|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Abiogenesis a fact? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Supernintendo wrote:
So can we consider abiogensis a factual occurence based on available evidence? I beg to disagree. I do not think that abiogenesis--concept of life originating from non-life--is rational. Common observation says that babies come from mothers, chicken from eggs, etc. Life from life. This concept is not rational in that it is "transferring the burden of proof". Like saying: "a unicorn exist since no one can disprove that it does not". For me to believe that life would come from non-life, scientists have to create a living thing (say a fly or worm), out of a non-living thing like a stone. I think this issue was already settled by previous scientists like Pasteur. In one simple experiment where maggots where observe on a cheese, some nuts said; 'there goes your proof--life from non life'. Pasteur covered the cheese and no maggots came out. Of course we now know that maggots were there because flies laid eggs on that cheese. Your Judean Governor,Pilate_judas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Crashfrog wrote:
Well, plants come from seeds, but plants are much, much larger than could possibly be contained by a seed. Where does all that extra stuff come from? From the soil, of course, and you can grow a plant on nothing living whatsoever - just some minerals and chemicals that can be produced completely synthetically. So, clearly, the plant is employing nonliving matter as part of its living structure. I don't understand your logic. Just because plants derive their nutrients (nitrogen, etc) from the soil does not mean that plants come from these compounds. No! It just means that plants use this as food.
Life from nonlife? Life does that all the time. And we know from a hundred other experiments (beginning with the synthesis of urea in the 1800's) that the fundamental chemistry of life is no different than the chemistry of minerals and the like. Babies come from mothers, yes, but I weigh much, much more than my mother. Clearly I'm composed of quite a bit of stuff that didn't come from her. Still I don't understand. Your mother gave you birth. You ate a lot more than her, that's why you get bigger than she is. Plain and simple. But, to say that you come from the many foods that you eat is stretching your imagination too much. Similarly just because I contain carbon dioxide and iron, just as a rock contains carbon dioxide and iron does not mean I come from a rock! Ah, I guess here is where the fallacy comes in. Observe the difference between wrong and right conclusion Premise (P1) Rocks contain carbon and ironP2: Man contains carbon and iron Wrong Conclusion: Therefore man comes from rock. Right conclusion: Therefore, Rocks and man share some common elements (carbon, and iron)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Catholic Scientist wrote:
Well that is a little extreme IMO. The very first life forms were presumably very simple. Probably something we could hardly call 'life', just some simple replicators or something. We know that cells are made of atoms and that very simple life is basically just chemical interactions. If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition? Has scientists ever re-created that 'presumably very simple life form'? None that I know of. Have they even been able to create true protein out of non living thing? No. They may be able to create the building blocks--the components--of protein (amino acid, etc) but not protein itself. If all the brains of these scientist and their controlled laboratories could not build (yet)one of the more complex component of life, how is it that they presumptously presume that life come from non life? This statement is not logical: 'If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition? The error in this statement lies in the confusion of what is SOME and what is ALL. Funny, but I think scientists who think that because chimps share 98% of DNA of men, men must have evolve from chimps are making fundamental errors in logic. Let me repeat this: Just because a dog share SOME of the elements of a rock ( for example:carbon, iron, etc) doesn't mean a dog comes from a rock. The logical statement is: "because carbon, and iron are found in dogs and rocks, therefore dogs and rocks share SOME common elements".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Crashfrog says:
Right, exactly. "Food" is when living things turn non-living matter into living matter.It happens right in front of our eyes, and you think it's unreasonable? That doesn't make any sense to me. Yes,it is unreasonable. And, yes it should not make sense to you. Food is fuel to the body just as gas is fuel to a car. A fuel does not make a car, does it?
Why? I weighed 8 lbs when I was born. Now I weigh 140 lbs. That 132 lbs of matter had to come from somewhere, right? It came from my food, of course - I took nonliving matter and incorporated it into my body. It became living matter during that process. Or is it your contention that only 8lbs of me is alive? According to my high school biology teacher, food is fuel to our cells. Our cells grow because of that fuel. We gain weight because our cells grow, not because of food per se.
