|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I see your point but I also think there is a connection and have a sneaking feeling that you're trying to avoid it so I'll phrase the question to you. Well, you're wrong that I'm trying to avoid something. What even makes you say that? Because I don't agree with you?
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree? Not enough information.... All life that is currently alive on Earth began from other life, yes. But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree? We don't know for sure but I'd guess that there is a high probability that today with current conditions this is true. Close enough to 100 % that we can call it 'fact' in fact. You did use "begins" that makes all the difference. As pointed out by others it is clear, whatever you believe, that this can not have held true for all time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I propose that all life on earth begins from other life. Do you agree or disagree?
Given the finite history of our universe it is impossible for all life to have come from other life, and this includes the Earth. So I would have to disagree.
If panspermia is correct then all the life [i]on earth[i/] began from existing life. It just pushes the transition from chemistry to biology off of the planet but the point stands. Although, I'm not seeing a reason for making htat point in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5463 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life. This has probably been discussed other places and I may get my fingers slapped for going off topic but I'm new to the forum and just rummaging around these issues so .... What is the evidence you relied on for this belief?
As pointed out by others it is clear, whatever you believe, that this can not have held true for all time. Yeah Canada. Go Leafs!! Agreed. All scientific theories are provisional but when there is a theory that has stood for 150 years, it does not seem logical to say that it may be wrong and so I'll support a different theory instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Its better to use the little green reply button at the bottom right of someones post rather than the general reply because people will know who you're replying to and the discussion will be easier to follow. Plus, the board lets me know when I have replies waiting if you actually reply to me rather than generally.
But I think that at some point in the past, life gradually emerged from chemicals so not all of the life for all of time began from other life. This has probably been discussed other places and I may get my fingers slapped for going off topic but I'm new to the forum and just rummaging around these issues so .... What is the evidence you relied on for this belief? The science behind the current theories of abiogenesis. You can start reading up on them here.
All scientific theories are provisional but when there is a theory that has stood for 150 years, it does not seem logical to say that it may be wrong and so I'll support a different theory instead. People don't support a new theory just because they think the old one is wrong. They support it because that's what the evidence suggests. Besides that the length of time a theory has stood doesn't really have anything to do with its veracity. How long did people think that spirits caused disease before the Germ Theory of Disease came out? Germ Theory too was very controversial when it came out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5463 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
Thanks. If you don't mind me asking, which of the models listed do you think is correct and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
For the umpteenth time, NO!
--------------------------------------- Due to the reasons well known to you. --------------------------------------- I say you're wrong because "spontaneous generation" has a meaning that you are ignoring for reasons known only to you, which introduces nothing but confusion---------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course not.The real meaning meaning of spontaneous genaration is life came from non life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd enjoy very much if you made a point--------------------------------------------- I made a lot of point,but you din't enjoy it. --------------------------------------------- I live to gain new understanding------------ Well,fine. ------------ Matter of fact, if I ever make lots of money on some kind of block buster invention I'll leave the money to a foundation in my will that grants an annual prize to the best scientific discoveries in half a dozen disciplines. But they'll have to do better then a PRATT First,of all I dont see any idiot invented things,secondly invention requires large dollop of complex intelligence,your idiotness in mathemathics show that the things you dreamed of is impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Ah! you misunderstand
---------------------------------------------------------------------- No.The thing that cave diver found inconslstency of your grammar is a good hint that your own is not exemplary. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills.---------------------------------------------------------------------- As,I pointed out you do a good job if you a good job if you trot out yourself first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by traste, : wrong spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Of,course I can,Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterelized water protected from contamination.The message of Pasteur's experiment is so loud and clear that you and your co supporters keep on getting around. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? Abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration implies the same thing.You and your co supporters keep on running around around due to the reason well known to you.---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------What do you think should I do that? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
What the on-line lecture I referred you to upthread shows is that genetic systems can come about naturally, no deities needed.
Do you have any ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Because they are program to do that,like the computer it was program to do something.If,say you that those organanization just happened,that means you are losing your head.hahahahaha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have any specific arguments against that, or are you just going to continue preaching?---------------------------------------------------------------------- I,ve already give alot of arguments taht you and your co supporters keep ,on ignoring for reasons.In,fact I can provide some 400 references that debunked evolution,ironically some of those reference are come from proponents of evolution.If you asked me why I did not share there conclusion,it's because I dont like to share there logical inconsistency. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
sidelined writes: Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to living organisms without the need for suoernatural intervention? for the same reason that we cannot bring the dead back to life Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact? Life is more then just chemical elements, environment and physics. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Snappy comebacks sort of lose their snap eventually. Let me see, March 23 minus February 16 that's Ok 28 days in February; so, 28-16=12, and 12+23=35 Ok So, if I got the math right, you're, like, 39 days past the best if used by date.
And that's still not as lame as your "Pasteur disproved abiogenesis" argument. Edited by lyx2no, : Had to correct some less then exemplarily English. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Edited by lyx2no, 03-24-2009 10:13 PM: Had to correct some less then exemplarily English. I particularly like the deliberate misuse of "then" instead of "than"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Not everyone is a uninformed as you are. You offer no insite here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The right thing to say is not everybody as informed as me.I did not mean insite,but I mean insight,you are good in twisting things. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your list has been so often repeated and refuted the acronym PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand TimeS)has been applied to them--------------------------------------------------------------------- In your dreams.I don't see any experiment refute that thing.Also your arguments bear the acronym PRABTS(POINT REFUTED A BILLION TIMES) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah! And a mechanic in a shop and a tornado in a junk yard have the same odds of putting together an engine by your math ---------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah,you make a point here.An engine formed by blind force is ridicoulousssss!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Lets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact? Because it is impossible to miraculously breath life into non-living things, since the necessary condition for life is a set of chemical interactions, not miracle breath.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024