Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,222 Year: 5,479/9,624 Month: 504/323 Week: 1/143 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 86 of 415 (483627)
09-23-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by onifre
09-23-2008 1:53 AM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
However Abiogenesis does not claim that life spontaneously arises.
It absolutely does my friend...... I'm afraid that you like many others in this forum and the Biogenesis thread do not understand what a spontaneous natural process is.
wiki writes:
Spontaneous means a self-generated event, typically requiring no outside influence or help. -Spontaneous-
It is an outright fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous. It is also a fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Every single chemical reaction and self organizational step along the long and winding millions of years origin of life road is a step that must be spontaneously generated, and each step must obey the 2nd Law of themodynamics. Each step in the abiogenesis hypothesis must be a spontaneous process.
Now I can certainly understand why you don't want the word "spontaneous" to be associated with abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was falsified 150 years ago or so, and so you and others now have to equivocate on terms to justify your position. But fallacies are fallacies, and I would think that you would not have any toleration for fallacies in science.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by onifre, posted 09-23-2008 1:53 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 4:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 09-23-2008 5:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 87 of 415 (483643)
09-23-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by eial
09-23-2008 12:16 AM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Hello eial and welcome to EVC.
eial writes:
What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis. It is not just a cute little idea, it is not a hypothesis, it is a law. It cannot be used at ones convenience. It is irrefutable. It is proven. Every single experiment that has been done and continues to be done will confirm it because it is a LAW. Interesting that this is not talked about much. So, unless you throw this law out, abiogenesis is not even worth mentioning. My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for well . forever! Or, just don’t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today.
My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design. If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force.
You will find out quickly that many in this forum do throw out the law of biogenesis. They don't like it, because it presents problems for their worldview. This is why no current papers or Biology books even make mention of the law of biogenesis.
The Cell theory is also a problem, because it says that "the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things." That means that a cell is the smallest known living thing. People who believe in abiogenesis need "living things" that are much simpler than cells. That's why abiogenesis is a philosophical faith and not good science. IMO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by eial, posted 09-23-2008 12:16 AM eial has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 89 of 415 (483666)
09-23-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 4:05 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
bluescat48 writes:
So, of a billion years is spontaneous?
Time has nothing to do with spontaneous chemical reactions and self organizing reactions. That's your category error. They could happen in an instant, or they could take millions of years for the right circumstances.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 4:05 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 92 of 415 (483843)
09-24-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by onifre
09-23-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
All quotes by onifre....
Yes, each chemical reaction towards one another is spontaneous, like I asked you before on another thread, are you saying there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions?
No, absolutely not. There are a myriad of spontaneous chemical ractions.
Abiogenesis hypothesis:
1. Spontaneous chemical reactions.
2. Enough reactions begin to form pre-life structures.
3. Added reactions continue the process towards life.
4. Life emerges after enough chemical reactions.
This is what Abiogenesis claims. It is observed that chemicals DO spontaneously react to one another.
I would say this is an excellent summary of abiogenesis.
It has been experimented for and observed to be capable of occuring under the proper conditions (you can argue that they are speculating the conditions if you like).
I assume you are talking about spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization and not abiogenesis here. Abiogenesis clearly has not been observed.
It is NOT in any way claiming that a single reaction creates life.
It doesn't matter, that is a strawman argument. It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive. The quantity and frequency of the reactions are irrelevant.
If that moment is not obsevable, measurable, or quantifiable then this just ain't science, because it is unfalsifiable. If life is not definable, then this ain't science, because it prevents falsifiability based on equivocation.
What you're suggesting is:
1. A single chemical reacts and spontaneously forms life.
That my friend is what is suggested by you, and in the 'Law of Biogenesis', and it is NOT what is suggested within the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
No, absolutely not. This is another strawman. The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with "a single chemical reaction". What we know and observe is that the creation of life (biogenesis) is a myriad of spontaneous chemical reactions happening all in a very short period of time. When a cell divides to create another there are "tons" of chemical reactions. When two gametes come together to create a zygote, there are "tons" of chemical reactions spontaneously occurring. There is nothing in my argument that suggests a single chemical reaction.
I gave 2 clear definitions in the post you quoted, you made no reference to them nor to what they explained about the 2 different subjects.
Yeah, so you posted a definition of abiogenesis and biogenesis. I saw no need to argue with your definitions. They are two different words with two different meanings. So what. So far, you are the only one misusing the definition of abiogenesis to misrepresent what it isas well as biogenesis.