But part of you did come from rocks. You ingested those materials as food and incorporated them into your being. You turned nonliving matter into living matter. Why is that hard to understand? Why do you find that a confusing or debatable statement? Sharing the same elements w/ rocks does not mean I come from rocks. I could not agree that I turned a non-living matter to a living matter. (That is a big leap of faith and a bit irrational) I would agree that my cells used those elements to fuel growth. Putting it another way my now multiplied cells consist not just its fuel but the intricate system of "inputs" + "process" = "output" (additional cells). In other words, those elements that I share w/ a rock (e.g iron) are just inputs. My cells are more than that. It has built in design to process those inputs to come up w/ additional outputs. Please do not confuse the equation--> input + process = output w/ just the inputs. It is obviously not. SimPle illustration. A car is not its fuel. A fuel is just one of those inputs needed to make the car work. Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity. Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Moduluos wrote:
You mean, science can disprove special creation by demonstrating an example of special creation? Sounds a bit backwards. Surely to demonstrate abiogenesis we just have to find realistic pre-earth conditions that can result in the formation of replicators with a form of heredity. To prove you have a cake, you have to bake a cake. Not just say I have the ingredients of a cake and the recipe to do it. For all you know the cake could burn into a charcoal. Similarly, to prove that life comes from non life you have to make or create one. To say that you have the "ingredients" of life is not the same as saying that you can create life. (And, life is more complicated than baking a cake, isn't it?) As I have said in another post. Life is an output of this equation:Input + process = output. Inputs is not equal to output. You also mentioned about an "Abrahamic God", the claimed author of life. He is the exception to that equation because of the rule: "for every rule there is an exception". You can not apply the 'exception rule' to any of the elements of the equation--input + process = output. Why? Because that would destroy the equation and doing so will result in Nothing. So, by deduction the exception rule would apply to the author. That is he is he did not come about because of the equation. And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Modulous wrote:
I didn't talk about the origin of God, so your argument seems superfluous as well as debatable (and being debated in another thread). I merely said that in the Abrahamic story, God took non-life and made it into life. If you believe that is true then you do not agree with the title 'Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable'. You actually believe it to be true, and thus (I assume) reasonable. Ha! ha! ha! I know a good argument when I see one. You got me there. Thanks for the elaboration. I could not have done better! I said: "And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life" You improved it: God a the living being actually made life out of nothing. If that is what Abiogenesis mean, then I could not disagree. But, then again. If we begin w/ a living God, isn't it Biogenesis--that is Life started from a living being? Anyway, thanks. You're a genius! Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
A rude one writes:
So where did this living being god come from then? What life spawned him? Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! Sorry, I choose to ignore foul-mouthed ones. By the way, guys, is there an ignore button here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Crashfrog,
You wrote: All I'm trying to tell you is that living things take nonliving matter and use it within themselves - they turn nonlife into life. I do not dispute that assertion. It is a fact that we grow because our cells make use of non-living things ( like carbohydrates, etc) But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture. Modulous actually stumped me on this when he pointed out to an Abrahmic God. I'll add that Chap 1 of Genesis says: 'in the beginning, the earth was void ( no life at all). Then God said, 'let the earth produce all kinds of creatures'. In the sense that there was no life on earth until God commanded so, if in that sense "abiogenesis" is meant. Then, I won't disagree. But, then again if a living God is the origin of life is it not "biogenesis", or "theogenesis" ,whatever? I repeat for clarity, if your position is to disregard the Ultimate Living Cause as the origin of life, and if your position is similar to those who think that all living things come from a pre-biotic soup w/o His hand, then I disagree. And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. Someone w/ resources and knowledge has to manipulate that equation to come up w/ an output. Simply put, somebody started to switch on the process and here we are. There is I think another line of thought--that He caused that pre-biotic soup to exist. This one I have no sufficient basis to agree or disagree. I would wait till more concrete proofs come in--and that might be eternity. I hope this is clear to you.PJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
I think I have answered in advance (message # 257) what ever doubts you may have on my position. PJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
