Cell Division

Hi Drevmar, No problem, take your time and check all you want to, that is how the open-minded skeptic operates.Yes, this is one possibility for the way cells formed, and it can be observed in the lab as well, so it is not just a hypothetical development. Or just lots of trial and error "tests" with various chemical combinations until one occurs that takes off, that is the hypothesis. No life form has been developed in the lab yet, and the current state is still chemical evolution - where we have replicating molecules that show some mutation and selection.Of course this gets into the question of "what is life" -- and that is a whole nother ball or worms.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Well, I find that fascinating. It's actually very cool and I don't see why anyone is upset on either side of the fence, even though I have read the various "evolution versus creation" arguments. Maybe that fence needs to be taken down. Okay, I am gonna digest this and think up some more questions, I thank you much! And please note, I really don't have a problem if someone does get to the creating life point. Wouldn't that be a huge step! The scriptures do not say that God will not allow man to create life (nor that evolution doesn't happen) and with all that has happened so far who knows?Edited by Drevmar, : Thoughts weren't done.

Dr Adequate writes; Do you label Szostak's video and the article by Ricardo and Szostak " life on earth" Scientific America sept. 2009 a:Theory?
Hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?
Magic based hypothesis?

Razd writes; I would ask the same question I asked Dr. Adequate. Do you consider the video and the article by Szostak & Ricardo "Life on Earth" in Scientific America Sept. 2009:A theory?
A hypothesis?
Speculation?
Wishful thinking?

Hi shadow71 I would say that it is a scientific hypothesis for one way life may have begun on earth. There are others.We don't have any direct evidence for how life began 3.5 billion years ago on earth, so we may never know: the oldest fossil bearing rocks already show simple life forms existing, so we don't know when it really began or what came before, except that it occurred some time after the formation of the earth (unless it came from space), some 4.55 billion years ago. That doesn't give us much to work with.Stromatolites

quote:

---

Stromatolites are not only Earth's oldest of fossils, but are intriguing in that they are our singular visual portal (except for phylogenetic determination of conserved nucleic acid sequences and some subtle molecular fossils) into deep time on earth, the emergence of life, and the evolving of the beautiful forms of life of modern time. A small piece of stromatolites encodes biological activity perhaps spanning thousands of years.

---

I would say that it is a scientific theory for how life can begin from chemicals and natural reactions.The difference is that theory is supported by experimentation and the evaluation of the evidence from this and similar studies: it has been tested, while the actual origin of life is not.The development of the theory for how life can begin is an integral part to the formation of the hypothesis for how life did begin, as it provides the evidentiary basis to make the hypothesis.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I can't access the article. The video presents a non-magical hypothesis as to the way in which abiogenesis took place and some facts about biochemistry that support its plausibility.As no-one has observed magical processes in biology, this in my judgment makes the hypothesis superior to magic-based hypotheses.

So you don't believe in magic.Well, incredulity is not an argument.

Thats not what he said. If that criticism sounds like "I don't believe in magic," then you have a serious cognitive deficiency preventing meaningful participation in such a topic.

Observation, however, is an argument. I have never seen magic any more than I have seen a pig with wings. Unless and until I do, the scientific method constrains me to disbelieve in both.An argument from incredulity would be saying that magic is too ridiculous to be true. Whereas what I say is that it is too unevidenced to be plausible. Like winged pigs.

So you are saying that he does believe in magic?Ok, that's interesting too.

Do you also mean like the evolution of the eye through random mutations? You haven't actually seen that happen have you?Or of abiogenesis? You were there? Wow.

Wow, OK then. You have effectively removed yourself from the conversation due to a lack of the required skills to meaningfully participate.

Of course he isn't.Is there any statement that you can't misunderstand?

I don't know about the video but the Sci. Am. article makes it pretty clear that what they are doing is presenting a brief synthesis of the most current research in several fields, concerned with the origins of life, as a hypothetical scenario. The article is littered with possiblys, coulds, mights and mays, all caveats suggesting the hypothetical nature of the scenario.There is some wishful thinking in there ... ... but on the whole everything they present has solid experimental evidence supporting it as a plausible mechanism, not necessarily what actually happened. Without a time machine that may be the best we can hope for.TTFN,WK

Wounded King posted; Thanks Wounded King. I have a lot reading to do to even try and understand the basics of this thread.