I also provided a quote about Pastuers' results on spontaneous generation, you made no reference to those either. If you are going to reject sound evidence towards the contrary of what you claim then you are just being bullheaded and arrogant. Any further attemt to debate you will simply be a waste of time.
Why should I need to respond about Pasteur's results? I know them better than you. I have not rejected sound evidence. You and others in the Biogeneis thread have argued that LoB doesn't even exist. You and others have argued that the abiogenesis of today is different from the abiogenesis during Huxley's day. It isn't. You and others have argued that abiogenesis has nothing to do with biogenesis. But it does.
It sounds to me that you are the one rejecting sound evidence,and being "bullheaded and arrogant".
Your right, I have no tolerance for fallacies in science, that is why most of what you say gets ignored.
But you haven't properly identified any fallacies of mine. However I have properly identified yours. Huh....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 09-23-2008 5:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rahvin, posted 09-24-2008 2:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 09-24-2008 6:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 95 of 415 (483972)
09-25-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
09-24-2008 6:43 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Lets see if I can say it a bit more clearly; Abiogenesis is the study of spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization. Ok?
Not OK! Why don't you just quote a decent source so we can all agree...
wiki writes:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules abiogenesis
Now wasn't that simple! Abiogenesis, as has been stated before, historically, is the search to substantiate the general hypothesis that life can be generated from non-living chemicals.
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.
Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life. Infact, I showed that the evidence of life that clearly demonstrates that life is created with a mutltitude of chemical reactions all happening at the same time. I realize this is post life, but that is where all these abiogenesis studies come from. They come from what we already know about existing life. So stop trying to make the argument that I am saying that the creation of life is about a single chemical reaction.
I fully understand that all abiogesis hypotheses rely on millions of years of successive chemical reactions. That only makes it plausible to the faithful. It doesn't make it plausible by evidence. But there still will be a moment in time where the predecessor grouping of chemicals is not alive, and then all of a sudden it is alive. If not, then how can it be about the study of the origin of life? There is indeed an origin isn't there? And it evidently only happened once. (one common ancestor)
A combination of various chemicals, arranged in order, can produce life, whether you want to say God had to be there to do this, or you can agree that if left alone these chemicals, given enough time and the proper conditions will do this on their own, it doesn't remove the fact that life is a combination of chemicals.
I will have to cut your statements here apart, because they are full of fallacies.
"A combination of various chemicals, arranged in order, can produce life," Wrong. This is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but that's all it is. It certainly is no where close to the factual claim that you just made.
"whether you want to say God had to be there to do this, or you can agree that if left alone these chemicals, given enough time and the proper conditions will do this on their own, it doesn't remove the fact that life is a combination of chemicals."
Wrong again. There is no evidence that given enough time (your magic) that if left alone, any chemicals will self organize to create life. And life is not just chemicals. Chemicals are matter. They have mass and they interact with other chemicals. But life requires gravity doesn't it? And gravity is not matter. And it is "invisible." And it effects every chemical reaction and every spontaneous organization event doesn't it? Light also affects life. Almost all life, responds to light and most life requires light. And much of light is "invisible". Even many of the origin of life experiments to create chirality involve light. Yet light is non-material and non-chemical.
Now I have just identified two non-material fundamental elements one of which is absolutely esential for life, and the other is probably essential for life. And both affect those chemical reactions all along the way, don't they? Now what prevents the future discovery of an invisible non-material entity other than gravity and light that is absolutely essential for life? That's not so unreasonable given the evidence is it?
So, perhaps you need to get familiar with those definitions seeing as how you keep using them in the wrong context.
So put up or shut up onifre. Cite my words exactly and demonstrate where I have used these definitions in the wrong context. Bring forth your evidence or go waddle off in the shame of your false claims.
Thats because it does NOT apply to abiogenesis,
You do not have enough information to declare this. You nor anyone else have broken the LoB. The LoB may very well apply to abiogenesis. Especially if there is indeed an invisible non-material entity that is passed from life to life, but cannot come from chemicals alone. And that is a reasonable scientific hypothesis, since the LoB is so universal, yet abiogenesis still remains a philosophical faith. At least you are faithful.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 09-24-2008 6:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 09-25-2008 1:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 97 of 415 (483996)
09-25-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
09-25-2008 1:51 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
All quotes from onifre...
It is not a strawman.
