Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
683 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, Phat (3 members, 680 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 415 (513975)
07-03-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Perdition
07-01-2009 5:25 PM


quote:

Posts: 396
From: Wisconsin
Registered: 05-15-2003

Message 295 of 296 07-01-2009 04:25 PM
I agree, (that life would happen given enough time) however time is limited. Very limited of one accepts the Big Bang model as correct. One universe one try, around 13b to 15b years...hmmmm'...

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.


Actually the numbers you have are way too low. Consider that one mole of a substance has a number of molecules equal to 6.02X10^23. And moles of the substance would probably be at most in the hundreds of grams, so you are talking about absolutely massive amounts of molecules all combining and recombining for billions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 415 (514123)
07-03-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Peg
07-03-2009 10:03 AM


quote:
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.


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

and to further the point, they were able to replicate evolution also.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

For more info read this thread

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=102&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=102&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=102&m=1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Peg, posted 07-03-2009 10:03 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Peg, posted 07-04-2009 7:51 AM themasterdebator has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 415 (514126)
07-03-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Peg
07-03-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Interactions
yes your right, thats a good pick up.

quote:
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.


Not really, all these questions have already been answered by science. its called entropy. Over time, disorder increases in living beings. While they constantly are doing work to prevent this, in the entropy wins. As such, living beings have a special mechanism in place to continue their genes, reproduction.

The ultimate force that got them together in the first place(although its not really a force in the physics sense) would be the energy from the sun. It provided the heat and as chemistry has shown us, the right molecules+heat=chemical reaction. The early earth was a sea of these right molecules constantly reacting with each other(about 10^33 or so molecules, an extremely massive number way beyond any human comprehension) and eventually the right molecules reacted to create the molecules i mentioned earlier. These molecules competed with each other and evolved to best get resources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Peg, posted 07-03-2009 10:12 AM Peg has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-04-2009 7:27 AM themasterdebator has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 415 (514259)
07-05-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Peg
07-05-2009 2:14 AM


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.

Peg, scientific theores changes to meet new data. I don't think you understand the point of the Pasteur experiment. Pasteur was showing that fruit flies will not evolve from meat. This was certainly a correct hypothesis. Pasteur did not show that simple singled celled organisms(which he did not do any tests for in his experiment)could not arise in the conditions found on a young earth. Nobody is denying the validity of Pasteurs findings that fruit flies won't simply spring out of meat, just your attempt to apply this to the current theories of abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with Pasteur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Peg, posted 07-05-2009 2:14 AM Peg has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 10:18 PM themasterdebator has replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 415 (514260)
07-05-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Peg
07-05-2009 2:10 AM


Re: Interactions
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.

Scientists have not had to work hard to create life. They had to work hard to discover and recreate the conditions of the early earth, but once they did that life started on its own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Peg, posted 07-05-2009 2:10 AM Peg has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2009 4:04 PM themasterdebator has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 415 (514293)
07-05-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by traste
07-05-2009 10:18 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
You are right scientific data often subjected to change, since when scientist discover new facts it will often challenge traditional beliefs. Take for example the long held notion that the earth is the center of the universe,that the earth is flat,and handling of worms can cause warts. Those are just some of the things that ancient people believe to be true,yet scientific discoveries disprove them. As for Pasteur experiment I never heard any scientific discoveries or experiment disprove it.

If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

1. Nobody has ever disproved Pasteurs experiments. People still believe that flies don't spontantiously grow out of meat. However, Pasteurs experiments had absolutely nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis.

2. The earth being the center of the universe and being flat are both not scientific theories. They were both created by religion(Christianity). The earth not being flat has been known since the times of BC when the Greeks proved it was round. You see, the Christians refused to listen to the scientific data because it contradicted there interpretation of the Bible despite the considerable evidence against them. Hm, now why does that sound familiar?

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/period/disc/flatearth.html

And I would like you to please source me a scientific study stating that worms cause warts. Myths and old wives tales=/=science

3. If you would like to discuss evolutionary frauds RAZD made an excellent topic for you to list them. I am sure of course that you have done extensive study on the issue instead of just making stuff up, so you will provide a major help to the creatists side for this debate. currently they are vastly outnumbering the "evolutionists" in hoaxes. If you are going to claim evolution science is "at the top" in number of frauds, you are going to have to provide more frauds than are currently listed on the evolution side. But of course with your extensive research in the subject I am sure that won't be a problem at all.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=536&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=536&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=536&m=1

Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 10:18 PM traste has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 415 (514295)
07-05-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by traste
07-05-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
Are you serious? Pasteur announced that "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow stuck by this simple experiment." This statement remains true today since no laboratory model was able to produce that living thing is from non living thing.

This leads me to believe that you don't correctly understand what Pasteurs experiments are. Can you please tell me in your own words what you think Pasteur did?

Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by traste, posted 07-05-2009 9:56 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by traste, posted 07-06-2009 1:03 AM themasterdebator has replied

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 415 (514308)
07-06-2009 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by traste
07-06-2009 1:03 AM


Re: Your confidinced troubled me
Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination. Any disagreement my friend??? Or maybe you are the one who really did not understand his experiment?

If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

I agree. And how many scientists have suggested that the first life formed in sterilized water?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by traste, posted 07-06-2009 1:03 AM traste has taken no action

themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 415 (514342)
07-06-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Perdition
07-06-2009 1:57 PM


Well, Perdition, not entirely true. we can reasonably say there is no life intelligent enough to find the EM spectrum in any of the planets we have tested, but simply life. No, we have no of commenting on that yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Perdition, posted 07-06-2009 1:57 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Perdition, posted 07-06-2009 5:34 PM themasterdebator 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