The theory of abiogenesis conforms to your equation. It is your incredulity that has lead you to your belief. Again, I ask why don't you think that abiogenesis is possible other than scientist have not been able to duplicate it (yet)? I don't completely understand your question. So, I proceed from the assumption that GOD's power was NOT used to originate life. If this is the assumption, I disagree w/ the concept of abiogenesis. The equation just won't work. If God's power is invoked then I agree w/ abiogenesis as I have elaborated on my post # 257. Why do I think that abiogenesis--w/o God's power--is possible? Simply for 2 reasons: (1) The equation won't work, (2) The burden of proof lies on the one that says otherwise. To clarify, if scientists say that life originated from non-life--w/o God's power or intervention--then they have to prove it. Do it in their labs. I hope this is clear enough for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
I think the equations do work. Please clarify. The equation INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT will work Without God's hand? You mean that the scientists will come up w/ the ingredients of life, then they can process these ingredients in their sophisticated lab, and presto there will be a living thing? Well, as the saying goes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!Let them do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Have you read any evidence that they don't work or are you basing this on your lack of evidence that they do? Have you read much about the theory of abiogenesis? If your basing it on a lack of evidence then you should educate yourself on the subject and reform your opinion. The first life forms were extremely simple, not much different than non-living chemical reactions, so I don't see it as that big of a leap when they become 'alive'. My scanty evidence is that up till now scientists have been grapling to produce protein--real protein--the basic building block of "life". They have not yet done so. (some have claimed production of synthetic protein. But, did this synthetic ones come from non living organism--like from the scratch ?) . They were able to produce some (not all) amino acids that make up protein, but how these proteins fold is still a hurdle to them. The hurdle I believe is like landing a man in Venus?? And, even if they produce that "most basic form of life" that would still NOT preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER. Why? Just to build that "basic life form" took all the most brilliant minds to produce it. How much more for the "more complicated life form".? Remember again the definition of a "Maker". One who has the resources and the necessary skills and knowledge to PROCESS INPUTS into desired OUTPUTS. Up until now they still have the burden of proof. What Scientists are actually saying is this: 'we have discovered a horn, a horse, and a wing therefore there is a unicorn'.
give them time.
OK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Crashfrog,
Rather, the only processes we've ever observed produce life from lifelessness are the mindless chemical processes at work in every living being. Thus, clearly, mindless processes can cause nonliving matter to become living. Please read my post #266 re. who a maker is. You call it "mindless processes". I'll call it "automatic process mode" set by a mind more brilliant than all scientists combined.
That's fine. Research into how completely natural processes produced life on the early Earth is ongoing, and as yet, there's nothing to support a definite conclusion. I think at this point, anybody's free to believe what they would like to believe. It's anybody's guess. I bet mine on the improbability of the odds, you bet the opposite?
The inputs would be the materials and chemicals that existed on that early Earth. The process would be the same laws of physics and chemistry that are operating to this day. The output would be the early chemical precursors of life. You are saying that yes the equation is there, therefore it can be done, right? I say, you forgot the "solver" (in a manner of speaking). Its just like this formula. 2X + 5 = 15. Without one to solve the equation, the "X" will remain an "X".
Your simple equation doesn't pose a barrier to non-divine abiogenesis that I can see. As it is anybody's guess, I bet the opposite. I really enjoyed this exchange! I hope you did. And I appreciate the fact that You, Crashfrog,Catholic Scientist, and Modulous were courteous. I just hope that you found me courteous too. kind regards,PJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Radz,
First off, welcome to the fray, pilate_judas. What I can see is that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty answer ... is that we don't know. It could be one it could be another, it could be some answer nobody has yet considered, but in the end ... we don't know. Thanks for welcoming me. I can only agree that yes, what we are doing here is speculation. Bets are on per my post #269. Let's wait and see what they will come up next. PJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4505 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Hoot Mon,
You wrote:But the mystery of life remains unsloved. Why? We ought to be making it from scratch by now in our labs. I agree. You put it nicely, professor: 'life is mysterious, if not we ought to be making it now in our labs'. As I've said in my previous post: 'show me the worm from science's lab'. Welcome to the question of the ages!PJ
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024