Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
64 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 251 of 415 (504009)
03-24-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-04-2004 5:19 PM


sidelined writes:

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?

for the same reason that we cannot bring the dead back to life

Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?

Life is more then just chemical elements, environment and physics.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2004 5:19 PM sidelined has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2009 10:41 AM Peg has replied
 Message 258 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-30-2009 11:03 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 263 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 4:44 AM Peg has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 285 of 415 (513495)
06-29-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dr Adequate
03-30-2009 10:41 AM


DrAedequate writes:

Because it is impossible to miraculously breath life into non-living things, since the necessary condition for life is a set of chemical interactions, not miracle breath.

yet that fish would still have all the chemicals needed for life to exist

those chemicals, even when they are all together...even when they are in a perfectly formed body with all its necessary parts, do not produce life


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2009 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 06-29-2009 7:46 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 287 of 415 (513553)
06-29-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Granny Magda
06-29-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Interactions
grannymagda writes:

Interactions, yes? The chemicals may or may not be present (and I have a strong feeling that many chemicals start to break down immediately after death), but the processes by which they interact are no longer functioning.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to life

life is obviously much more complicated then a chance chemical reaction...to believe otherwise is to believe contrary to observable facts such as that which you have stated here.

Abiogenesis is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 06-29-2009 7:46 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Rahvin, posted 06-29-2009 9:45 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 289 by bluescat48, posted 06-29-2009 11:20 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 299 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:06 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 298 of 415 (514048)
07-03-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Perdition
07-01-2009 5:25 PM


perdition writes:

That's the wrong way to look at it. You've got 14 billion years, billions of planets, blillions of points on each planet, and billions of molecules interacting at each point. That's billions upon billions upon billions of chances for a self-replicating reaction to take place.

and in all those billions of places and possibilities, only 1 spot produced life?

spontaneous generation/abiogenesis was demolished by Pasteur's experiments a long time ago. It certainly does not occur in our world today, and you would think that if anything, the probablility of it occuring in a world full of life and with all the right conditons, it would happen. They cant even replicate it in the lab under controlled conditions.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by bluescat48, posted 07-03-2009 12:33 PM Peg has replied
 Message 306 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 10:30 PM Peg has replied
 Message 307 by subbie, posted 07-03-2009 10:34 PM Peg has replied
 Message 348 by Perdition, posted 07-06-2009 1:57 PM Peg has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 300 of 415 (514050)
07-03-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Granny Magda
07-03-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Interactions
Granny Magda writes:

Except that you cited the fact that dead things don't spontaneously spring back to life as proof that life could not start unaided in the first place. This is like suggesting that if a certain chemicals fail to react in one circumstance, they must fail in all circumstances, whatever the conditions. This is clearly a false premise.

yes your right, thats a good pick up.

I guess i used this example because the dead thing contains all the chemicals required for life...but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.

If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????

What kept them interacting throughout the creatures life?

It creates more questions then it answers.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:06 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2009 10:32 AM Peg has taken no action
 Message 303 by Taz, posted 07-03-2009 1:33 PM Peg has replied
 Message 304 by Blue Jay, posted 07-03-2009 5:42 PM Peg has replied
 Message 308 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 10:38 PM Peg has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 309 of 415 (514144)
07-04-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by bluescat48
07-03-2009 12:33 PM


bluescat48 writes:

How do you know this. How can one know what happens in a galaxy 5 billion light years away? There may be only one planet in the universe with life or there may be billions.

and maybe flying saucers are real


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by bluescat48, posted 07-03-2009 12:33 PM bluescat48 has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 310 of 415 (514145)
07-04-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Taz
07-03-2009 1:33 PM


Re: Interactions
Taz writes:

Hang on a second. Let me get this straight. As a creationist, do you doubt that life derives its substance from chemical reactions?

cutting off my sentence half way may make it seem like that is what i am saying...put it altogether and its saying something completely different though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Taz, posted 07-03-2009 1:33 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Taz, posted 07-04-2009 8:58 PM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 312 of 415 (514150)
07-04-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by themasterdebator
07-03-2009 10:30 PM


tgenasterdebator writes:

The right conditions dont happen today in nature. Some of the chemicals required for abiogenesis only occur in an oxygen free environment. Earth severely lacks that. And we can replicate it in lab conditions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn755-early-replica.html

that article doesnt really say abiogenesis has been replicated does it? I've yet to hear of anyone creating life in a lab. Personally i think what scientists are slowly discovering is how God created life. Life is a complicated thing that obviously needs a lot of direction...it seems most unlikely that it would naturally.

your 2nd link shows just how complex life is and the probability of it happening without direction seem ludicrous.
They created an artificial molecule that could copy itself but even they said "this is not the same as bringing it to life. It self-replicated to a point, but eventually clogged up in shapes that could no longer sew RNA pieces together. "It was a real dog," Joyce says.

the conclusion of the article is:
"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.

sounds like biologists have a long LONG way to go before they understand how life came to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by themasterdebator, posted 07-03-2009 10:30 PM themasterdebator has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 313 of 415 (514155)
07-04-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Blue Jay
07-03-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Interactions
hey bluejay,

i get what you're saying and it does make sense.

bluejay writes:

If the intelligence and creativity of human beings is not sufficient to maintain a system indefinitely, why do you feel that molecules would be more proficient?

i believe they've been designed to continue indefinitely. For instance you can calculate whether man lives longer than other mammals. take the mouse the mouse for instance, its heart rate is about 550 beats per minute. Multiply the number of minutes per year (526,000) by the number of heartbeats per minute and then multiply that by the life expectancy of the mouse (a little over 3 years), we have some 950,000,000 heartbeats for the average mouse.

Do the same for the largest mammal on earth, the elephant with a heartrate of 20 per minute, over a 70-year life-span comes to about 736,300,000 heartbeats.

so think about it...in general, mammals get about 1billion or less heartbeats in a lifetime. But now do the same calculation for man. We have approx 72 heartbeats per minute and a life expectancy of 70 years, the number of heartbeats given to man is more then twice as much as other mammals 2,600,000,000. I dont know what this has got to do with the subject, but it shows that we have far more potential then other mammals. (besides this there is the biblical account of humans living for many hundreds of years pre flood)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Blue Jay, posted 07-03-2009 5:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Rahvin, posted 07-04-2009 1:15 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 315 by Blue Jay, posted 07-04-2009 1:45 PM Peg has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 319 of 415 (514222)
07-05-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Taz
07-04-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Interactions
Taz writes:

In other words, from what I see right there, it sounds like you're questioning the fact of life being chemical reactions.

well you've interpreted my sentence incorrectly

what I'm saying is that 'life' is 'more' then 'just' a string of 'chemical reactions'

I dont doubt there are chemical reactions. But to say that chemical reactions, without any direction or manipulation, caused the first life seems to me to be bad science. If scientist have to work as hard as they do, then to think that it could have happened without intervention seems like bad science.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Taz, posted 07-04-2009 8:58 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 12:43 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 326 by Taz, posted 07-05-2009 4:43 PM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 320 of 415 (514223)
07-05-2009 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by subbie
07-03-2009 10:34 PM


subbie writes:

Pasteur established that life does not develop from non-life in a few hours, days or weeks. If life developed on this planet as is currently theorized, the process took millions or billions of years. I trust you can now see why Pasteur's experiments have no bearing.

that is a strange argument to make

I thought science was about evidence and proof. He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years???

Pasture was obviously using the scientific method, so please show how your explanation follows the scientific method.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by subbie, posted 07-03-2009 10:34 PM subbie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 07-05-2009 5:32 AM Peg has taken no action
 Message 322 by themasterdebator, posted 07-05-2009 12:40 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 324 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2009 4:01 PM Peg has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 347 of 415 (514324)
07-06-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Taz
07-05-2009 4:43 PM


Re: Interactions
Taz writes:

Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life or abiogenesis. Aren't you afraid of the hell fire you people preach to us all the time? Or are you really a satanist posing as a christian that likes to break that commandment?

there is no fire in the grave


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Taz, posted 07-05-2009 4:43 PM Taz 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