You have stated several times now that....
It is NOT in any way claiming that a single reaction creates life.
What you're suggesting is:
1. A single chemical reacts and spontaneously forms life.
msg 90
Now I know that you don't understand what a strawman is, but it is still a strawman argument. Nobody, but you has stated this claim. You are arguing against your own words.
Then you do it again after I point this out....
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction msg 94
No one has claimed that abiogenesis is looking for a single reaction that creates life. That is your strawman. Now I have identified these three times. Please recognize your fallacious tendency.
The reactions that you are making reference to are of living organisms reproducing! This is not what is studied in the field of Abiogenesis. The chemical reactions that are spoken about in Abiogenesis are pre-life chemical reactions adding up to the first living cells.
So what, all I am showing is that it doesn't matter whether it is one chemical reaction or zillions of chemical reactions scattererd thoughout a time period. I don't care. I have not argued that life must created by a single chemical reaction. That is your fallacy.
Fine, if you want to say it takes faith I don't give a shit, no one is seeking your approval on the issue. Just as long as you understand that it's a successive process and therefore the so called Law of Biogenesis does NOT apply because Biogenesis has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. That is all that im arguing.
So this is your logic? The successive process of abiogenesis nullifies the LoB? Wrong. LoB states that ALL living matter comes from pre-existing living matter. That happens to be inclusive of the life we have discovered that supposedly existed some 3.8 billion years ago. For life to have a chemical origin, science will have to show exception to the LoB. The LoB will have to be bounded where no boundary can be shown today. You see, the magic of millions of years just won't be sufficient for any theory of abiogenesis. To nulify or bound the LoB, one must show observable repeatable evidence that life can originate from chemical processes. Otherwise you're still are going to be left with just a philosophical mystical story of lifes origins that somehow evolved over millions of years.
There is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausible, you choose to reject the evidence because of your religious beliefs.
Then please don't just make assertions. Please provide evidence of scientists claiming that there is evidence that makes abiogenesis plausible. Cite a paper. Please!
I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean, and/or how it applies to biogenesis.
I wouldn't suspect you would.
It is also full of erroneous assertions about the interactions of matter and gravity in respects to biological organisms, clearly you don't have much of an understanding of physics either...
Yes assertions, please back up your assertions and show anything that I have said about matter, gravity and light that is not scientifically accurate. Citations please!
There are no words to cite because you have not been able to present an argument defending why you feel 'the so called Law of Biogenesis' is violated in the field of Abiogenesis. You simply have a misunderstanding when it pertains to the definition of Biogenesis, and what it was supposed to be equated to. How can I cite words that you have not yet written?
These three sentence are almost unbelievable. First you say that you can't cite my words demonstrating a misunderstanding of abiogenesis or biogenesis. Then you proceed to declare once again that I have a misunderstanding about biogenesis. Then you say "how can I cite words which you have not yet written."
This paragraph demostrates how illogical your thought processes really are.
To claim what? That Biogenesis does not apply to Abiogenesis? The information is that one does not apply to the other, thats all the information that is needed.
Wow, I concede. You clearly won that debate! These are just more non-sensical statements. I hope this is obvious to the moderators.
I'm looking forward to reading about this scientific hypothesis in 'Scientific American, when did you say the article was being printed?
Onifre, with all due respect, this just demonstrates more of your ineptitude with science and logic....
wiki writes:
Scientific American is a popular science magazine, published (first weekly and later monthly) since August 28, 1845, making it one of the oldest continuously published magazines in the United States. It brings articles about new and innovative research to the amateur and lay audience.
Hypotheses are published in books and peer reviewed magazines like "Science" and "Nature". This is further evidence of your lack of knowledge in the entire field of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 09-25-2008 1:51 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 6:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 6:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 09-25-2008 7:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 102 of 415 (484144)
09-26-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
09-25-2008 7:04 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
all quotes from onifre
Ugh, really dude??? YOU claimed that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation,
Wow, you got that part right. Abiogenesis is indeed spontaneous generation.
spontaneous generation, as in what Louis Pastuer disproved, requires a singe momentary reaction that spontaneously creates life from inorganic material!!!
First off what Louis Pasteur disproved doesn't "require" anything. Secondly there is no restriction that you or anyone else can legitimately show that requires "a single momentary reaction". I have shown you this multiple times now.
Abiogenesis can be a single reaction in a moment, or it can be a gazillion reactions in a moment. The point is not the number of reactions, the point is that there is a distinguishable moment.
