Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
108 online now:
Aussie, nwr, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 102 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,047 Year: 6,159/6,534 Month: 352/650 Week: 122/278 Day: 20/24 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 415 (76515)
01-04-2004 5:19 PM


I would like to start a thread concerning the issue raised by creationists concerning the structure of abiogenesis. I am certain that we are all aware that all biological structures are composed of chemical elements that follow rules of physics that we can give a fair bit of evidence to back up. My question is this. Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for suoernatural intervention?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by M82A1, posted 01-05-2004 9:33 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 01-14-2004 3:29 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 146 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:59 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 251 by Peg, posted 03-24-2009 12:07 AM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 415 (76739)
01-05-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by M82A1
01-05-2004 9:33 PM


Abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non living matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by M82A1, posted 01-05-2004 9:33 PM M82A1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 01-05-2004 9:41 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 10 by DNAunion, posted 01-09-2004 7:39 PM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 415 (76740)
01-05-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
01-05-2004 9:39 PM


damn beat me to the definition. Congrats Asgara

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 01-05-2004 9:39 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 01-05-2004 9:42 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 415 (76743)
01-05-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara
01-05-2004 9:42 PM


Bows deeply in the direction of Wisconsin hears loud crack and falls to floor writhing in agony.

[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-05-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 01-05-2004 9:42 PM Asgara has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 23 of 415 (77485)
01-09-2004 10:45 PM


Hello folks.Just a quick line to drop off a website address. Check it out and let me know what you think. http://www.holysmoke.org/fox.htm

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DNAunion, posted 01-10-2004 12:20 AM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 25 of 415 (77515)
01-10-2004 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by DNAunion
01-10-2004 12:20 AM


DNA

Could you explain your contention?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DNAunion, posted 01-10-2004 12:20 AM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DNAunion, posted 01-10-2004 12:47 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2004 8:41 AM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 29 of 415 (77775)
01-11-2004 1:55 PM


Quetzal and DNAunion

Thanks for the critique of Fox. I do find it easier to work from the position of the weaknesses of a persons explanation for things since it allows me a chance to ascertain for myself how strong their work actually is.Quetzal mentioned a position for how abiogenesis occured but DNA did not.

So I would like to understand what it is you view as weaknesses in your own scenarios and what would be required in order to resolve the difficulties.


"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DNAunion, posted 01-11-2004 4:32 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 31 of 415 (77834)
01-11-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by DNAunion
01-11-2004 4:32 PM


DNAunion

You state

But then how did the transition from nothing-like-RNA to RNA occur? That's problematic

Is there any evidence that points to the mechanism that allows RNA to replicate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DNAunion, posted 01-11-2004 4:32 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by DNAunion, posted 01-11-2004 7:04 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2004 8:36 AM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 43 of 415 (106630)
05-08-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Gup20
05-08-2004 3:22 PM


Gup20

The living relationship, the one we need for living things, is using a series of bases taking 3 at a time to line up a series of amino acid R groups. Those groups can be acids… but they can also be base! Single ring, double ring, short chain, long chain, with or without sulfur – they can be almost anything chemically. The point is this – there is no natural tendency for a series of bases to line up a series of R groups. That relationship has to be imposed from the outside. At this fundamental level, then, we have evidence that life on earth is a product of special creation.

The relationships need not be imposed from outside as again it is the atomic level at which the rules of physics define the relationships that chemistry imposes upon the biological.The error here is assuming that the fundemental processes occur at the level of "living" things. Again there is bias on the part of people to consider the word life has a basis in reality that arises somehow magically seperate from the atoms that make it up.This is not clearly shown to be so and if we do not have a clear picture of what life is then why are we arguing for it.


"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 3:22 PM Gup20 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 02-16-2007 6:36 PM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5222 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 45 of 415 (111566)
05-30-2004 1:12 PM


I am going to bump this topic by reinterating my original question which seems to have been lost in a fog along the line.

Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for supernatural intervention?

I would like to concentrate on debating this without going off on a tangent.

This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-01-2004 06:36 PM


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2007 9:01 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022