 1:45 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
A valiant effort, kid, but you failed.

Science and Human Affairs
E. C. Stakman
Science 9 February 1951 113: 137-142 [DOI: 10.1126/science.113.2928.137]
Here is the direct quote from this article:
The record of the past hundred years is amazing when we consider the integration of knowledge regarding organic evolution, the laws of inheritance in plants and animals, the application of the law of biogenesis to microorganisms, the cause and nature of fermentation, the causes and nature of diseases of animals and plants, the principles of soil fertility, the structure of matter as a basis for modern chemistry and physics.

Simply mentioning the LoB is not a referencing it. You do know what a reference is, don’t you?

Order in the Physical World and its First Cause According to Modern Science. From the French. New York, James Pott & Co. 12°. $1.; Natural Law in the Spiritual World. By HENRY DRUMMOND. New York, James Pott & Co. 12° 75 cts
Science 25 March 1892 ns-19: 177 [DOI: 10.1126/science.ns-19.477.177] (in Articles

That one is from “Natural Law in the Spiritual World” and its from 1892 :laugh:

Here is the reference:
For instance, he speaks of the law of biogenesis, that life can only come from antecedent life,...

Simply mentioning some false “Law” is not a reference. A modern scientific textbook might mention the LoB in a discussion of the history of the discovery of microorganisms and how mankind found out that spontaneous generation was false. That is not referencing the LoB.

Wikipedia references the LoB:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

Now this one, this exposes what the LoB really is. Its not some biological law that refutes abiogenesis, it is the idea that fully functioning organisms to not spontaneously generate, with which I agree.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia references LoB:
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2832/biogenesis.html
The principle that a living organism can arise only from another living organism. It contrasts with notions such as the spontaneous generation of living organisms from non-living matter by natural processes.
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.
Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.

Yeah, this is exactly what I’m talking about. I like this line:

quote:
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

:laugh: Your source agrees with ME :laugh:

CS writes:

You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.
All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.


Au contraire! I am the only one who has presented scientific papers and citations for the Law of Biogenesis. To the contrary, you haven't presented one scientific publication that provides evidence that shows that abiogenesis is possible. That's called a lame argument. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

:rolleyes: You have still yet to present one single piece of evidence that the law of biogenesis is valid.

CS writes:

Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.


That's right, you have plausibility.

Hey alright! You’ve admitted plausibility. At least you’ve moved from your original position that abiogenesis is impossible and the LoB refutes it :laugh: but we all knew that was an idiotic position

CS writes:

Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible.


Not so. You evidently don't understand the theory of relativity. Time is relative to both the speed of light and to gravity. There are gravity wells in the universe called black holes, and time "slows down" when gravity is increased. It also is slower the faster the speed of the clock. There are many time relativities within our universe. That's why it is called relativity.

You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

CS writes:

SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe.


Again, you cannot prove this.

In the earliest times of our Universe, there were not even atoms. Life is made of molecules which are made of atoms. Without atoms, life is impossible. This proves that some point in the past there was no life in the Universe.

CS writes:

Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.


Ok la la la la la. Rather than argue this ridiculous claim, I will just ask you the same thing that you claimed I couldn't do.

No, no, no. This is an important part that you shouldn’t ignore…

The LoB is impossible because the first life could never have arisen. What lifeform did the first lifeform come from if it had to come from another lifeform? Its impossible unless life has always existed in our Universe. But we know this isn’t true because in the distant past there were not even atoms to make up the molecules that life is made of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 1:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 312 (477300)
08-01-2008 1:49 AM


A better question....
How much longer are you guys going to feed this troll?

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 312 (477346)
08-01-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid
08-01-2008 10:07 AM


laws
Hey kid,

I don't care to prove to you that abiogenesis happened. I just wanted to correct your misunderstanding of what a scientific law is.

No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is.

Scientific laws are equations. They have an equals sign in them.

Something like: PV=nRT the ideal gas law

The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law.

You may mean that there is nothing in science that makes any law of science absolute. If that's what you meant, then maybe I'll agree with you.

Scientific laws are pretty much absolute. For example, F=ma. The force of an object is, by definition, its mass times its acceleration. It can't be anything else. Now, laws can be disproven, but they're are either true or false, there is not a grey area and in that sense, they are pretty much absolute.

My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence.

And yet, you've been shown on multiple occasions the supportive evidence of abiogenesis. But you avoid responding to those points.

Which is why I have not interest in your argument anymore. You're just trolling. But I reserve the right to tell you where you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 312 (477636)
08-05-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 1:34 PM


Re: Another nice example
It is amazing to me how some people of faith can read whatever they want to read in a given text.

Is this a self-reference?

Look at the underlined sections of the passage you cited. (by the way, thank you for at least citing something) Bateriophages are all agents of death. It is all underlined for you to understand. If you can.

You failed again, kid. Whats that, like, 3 times now I've caught you failing in this thread?

Wikipedia writes:


In contrast, the lysogenic cycle does not result in immediate lysing of the host cell. Those phages able to undergo lysogeny are known as temperate phages. Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid The virus remains dormant until host conditions deteriorate, perhaps due to depletion of nutrients, then the endogenous phages (known as prophages) become active. At this point they initiate the reproductive cycle resulting in lysis of the host cell. As the lysogenic cycle allows the host cell to continue to survive and reproduce, the virus is reproduced in all of the cell’s offspring.

Sometimes prophages may provide benefits to the host bacterium while they are dormant by adding new functions to the bacterial genome in a phenomenon called lysogenic conversion A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy.

The red part proves that not all virus are agents of death. If the cells reproduce then the virus isn't an agent of death.

Besides, if they were, then we wouldn't have things like Endogenous retroviruses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 1:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 312 (477643)
08-05-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 2:28 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
dokukaeru writes:

Why cant Abiogenesis be such a path?

It is indeed such a path. A path of faith. A religious path. Keep it out of the schools. thank you.

So you continue to assert despite being refuted with the showing of the evidence in favor of abiogenesis that makes it non-faith, by definition.

Reasserting refuted arguments makes you a troll, kid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 2:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020