That is not Abiogenesis!
Sorry to inform you, but that is what abiogenesis is, and in a moment I will prove it to you using your own citation.
Heres an actual non wiki website from a University that deals with the entire scope of spontaneous generation. Maybe you can actually read something outside of creationist websites and get an actual education on the subject.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
This is why I continue to tell you that you are completely misunderstanding what abiogenesis is and what it claims.
This is an excellent discription of the whole history of the abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) and the biogenesis (life comes from life) fight. Now I quote the last paragraph in full for you.....
your citation writes:
One very important point to note here is that Pasteur did not seek to find an answer to the broad question, “Has spontaneous generation ever occurred?” Rather, as any good scientist, he limited his scope to a very narrow piece of the picture: “Is it possible for spontaneous generation to occur given the specific conditions under which Needham (and others) claims it will occur,” i.e. the “life force?” Interestingly, in 1936, when Alexander Ivanovich Oparin, a Russian scientist, published The Origins of Life, in which he described hypothetical conditions which he felt would have been necessary for life to first come into existence on early Earth, some scientists found it difficult to acknowledge that under the very different conditions which Oparin was proposing for early Earth, some form of “spontaneous generation” might indeed have taken place.
Now if you would stop smoking pot (your signature) while you are typing these riddiculous posts, you might read something yourself and learn about it. Abiogenesis is the study / general hypothesis that life can be generated from chemicals. However many chemical reactions, and the length of time that those reactions occurred is irrelevant. Life must still be spontaneously generated at some moment in the past. Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.
But you have claimed that Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, when it is NOT
Yes, that is what I claim. That's what your citation agrees with. That what all of my previous citations agree with. The only one who doesn't agree is you, because you are the only one who doesn't understand the subject.
Abiogenesis requires many different chemical reations over a long period of time,
And it also requires self organization which may or may not be a chemical reation. But each reaction and self organizing event must be spontaneously generated.
spontaneous generation is not an accumulation of chemical reactions over a long period of time.
Nobody said it was. But each accumulating step along this primordial yellow brick road must be spontaneously generated.
Thus my continuos plee with you that you are wrong in your interpretation of what is defined by the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
And your ignorant plees are going unheard. My citations plead with you to understand that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. Your citations plead with you that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. The only one not understanding this is you.
Read the bold print, life does NOT spontaneously arise. If you read the link I gave you, here it is again...
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
Onifre, please quote the entire sentence.
wiki writes:
This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
Yes, Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life. Life does not spontaneously generate from chemicals. Therefore, you should be able to comprehend that Biogenesis (life comes from life) is the opposite of spontaneous generation (life comes from non-life) and abiogenesis (life comes from non-life).
...you will understand that what Pastuer was looking for was a single momentary reaction(of 1 or many chemicals, if you'd like to see it read that way), that spontaneously generated life...AGAIN, this is not abiogenesis.
No! Pasteurs whole experiment and purpose was to disprove spontaneous generation and abiogenesis, and he did. He falsified the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals as is well documented in the Huxley address here: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
So to cliam that abiogenesis is synonomous with spontaneous generation or the so called law of biogenesis, (which are synonomous to each other), is showing pure and utter ignorance on the subject.
This sentence just completely confirms your ignorance on this subject. Biogenesis is the opposite of Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with spontaneous generation.
your source writes:
Spontaneous Generation: the idea that non-living objects could give rise to living organisms” disproved by Redi’s and Pasteur’s experiments
Let me see if I can make this simple so you freshman physics brain can comprehend it.
Biogenesis is all living matter comes from pre-existing living matter. Biogenesis is bacteria come from bacteria. Biogenesis is maggots come from flies. Biogenesis is dogs come from dogs. Biogenesis is tulips come from tulip bulbs. Biogenesis is corn comes from corn seeds.
Clasical spontaneous generation was life can come from non-living matter. SG was maggots come from dead flesh. SG was mice come from bales of hay. SG was bacteria come from soup......
Clasical SG was maggots come from a grouping where all the building blocks of life are present (dead flesh), and somehow they spontaneously self organize into maggots over the next few days. SG was mice come from a grouping where all the building blocks of life are present (a bale of hay) and somehow they spontaneously self organize into mice over the next few weeks. SG was bacteria come from a grouping where many of the building blocks of life are present (soup) and somehow they spontaneously organized into bacteria over the next few hours.
