Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 136 of 415 (498435)
02-10-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by traste
02-10-2009 8:31 AM


Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Hi, Traste.
Although, if you had looked hard enough, you certainly would have found this written multiple times in the threads I linked you to from the Pilbeam thread, I think you may still benefit from reading this one more time:
Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about how organisms reproduce. It suggested that some animal reproduction (ontogeny) was accomplished by the environment, instead of by sex or cell division. That is, some animals were born from leaf litter, water, rotting carcasses or dirt. This concept calls for a mechanism that allows decaying matter to be transformed into an animal by means of a pre-existing template.
Abiogenesis is the common idea underlying many hypotheses about the origin of the very first life form. In simplest terms, "abiogenesis" basically means that, at some point, there was a first life form, and, since no life predated that life form, that life form could only have come from something other than a pre-existing life form. This concept has no templates: it is a haphazard compilation of random elements into something workable.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:31 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 137 of 415 (498438)
02-10-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by traste
02-10-2009 8:31 AM


What Pasteur showed
Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed? Can you further make a clear argument showing how those experiments disproved the possibility of abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth through chemical evolution?
At the moment you seem to be taking a set of experiments with very specific goals and applying their results to something almost completely unrelated except by semantics.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:31 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:26 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 249 by traste, posted 03-23-2009 11:41 PM Wounded King has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 138 of 415 (498446)
02-10-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by traste
02-10-2009 8:31 AM


Tenses
traste writes:
What is absolute and correct abiogenesis that disprove long ago by Pasteur?Do you agree if I say if a certain theory is contradictory to prove idea the theory need to be reconsider?I THINK THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOOD SCIENCE.Do year any experiment producing life from non life?If youy hear your alone.
What are the characteristics of good written English in your mind, traste?
Speaking of which, Pasteur's law was originally expressed as "Omne vivum ex ovo", latin for "all life [is] from eggs". This we now know is not literally true, because organisms that divide to self-replicate do not use eggs. However, the general observation still holds out, and is usually expressed as "All life comes from life", which, so far as all life forms we have observed are concerned, holds true, although it cannot be proven as an absolute law even when applied to the present.
The reason that this is popular amongst creationists is probably because hillbillies have problems with their tenses. It was never "All life was from eggs" or "All life came from life". Such statements would imply that life is eternal, of course; that it has always existed, meaning no creation or abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:31 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 139 of 415 (498471)
02-10-2009 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by PaulK
02-10-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Conclusions
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2009 9:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by lyx2no, posted 02-10-2009 10:36 PM traste has not replied
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2009 11:14 PM traste has replied
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2009 1:30 AM traste has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 140 of 415 (498476)
02-10-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


What's So Hard?
In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
Yes, spontaneous generation. Pasteur's experiments applied to to spontaneous generation; not abiogenesis.
I tell you I don't like jelly beans. You respond by telling me I'm nuts, raisins rule. Fine, Who care? I was talking about jelly beans and am under no obligation to condemn raisins.
You know you can start your own argument with your own definitions, don't you? You don't have to confuse other people's arguments.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 141 of 415 (498477)
02-10-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Conclusions
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Arthur C. Clarke (Clarke's first law of prediction)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 8:41 PM Coyote has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 142 of 415 (498478)
02-11-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Conclusions
quote:
Oh!Is that all?
He did a lot of other things but that is the experiment you're talking about.
quote:
Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?
No. The closest he got to that was the experiment I was talking about.
quote:
In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
By which he meant the idea that modern microorganisms appeared as a product of decay...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 143 of 415 (498774)
02-13-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Coyote
02-10-2009 11:14 PM


Re: Conclusions
Maybe.But dont you know that even some supporters of evolution acknowledge that Pasteur experiment settle the contreversy that surrounds spontaneous genaration?How would you reconcile your view with them?You are so vigilance in spoting that Pasteur is an elderly,how about Darwin is he not an elderly to?You contend that Pasteur work maybe wrong,dont you realize that Darwin's work maybe wrong too because he is an elderly?You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2009 11:14 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:06 PM traste has not replied
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2009 10:13 PM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 144 of 415 (498779)
02-13-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by traste
02-13-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Conclusions
I thougth you can read well.And what is decay in the following statement"never will the doctrine of spontaneus genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"?That statement remains true no laboratoty models produce living things from non living things.Do you hear some?Some microbiolgist define spontaneous generation as a theory that living things is come from non living things.If you like to argue with that argue them not me..Since some of you are quoting Pilbeam as a source of your "decay".I will quote Stephen Meyer if you ask me who is Meyer will he is one of the supportets of intelligent design,and who is Pilbeam by the way?Meyer said that Pasteur's experiment show that life could not began from non life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 8:41 PM traste has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2009 5:26 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 145 of 415 (498782)
02-13-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Modulous
02-10-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Conclusions
I dont think so.That definiton is correct only for supporters of evolution dont you think so?In my reply in Feb 10 2009 I apologize if I did not recognize evolutionist Francis Hitching as my reference.This what he said "beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reaction water in any case inhibits the growth ofmore complex molecules"Dont you hear about that thing?Or your only so concern to the idea that supports evolution?By the way you imply that circle is not a square I agree as a person who has undergone rigid training in mathemathics I know for sure that there is no such thing,but it does not mean that there is no such thing as difficulties in evolution.In fact chemist Richard Dickerson said"it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation.And biochemist George Wald said "spontaneous dissulution is much more probable and hence proceed rapidly than spontaneus synthesis"He acknowledge "this the most stubborn problem that confronts"evolutionary theory.But the difficulties does not stop there.But for sure you dont know about those difficulties.As a student of mathemathics a branded evolution mathemathically erroneus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:37 PM traste has not replied
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2009 10:21 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 146 of 415 (498783)
02-13-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-04-2004 5:19 PM


You are correct.Our creator is needed for such complexities and precision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2004 5:19 PM sidelined has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 147 of 415 (498784)
02-13-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
02-10-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Who is Pilbeam in the first place?If I say that I believe that spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2009 10:59 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM traste has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 148 of 415 (498785)
02-13-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by traste
02-13-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Conclusions
You have nice verse no doubt you are a great benefit to the fairy tale of evolution.
At least our "Fairy tale" has some evidence to back it up where as creation or ID has none.

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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 8:41 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:16 AM bluescat48 has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 149 of 415 (498788)
02-13-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
02-15-2007 9:01 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2007 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:43 PM traste has replied
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 AM traste has replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 7:57 PM traste has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 150 of 415 (498789)
02-13-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by traste
02-13-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Conclusions
it is therefore hard to see how polymerazation [it is needed to form big molecules]could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primative ocean since the presence of water favors depolymerazation rather tha polymerazation.
I would imagine that this was written before it was known that carbonyl sulfide, a gas emitted by volcanos, catalyzes the polymerization of amino acids in water. (Leman, et al., Science vol 306, pp 283-286 2004). And maybe before, or in ignorance of, hypotheses about early amino acid polymerization happening on occasionally-wet rocks or inside lipid droplets.
And please, traste, put a space after punctuation marks. It will make your writing much easier to read. You won't waste any paper, either - just space on a screen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 9:50 PM traste 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