Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
63 online now:
nwr, Theodoric (2 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Member (Idle past 1338 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 129 of 415 (498401)
02-10-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by traste
02-10-2009 7:39 AM

I dont think so.No experiment confirmation.

What does defining the difference between two terms have to do with experimental confirmation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:39 AM traste has taken no action

Member (Idle past 1338 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 132 of 415 (498408)
02-10-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by traste
02-10-2009 7:52 AM

Re: Conclusions
Oh are you defining or imposing?

The post you were responding to was defining. The conversation went:

A good definition of abiogenesis should be given: one that clearly distinguishes it from spontaneous generation.

Message 14

To which Loudmouth replied

Spontaneous generation: Common species found on the earth today can be produced from inanimate chemicals, such as muddy puddles (frogs), meat left out in the sunlight (maggots and flies), or milk left in a jug for a long period of time (lactobacillus). No new species can be created from spontaneous generation, but instead the theory describes where they come from.

Abiogenesis: A self propagating chemical reaction starts that results in self replicating polymers. This gives rise to more complex chemical reactions due to accretion of small mistakes in the self replication reactions. Eventually, this results in cellular life due to capture in lipid bodies, followed by diversification into the species we see today.

Nobody is imposing anything, just defining what two different things mean, in a rough around the edges kind of fashion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:52 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:50 PM Modulous has replied

Member (Idle past 1338 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 194 of 415 (498924)
02-15-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by traste
02-13-2009 9:50 PM

origins of life, origins of that bit of mould
I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?

As long as you accept they are entirely different ideas - what you call them is irrelevant. If you think that today's biochemists propose that the origins of life are that modern life sprang complete from rotting meat - that's when you run into problems.

In my reply in Feb 10 2009 I apologize if I did not recognize evolutionist Francis Hitching as my reference.This what he said "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reaction water in any case inhibits the growth ofmore complex molecules"Dont you hear about that thing?

The question I asked you, which you seemed to have forgotten was in a completely different thread. It was Message 210 and I asked you "Do you know how much energy is required to 'further chemical reaction'? How does this compare with the quantity of energy next to an underwater thermal vent?". I imagine your answer is 'I don't know. But I can find another human who has said what I just said.'. Calling Hitching an 'evolutionist' just goes to show how useless that term is. Most would regard him as an evolution-denying hack, who also writes books about psi energy and dowsing.

Until such time as you can actually provide an answer to the question your assertion that "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES)." is a bare, unsupported assertion...did Hitching provide any calculations here at all?

Do you own, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, or anything else by Hitching by any chance? Have you read it? Or did you just pull that quote from a creationist/evolution-denying website?

In fact chemist Richard Dickerson said...And biochemist George Wald said

Is this your best? A sequence of out of context quotes, in response to a question asked in a totally different thread? I have already stated "It is true that water can be problematic when it comes to certain chemical reactions.", so telling me that some biochemists have said the same thing seems a little pointless - don't you think? The point is, though water can be problematic it doesn't present an terminal barrier. I even gave you a source, where a biochemist explains how such chemical reactions can take place in aqueous solutions. I assume you didn't read that? To paraphrase you - "Or your only so concern to the idea that denies evolution?"

If you were honest, you would at least cite the articles and dates when these people said it. I'll give you the first one, Dickerson, R. E., 1978, Chemical evolution and the origin of life: Scientific American, v. 239, no. 3, p. 70-108. Dickerson starts with that quote, and then goes on to describe some ways polymerization could have proceeded in an aqueous environment. Scientists like starting by telling you the problem, and then telling you what the solution is. If you remember high school science you were usually encouraged to start with something like 'Define the problem'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:50 PM traste has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022