Now anyone can see that biogenesis and spontaneous generation are not synonyms. They are opposing ideas.
However abiogenesis as you have agreed is life comes from chemical. That is synonomous with the notion of spontaneous generation. The idea is that a successive series of spontaneous chemical reactions produce a "soup" or environment where some of the buiding blocks of life are present. Then those buiding blocks somehow self organize and evolve over millions of years to create "simple life". In ever aspect modern abiogenesis is synonomous with clasical spontaneous generation. The only differences is a few hours, a few days, a few weeks, a few million years or many millions of years. You cannot objectively describe any othe difference that the time frame. Every step must still be spontaneously generated irregardless of the timeframe.
Read carefully so as not to misunderstand...there is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausable.
Ther is no set of evidence that make any hypothesis of abiogenesis plausible except to those with faith. That's why you haven't and can't produce any citation from a legitimate scientist that claims a plausible pathway for life coming from chemicals.
All the hypothesis are there...yours however, of the magic juice that flows from life to life is not there. Perhaps you can cite a paper on that one.
No there isn't any magical juice of life, but there is natural, juice of life everywhere. Every cell is "juicy" or fluid when they are alive. And when those cells divide those juices flow from one into two. Life comes from life. Biogenesis. If you don't believe this just dehydrate yourself and see how long you last.
I'll respond to the rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 09-25-2008 7:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 09-26-2008 8:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 113 by bluegenes, posted 10-06-2008 1:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 104 of 415 (484957)
10-03-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
09-26-2008 8:42 PM


All quotes from onifre:
Lets do this in baby-steps.
Great ! Come to papa!
*Abiogenesis is the study of hypothesized chemicals that, with the given amount of time and condition, organize themselves into what we call life.
Great! you took your first step!
*Louis Pastuers' experiment was to see if life can spontaneously generate from inorganic materials, specific materials, not just any and all materials. From his specific inorganic ingredients life did NOT spontaneously generate.
Halelujah! He took his second step!
*The law of biogenesis was said to be a fact because thru Pastuers experiment life did not generate.
Mama! He just face planted. Poor thing, now let me help you back to your baby feet. If you had listened to papa, you wouldn't have stumbled over those errant evos cites you read.
If this is your argument you make a fatal flaw of understanding history and the scientific method. The Law of Biogenesis was not born with Pasteur's experiment. Spontaneous generation was falsified by Pasteurs experiment.
From History, you need to understand that spontaneous generation was "mainstream science". Many scientists believed that life could spontaneously generate from dead organic matter. Hence the theory of abiogenesis that life can come from non-living matter. Redi hypothesised otherwise. He reasoned that all life came from pre existing living matter. That was the theory of Biogenesis.
These experiments seem almost childishly simple, and one wonders how it was that no one ever thought of them before. Simple as they are, however, they are worthy of the most careful study, for every piece of experimental work since done, in regard to this subject, has been shaped upon the model furnished by the Italian philosopher. As the results of his experiments were the same, however varied the nature of the materials he used, it is not wonderful that there arose in Redi's mind a presumption, that, in all such cases of the seeming production of life from dead matter, the real explanation was the introduction of living germs from without into that dead matter.4 [236] And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; and had, henceforward, a right to be considered and a claim to be refuted, in each particular case, before the production of living matter in any other way could be admitted by careful reasoners. It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine-that living matter may be produced by not living matter-the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
Now the two opposing theories are clearly identified in Huxley's address. The Law of Biogenesis was declared by Huxley 7 years later after countless obsevations and experiments at the microscopic level that confirmed that all life did indeed come from pre-existing life. The LoB was a theory that became a law over time when it was recognized by the scientific community that nature acts according to this theory. There is no observation even today that comes close to falsifying this law and theory.
Again, how does what Pastuer did, in his attempt to disprove a specific set of conditions for what was then being called spontaneous generation disprove, or even affect Abiogenesis?
The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature. They confirmed, as well as every biological experiment since has confirmed, that life comes from pre-existing living matter. Abiogenesis didn't have a leg to stand on. It still doesn't.
The Cell Theory is based on the LOB. The ToE is based on the LoB. Germ Theory is based on the LoB. Mendellian inheritance is based on the LoB.
My citation, you silly goose*, deals with spontaneous generation, and says nothing about abiogenesis. It is only talking about Pastuers specific experiment. Spontaneous generation is only relevant for Pastuers experiment. You can't just adapt it to all other origin experiments because those experiments are dealing with a shit load of OTHER different chemicals that Pastuer didn't know about, nor applied to HIS experiment.
