Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 91 of 415 (483675)
09-23-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
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.
I was attempting to figure out your use of spontaneous.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 5:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 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

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 93 of 415 (483862)
09-24-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 1:34 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
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.
Where, precisely, is this boundary? You seem to understand the difference between living and nonliving matter as a discrete barrier that lends itself to such binary classifications.
Please provide your dewfinition of "life." I've never seen one that so clearly classified matter as "living" or "nonliving" that we could legitimately say that anything could possibly be "nonliving" and then "the next moment" be "iving."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 1:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 415 (483899)
09-24-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 1:34 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
onifre writes:
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.
Aokid writes:
I would say this is an excellent summary of abiogenesis.
Then we have no argument.
I assume you are talking about spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization and not abiogenesis here.
Lets see if I can say it a bit more clearly; Abiogenesis is the study of spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization. Ok?
It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time.
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.
The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.
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.
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.
This is post-origin dude! I knew this would be a pointless debate.
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, perhaps you need to get familiar with those definitions seeing as how you keep using them in the wrong context.
Why should I need to respond about Pasteur's results? I know them better than you.
Pasteur??? Is that you posting on this thread???
How the fuck do you know what I know? Don't assume anything about which of us knows best just yet...
You and others in the Biogeneis thread have argued that LoB doesn't even exist.
Thats because it does NOT apply to abiogenesis, which you agreed is:
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.
But you haven't properly identified any fallacies of mine.
I believe this sentence is a fallacy. There I've identified one.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 1:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 11:43 AM onifre has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 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

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 415 (483983)
09-25-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 11:43 AM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Onifre writes:
Lets see if I can say it a bit more clearly; Abiogenesis is the study of spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization. Ok?
AOKid writes:
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
From your wiki source,
quote:
The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:
  • Methane (CH4),
  • Ammonia (NH3),
  • Water (H2O),
  • Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
  • Phosphate (PO43-).

Sure, lets agree that I was right in my first definition of Abiogenesis...
Now wasn't that simple!
Yes, it was simple the first time I wrote it too.
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.
It is not a strawman. 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.
I fully understand that all abiogesis hypotheses rely on millions of years of successive chemical reactions. That only makes it plausible to the faithful.
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.
Wrong again. There is no evidence that given enough time (your magic) that if left alone, any chemicals will self organize to create life.
There is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausible, you choose to reject the evidence because of your religious beliefs.
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?
I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean, and/or how it applies to biogenesis. 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...
Cite my words exactly and demonstrate where I have used these definitions in the wrong context.
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?
You do not have enough information to declare this.
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.
Especially if there is indeed an invisible non-material entity that is passed from life to life, but cannot come from chemicals alone.
Now I get it you are looking for the magic juice that jumps from life to life organizing all of the chemicals like a tiny 'Bob the Builder', shit sorry for doubting you, I didn't know you had such a strong hypothesis.
And that is a reasonable scientific hypothesis,
I'm looking forward to reading about this scientific hypothesis in 'Scientific American', when did you say the article was being printed?
Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always...

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 11:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 5:22 PM onifre has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 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

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 415 (484004)
09-25-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 5:22 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
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!
Are. You. Serious???
Sadly not on topic here, but do you really want to go there? I mean, your comments on the LoB are beyond the pale stupid, but they are works of genius compared to your gutteral utterances on physics. Would you like me to start a thread on disecting your complete lack of understanding? Nosy and others are still patiently waiting for a basic intro to Lagrangian forumlations of GR, QFT and string theory, but I'm sure they'll happily wait in order to see this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rahvin, posted 09-25-2008 6:49 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 415 (484007)
09-25-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 5:22 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
LoB states that ALL living matter comes from pre-existing living matter.
Who gives a shit what some law states? You do realise that just about all 'laws' in science are broken somewhere or other - Laws are simple summaries of OBSERVATIONS, they are not theories. The LoB has NO FUCKING MECHANISM so how can it possibly prevent anything??? Abiogenesis may well be impossible without God personally intervening and poofing the spark of life into some mud - but this has fuck-all to do with the LoB - the LoB would simply be an observatinal consequence. And guess what? A->B does not mean B->A. Geez, this is such elementary stuff...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 100 of 415 (484016)
09-25-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
09-25-2008 6:11 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Are. You. Serious???
Sadly not on topic here, but do you really want to go there? I mean, your comments on the LoB are beyond the pale stupid, but they are works of genius compared to your gutteral utterances on physics. Would you like me to start a thread on disecting your complete lack of understanding? Nosy and others are still patiently waiting for a basic intro to Lagrangian forumlations of GR, QFT and string theory, but I'm sure they'll happily wait in order to see this.
I will pay you one bajillion internets to do exactly that. Every time you and Son Goku post regarding physics, I learn a lot more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 6:11 PM cavediver has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 415 (484019)
09-25-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 5:22 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
AOKid writes:
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....
Ugh, really dude??? YOU claimed that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, spontaneous generation, as in what Louis Pastuer disproved, requires a singe momentary reaction that spontaneously creates life from inorganic material!!!
That is not Abiogenesis!
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.
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.
But you have claimed that Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, when it is NOT. Abiogenesis requires many different chemical reations over a long period of time, spontaneous generation is not an accumulation of chemical reactions over a long period of time. This is what you continue to assert! Thus my continuos plee with you that you are wrong in your interpretation of what is defined by the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
So this is your logic? The successive process of abiogenesis nullifies the LoB?
To re-quote my original wiki quote,
quote:
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
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
...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. 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.
Then please don't just make assertions. Please provide evidence of scientists claiming that there is evidence that makes abiogenesis plausible.
Read carefully so as not to misunderstand...there is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausable. If you want the evidence then just wiki abiogenesis and read it. 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.
Yes assertions, please back up your assertions and show anything that I have said about matter, gravity and light that is not scientifically accurate.
Off topic, but if you would like to start a thread on this I'd love to wipe the floor with your knowledge of physics...and keep in mind im only a first year physics student so pleassseeee be gentle on me.
I hope this is obvious to the moderators.
Don't ask them for help...you're all mine.
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.
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.
Oh wow, the first magazine that popped into my head was wrong...ok, I concede that the magazine I picked was not the best comparison...is that better my friend?
Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always...

