Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Law of biogenesis.
thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (28622)
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


How does the law of biogenesis fit in with evolution? The law states that cells (the foundation of life) arise only from other cells. Cells do not arise naturally. Also, matter can't be created or destroyed can it? So where did the matter in the big bang come from. Please help me with this.
Thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Traz, posted 01-08-2003 3:12 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 6:49 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-08-2003 8:55 AM thousands_not_billions has replied
 Message 7 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-08-2003 10:21 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 8 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-08-2003 10:21 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 9 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-08-2003 10:24 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
Traz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (28636)
01-08-2003 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
How does the law of biogenesis fit in with evolution? The law states that cells (the foundation of life) arise only from other cells.
My understanding of the 'law' of biogenesis is that is is not, technically, a law. It is simply a guideline for the current state of the Earth. Conditions were different in early earth, thus making it possible for 'abiogenesis', or the generation of life from nonliving matter, to occur.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, by the way-- evolution would still function perfectly well if God put the first cell there, which is really what some people believe. Evolution only operates on already living matter.
Somebody else take the question re: the Big Bang; I'm still fuzzy on the physics of that.
------------------
-Traz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 11 (28660)
01-08-2003 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
How does the law of biogenesis fit in with evolution? The law states that cells (the foundation of life) arise only from other cells. Cells do not arise naturally. Also, matter can't be created or destroyed can it? So where did the matter in the big bang come from. Please help me with this.
Thanks

The implication re:abiogenesis is that the first organisms
were not based upon the cell as we know it.
Some simpler form(s) came first, and evolutionary pressures
have shaped their development into modern organisms.
In the mainstream scientific view we have about a billion
years just on Earth for such developments.
As far as conservation of matter is concerned I think it might
be something to do with energy and matter (but I'm not
a physicist either). Matter cannot be created or destroyed
but it can be converted into energy.
Does the energy in the universe cancel out the matter so
we don't really exist at all ? I dunno (shrug).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 4 of 11 (28667)
01-08-2003 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


Hi thousands_not_billions - welcome aboard!
You didn't use your signature in your post, but I thought you might want to read the full article from which the Michael Ruse quote in your signature is taken (I found a copy at http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html). Here's the text of your signature for the benefit of others:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Michael Ruse
Quite obviously Michael Ruse does not believe evolutionary science is actually a religion, so the question arises, "Why did Ruse say this." The quote turns out to be the hook near the beginning of a longer article. It's intended to provoke in the reader the response, "Wait a minute, how can Ruse, a prominent supporter and advocate of evolution, say this?", thereby causing the reader to continue reading. If you read on to the end you'll see this:
The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.
For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-08-2003 9:04 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 01-08-2003 9:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (28671)
01-08-2003 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-08-2003 8:55 AM


Thanks a lot guys. You are really helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-08-2003 8:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 11 (28716)
01-08-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-08-2003 8:55 AM


William Provine of Cornell felt it so worthy that he thought it OK to endorse POLICY that was "political" in China on this basis and did not try at Cornell (Evolution and Ethics (class))to keep these discussion seperate or in Church as I was doing up to that time AFTER having been taught EVOLUTION by my gradfather(on my mother's side) and did some it myself in a 4-H club.
It was this social stuff that caused my difference with Cornell people not the desire to do good science. It is true I was misled by my mother who apprently held to the some theistic evolution and I have been unable to disabuse in the process my brother (also a Presby elder (as is my Dad) from some form of progressivism (as if Wilson's lack of race relation work was to blame but is only Political). Yet these internal "family" issues due to having an evolutionist as head of the inheritance chain (my father was the first on his side to get to college) are REALLY social issues and did not and do not belong in school. Will was unable to keep these seperate as I already had BEFORE I was admitted and transfered on College Scholar Contract to work on downward causation in levels of biologica organization and so when it came to WRITING on levels of selection this sociall stuff got in the way of his being labeled my "mentor" which really was the other way around in terms of the social stuff. I had much internal evolutionary theory stuff to learn from him but alas the tissue was too big for both our noses.
So instead I tend to support thousands over millions. Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-08-2003 8:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (28722)
01-08-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


Where does matter come from? Here's the quick answer:
There's "positive energy" and "negative energy". "Positive Energy" is what we call "energy" and matter. The "Negative Energy" is most likely gravity. If one would add up all of the "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy", and add them, it would add up to zero.
You can't create energy, from what we know now, but you can borrow. Everytime you borrow, there's just as much negative energy created for all of the positive energy that was made.
That's quick and dirty so if you want more, I can give you more, but I think there are those who may already be able to point out to you some link.
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Satcomm, posted 01-09-2003 8:12 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 11 (28723)
01-08-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


Where does matter come from? Here's the quick answer:
There's "positive energy" and "negative energy". "Positive Energy" is what we call "energy" and matter. The "Negative Energy" is most likely gravity. If one would add up all of the "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy", and add them, it would add up to zero.
You can't create energy, from what we know now, but you can borrow. Everytime you borrow, there's just as much negative energy created for all of the positive energy that was made.
That's quick and dirty so if you want more, I can give you more, but I think there are those who may already be able to point out to you some link.
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (28724)
01-08-2003 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by thousands_not_billions
01-07-2003 11:00 PM


Where does matter come from? Here's the quick answer:
There's "positive energy" and "negative energy". "Positive Energy" is what we call "energy" and matter. The "Negative Energy" is most likely gravity. If one would add up all of the "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy", and add them, it would add up to zero.
You can't create energy, from what we know now, but you can borrow. Everytime you borrow, there's just as much negative energy created for all of the positive energy that was made.
That's quick and dirty so if you want more, I can give you more, but I think there are those who may already be able to point out to you some link.
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-07-2003 11:00 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 11 (28769)
01-09-2003 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mr. Davies
01-08-2003 10:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
Where does matter come from? Here's the quick answer:
There's "positive energy" and "negative energy". "Positive Energy" is what we call "energy" and matter. The "Negative Energy" is most likely gravity. If one would add up all of the "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy", and add them, it would add up to zero.
You can't create energy, from what we know now, but you can borrow. Everytime you borrow, there's just as much negative energy created for all of the positive energy that was made.
That's quick and dirty so if you want more, I can give you more, but I think there are those who may already be able to point out to you some link.
Out of curiousity, how does antimatter fit into that equation in your opinion?
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-08-2003 10:21 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 01-09-2003 10:29 PM Satcomm has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 11 (28775)
01-09-2003 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Satcomm
01-09-2003 8:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Satcomm:
Out of curiousity, how does antimatter fit into that equation in your opinion?

The term anti-matter is misleading. It isn't negative matter, like -1 is negative one. Anti-matter is matter like normal matter but the charges on the subatomic particles are reversed. Antimatter behaves just like normal matter according to current theory, so it can't be the bank from one borrows.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Satcomm, posted 01-09-2003 8:12 PM Satcomm 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