I don't care what experiment you are talking about. The LoB is a description, based on observation of how nature works. There is no evidentiary support that nature can act in a different way.
No you silly goose*, he proved that life could not spontaneously arise from his specific inorganic components.
This is partially correct, but Pasteur and others didn't stop there. He worked with microscopic life for the rest of his life. He and others confirmed over and over again that all life comes from life. That's why Biogenesis was declared a law of nature seven years later.
The crux of your argument. No silly goose*, Pastuer used NO chemicals therefore this statement, if you're trying to support it with Pastuers conclusion, is not applicable when discussing life origins in the field of abiogenesis.
You just face planted again. uhhh... Pasteur did use chemicals. It's called "Pasteurs soup". And it is applicable when discussing life origins in the field of abiogenesis.
This sentence just completely confirms your ignorance on this subject. Biogenesis is the opposite of Abiogenesis.
Yes silly goose* but in this sentence I used the term 'law of biogenesis' that was applied once Pastuers experiment failed to produce life. But again, his experiment didn't spontaneously generate life UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, not any and all conditions. Therefore the 'law o biogenesis' does NOT apply to abiogenesis since it is working with a WHOLE NEW SET OF CONDITIONS.
These are your words from message 101:
onifre writes:
Spontaneous generation is synonomous with biogenesis, and neither have anything to do with abiogenesis, if you read up on this stuff I promise you it'll make sense to you.
You didn't say "law of biogenesis" you said "biogenesis". Either way your statements are opposite of reality. The LoB doesn't have anything to do with one specific experiment. It is a summation of countless experiments. It doesn't matter what abiogenesis experiment is being conducted today. All of them have confirmed the LoB thus far.
I know that, but I said the 'law of biogenesis'. You know that law they applied after Pastuers experiment? Spontaneous generation is synonomous with the 'law of biogenesis' not the word biogenesis. The law is specifically for Pastuers experiment, and not for abiogenesis...silly goose*.
With this statement, you had better stay on the floor. ROTFL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 09-26-2008 8:42 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 10-05-2008 9:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 108 of 415 (485194)
10-06-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2008 5:44 PM


Welcome back CS. I've missed you
Stop equivocating.
I'm not, you are.
In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms.
wiki writes:
In Biology, an organism is a living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism).
Is there any other kind of organism? This is not equivocation, this is the definitionof life and organisms.
Modern abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms. It is about the emergence of life, itself.
This whole sentence is nothing but illogical purposeful equivocation.
"Abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms." This is an outright lie.
wiki writes:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.
Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of a fully functioning living organism. If it isn't fully functioning, then it isn't alive.
"It is about the emergence of life, itself." And what is life itself? It is a fully funtioning living organism that can metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. Anything less, and you don't have life. I'm not the one equivocating, it is obviously you who is.
And who were these "many scientists"? Were they anything at all like scientists today?
In most cases they were scientists exactly like todays scientists. They were men seeking for naturalistic answers to questions about the world around them. The only difference I see is that they were men of honor, who did not devalue science with equivocating terms like you do.
If "life itself" is anything other than a simple living organism, then please bring forth evidence of this or drop this silly argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 109 of 415 (485203)
10-06-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
I'm on to you now...
You seem to be really dishonest.
Then point out what I am saying that is dishonest, and quit making these false accusations.
But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.
Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life.
In a previous message you wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.
Yes these are my exact words and reasoning, and there is nothing dishonest here.
You seem to think that Modern Abiogenesis is the same as Spontaneous Genereation because when you boil it down, there has to be some "point" at which non-life becomes life.
No I don't think this, I know this. This is the definition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with origin of life.
wiki writes:
Origin refers to the beginning, starting-point, cause, or ultimate source, from which a thing is derived.
There is a beginning to life. There is a starting-point of life. There is an ultimate source, from which life is derived. There is a cause of life. That is what abiogenesis is attempting to discover.
Then you use the Law of Biogenesis, which refuted Spontaneous Generation, to claim that Modern Abiogenesis has been refuted.
Nope. The LOB did not refute SG. Individual experiments did. The LoB was recognized to be a universal truth of nature over many years. It is a descriptive law of how nature works today and in the past, and in the future. All life comes from pre-existing life.