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-26-2008 6:31 PM onifre has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 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

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 415 (484184)
09-26-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
09-26-2008 6:31 PM


Re: Evidence for abiogenesis
Just some quick replies since the entire mess of a post is filled with redundant assertions.
AOKid writes:
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.
Lets do this in baby-steps.
*Abiogenesis is the study of hypothesized chemicals that, with the given amount of time and condition, organize themselves into what we call life.
*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.
*The law of biogenesis was said to be a fact because thru Pastuers experiment life did not generate.
I will now re-quote the part of the citation you quoted that actually solidifies my argument with bold letters to emphasize my point,
my 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,”
*What were those specific conditions that Needham was talking about?
  • 1. [Needham]showed that microorganisms flourished in various soups that had been exposed to the air.
  • 2. He claimed that there was a “life force” present in the molecules of all inorganic matter, including air and the oxygen in it, that could cause spontaneous generation to occur.
  • 3. He even briefly boiled some of his soup and poured it into “clean” flasks with cork lids, and microorganisms still grew there.
*Now comes Pastuer:
  • 1. From Needham’s and Spallanzani’s experiments, it was known that soup that was exposed to the air spoiled ” bacteria grew in it.
  • 2. Question: Is there indeed a “life force” present in air (or oxygen) that can cause bacteria to develop by spontaneous generation?
  • 3. Hypothesis: There is no such life force in air, and a container of sterilized broth will remain sterile, even if exposed to the air, as long as bacteria cannot enter the flask.
  • 4. Prediction: If there is no life force, broth in swan-neck flasks should remain sterile, even if exposed to air, because any bacteria in the air will settle on the walls of the initial portion of the neck. Broth in flasks plugged with cotton should remain sterile because the cotton is able to filter bacteria out of the air.
  • 5. Testing: Pasteur boiled broth in various-shaped flasks to sterilize it, then let it cool. As the broth and air in the containers cooled, fresh room air was drawn into the containers.
  • 6. Conclusion(s): There is no such life force in air, and organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation in this manner*.
*Do you see what it says in that last part? The part in bold? I'll re-quote Pastuer,
quote:
Conclusion(s): There is no such life force in air, and organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation in this manner.
IN THAT MANNER.
Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pastuer with his very specific ingredients, and conditions.
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?
Now if you would stop smoking pot
Dude insult me all you want, but leave pot out of this. You're full of crap and you know it, and because of pot I can see thru you.
Yes, that is what I claim. That's what your citation agrees with.
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.
Yes, Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
No you silly goose*, he proved that life could not spontaneously arise from his specific inorganic components.
Life does not spontaneously generate from chemicals.
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.
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.
Now anyone can see that biogenesis and spontaneous generation are not synonyms.
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*.
No there isn't any magical juice of life,
Oh there's a magic juice for life alright, hold still and I'll hit you with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*PS. 'Silly Goose' can be used as a substitute for any curse word, choose one and roll with it.
*PSS. Silly Goose is a registered trade mark.
Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-26-2008 6:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-03-2008 5:16 PM onifre has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 415 (484962)
10-03-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid
10-03-2008 5:16 PM


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.
Stop equivocating.
In using the word "life" above, you're referring to fully functioning living organisms.
Modern abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms. It is about the emergence of life, itself.
And who were these "many scientists"? Were they anything at all like scientists today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-03-2008 5:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-06-2008 8:54 AM New Cat's Eye 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