The beauty of this is that germ theory relies on the LoB. Evolution relies on the LoB. Every biological process relies on the LoB.
But you're wrong. Modern Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are not the same.
If I am wrong then please demonstrate how any single chemical reaction and self organizational event thoughout this supposed emergence process is not spontaneously generated. All of these events are spontaneously generated. There were many forms of spontaneous generation in the past. There are many forms of spontaneous generation in the future. What is the difference? There is none. At the foundation, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis was that life could come from non-living matter. Modern abiogenesis is life can come from non-living matter. There is no distinguishable difference except modern abiogenesis invokes the magic of untestability. The magic of millions of years.
If you think there is, then tell me in the following pic:
Where does yellow end and green begin?
At 570 nm wavelength.
How about where red ends and violet begins?
They are not contiguous. Red is 625-740 nm wavelength. Violet is 380-450nm wavelenth.
Its the same for identifying this "point" where non-life becomes life that your whole argument relies on.
This is a fallacy of false analogy. The reason is, you forgot one color. Black. Black is the absence of light. Now your analogy can work properly. Black represents non-living chemicals. Red thru violet represents living chemicals. Red thru violet requires a non-material energy carrying fundamental element. Black does not have that non-material energy carying fundamental element. The non-material energy carrying fundamental element is the dividing line between black and all other colors. The LoB suggests that there may indeed be a non-material entity that divides life from non-life.
Physics can recognize non-material entities. Why can't Biology? All of the non-material fundamentals of physics are a part of life. What prevents one or two more from being discovered. Maybe we will call it the "spiriton"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2008 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2008 12:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 122 by bluescat48, posted 10-10-2008 12:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 110 of 415 (485206)
10-06-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Blue Jay
10-05-2008 9:31 AM


You're an arrogant dick.
I guess you and the moderators think that the above statements are representative of mature, intellectual, honest discuusion. Onifre previously invoked the "silly goose*" comments. So all I did was go with his metaphor of "baby steps". I think it was quite appropriate. I used no ad hominen attack. But I used his metaphor to destroy his argument.
That is effective debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 10-05-2008 9:31 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 5:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 111 of 415 (485210)
10-06-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Blue Jay
10-05-2008 9:31 AM


AOkid writes:
The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature.
So, if I kept two parakeets in a cage, and they lived for ten years without giving birth to zebra finches, does that falsify evolution?
And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Blue Jay, posted 10-05-2008 9:31 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 3:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 121 by DC85, posted 10-09-2008 10:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 115 of 415 (485261)
10-06-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2008 12:10 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
So to answer your question, no there are no other kind of organisms, but that is due to the flawed definition of what an organism is. So yeah, there are other "things" that could be considered as "life" in the the pathway from non-living to living that don't fit the definition of "organisms".
CS, these definitions are not problematic. Think about it for a moment. What if some chemical/evolutionary pathway was able to construct a virus, bacteriophage, or any of a number of endosymbionts. They would have a relatively short existance(due to the 2nd law of TD), because these things don't metabolize and reproduce without the higher life form, the host organism. Any obligate parasite, which there are many, cannot be the origin of life. Life must be a higher complexity than these. Parasites must come after life already exists. It is a chicken and the egg problem for abiogenesis.
So endosymbionts are not alive?
All endosymbionts , and viruses, inside their host organism are indeed alive. All life comes from pre-existing life. They get their life from the host. It is in complete agreement with the LoB.
Viruses and obligate endosymbionts are inorganic non-living matter outside their host organisms.
Not all endosymbionts are obligate parasites and can live outside of a host organism. They are alive.
You have a flase dichotomy of either living or non-living. There is no good definition of "life" that covers all the bases.
Then you can't have Biology and organic chemistry. There are good definitions of life. Each Biology book has them.
wiki writes:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction.
Now admittedly, there are many more attributes of life. But all scientists agree that you must have at least a metabolic stytem and a reproduction system for the chemicals to be alive. That's why you have "metabolism first" hypotheses within abiogenesis and "RNA/DNA first" hypotheses. Origin of life studies know they must have both at a minimum.
You're creating a false dichotomy and then claiming that the arguments that expose it are strawmen.
No Im not, and this exposes how little you actually know about life and this subject. When a single cell divides there are a gazillion chemical reactions and self organizing steps happening in a given moment of time. Before the moment you had one cell. After the moment, you have two cells. No single reaction created the second cell. It was a multitude of reactions and events all taking place at roughly the same time.
I suspect, that if abiogenesis is even possible that there will be similar events taking place. Self replication is not just a single chemical reaction. It's many. So is metabolism. But there will be a definable moment in time where at one point there was no metabolism and reproduction, and after that point there is metabolism and reproduction. The number of chemical reactions and self organizing events is irrelevant. The moment is not. Origin is a moment, a definable moment.
You claim that at one moment they're chemicals and the next moment they're life and that something is either life or non-life with nothing in between but also claim that its a strawman to say that your argument is that there's some point where life emerged.
It is not a strawman that there is a point where life is created. That is substance of my argument. It is the origin of life. It is a strawman, that one single reaction creates that moment.
You're also dishonest because instead of trying to understand what current models of abiogenesis actually do say, you're trying to pigeon hole them into something less so that you can claim that they're not possible.
You are dishonest by constructing this strawman. I have never said that abiogenesis was not possible (in any thread). And I do understand these theories rather well. They all use equivocation of terms thoughout.
This way, you don't have to give up your preferred worldview that has life as some magical thing that you either are or aren't that cannot arrise on its own so therefore god must have done it (I presume*)
My world view would never invoke magic. However yours does. It invokes millions of untestable millions of years of strong emergence. Scientists have declared that as being magical.
quote:
Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)
But the current models on abiogenesis do not rely on some "point" where life becomes non-life.
You can't have the study of the origin of life and not have a point at which life is created. Your whole argument is an equivocation on the word "origin." The geological record suggests an origin of life. That is a point or moment.
Instead they realize that the boundary between living and non-living is a grey area and this is not a black and white scenario.
No actually, they do realize this boundary and it is demonstrated in their "metabolism first" and "replication first" models. They know they need both to have life. That does not constitute a "grey area". The "grey area" is just equivocation on the definition of life. This equivocation keeps the funds rolling in. It's called job security.
The ribozymes that I linked to above fall into this grey area. Autocatalysis is one of the steps that needs to be taken on the path (as opposed to a point) from non-life to life.
Ribozymes are not alive. No scientist worth his salt would even indicate that this was anywhere close to life. If your goal is to stand on a roof. The origin of completion of that goal is when you place both feet on the roof. When you start clibing the ladder, you are in between the roof and the ground. This "grey area" just means that you aren't on the roof. Every step could be defined as a grey area, but you still haven't reached the goal until both feet are on the roof. To say that each step is "pre-roof stepping" is just riddiculous. So is calling something "pre-life".
Funny that Biology classes don't mention the LoB then.....
Not funny. Extremely sad. A travesty of science. The LoB is probably the most easily observable truths that can be demonstrated in any school labratory.
Its because those theories don't "rely" on the LoB in the way your making it out to seem. Evolution relies on fully functioning organisms not spontaneously generating in a population, but it does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
So do you think that bacteria from the air growing in a soup aren't spontaneously generating? They are. They just aren't spontaneously generating from the soup. Do you think maggots don't spontaneously generate? They do. They just don't generate from the dead flesh. Do you think that cell division and conception are not spontaneously generated? They are. They just don't come from chemicals. All of these spontaneous generations come fom pre-existing life. The question is where does life come from? The answer is from pre-existing life and not any other chemical arrangement. That was the hypothesis of Biogenesis which became the LoB.
It is you and others who equivocate the definition of spontaneous generation. "Spontaneous generation" was not disproved, spontaneous generation from pre-existing chemical arrangements was disproved by many experiments. And that hypothesis was abiogenesis.
You stop equivocating.
Evolution does rely on fully functioning organisms spontaneously generating. It doesn't rely on them spontaneously generating from anything other than pr-existing life. The LoB.
evolution... does not rely on the inability of life, iteself, to emerge from non-living chemcials.
You'll have to tanslate this one for me. If you are trying to say that evolution is not dependant on the origin of life, then fine. I agree. But the origin of life is dependant on evolution.
I'll finish the rest later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2008 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2008 10:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 117 of 415 (485270)
10-06-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by onifre
10-06-2008 5:07 PM


onifre writes:
Mines was funny and creative...yours lacked a bit. But, if it helps it was not at all inappropriate...just hacky.
Here again...very lame.
The only thing you destroyed was comedic timing...
I see. So you have chosen not to try and defend your position. Instead you make off topic jokes. Wise decision. You are learning.

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 5:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 6:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024