Transition from chemistry to biology

The topic title and theme is "Transition from chemistry to biology".Adminnemooseus

---

Lynx2no write: I tried it before but it does'nt worked. But not on this time. Maybe I included the quotation mark before.

Huntard wrote: Err, did you not read this.? " Never will the docrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow sruck by this simple experiment" Read the arguments of proponents of evolution and examine the evidence with out prior conviction.

traste, you are not attaching the proper meanings to the terms being used here. Stop equivocating. Spontaneous generation is not synonymous with abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Spontaneous Generation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from Univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

​

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

​

1. Andr Brack (1998). "Introduction". in Andr Brack. The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 9780521564755. "Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory."

---

quote:

---

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

​

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]

​

On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

​

1. Wilde SA, Valley JW, Peck WH, Graham CM (January 2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 175—8. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637.

​

2. Schopf JW, Kudryavtsev AB, Agresti DG, Wdowiak TJ, Czaja AD (March 2002). "Laser--Raman imagery of Earth's earliest fossils". Nature 416 (6876): 73—6. doi:10.1038/416073a. PMID 11882894.

​

3. Hayes, John M.; Waldbauer, Jacob R. (2006). "The carbon cycle and associated redox processes through time". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 931—950. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1840.

​

4. Archer, Corey; Vance, Derek (2006). "Coupled Fe and S isotope evidence for Archean microbial Fe(III) and sulfate reduction". Geology 34 (3): 153—156. doi:10.1130/G22067.1.

​

5. Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Brasier, Martin; Embley, T. Martin (2006). "Introduction: how and when did microbes change the world?". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 845—50. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1847.

​

6. Summons, Roger E.; et al. (2006). "Steroids, triterpenoids and molecular oxygen". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 (1470): 951—68. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1837.

---

Edited by CosmicChimp, : formatting

Yes I did. My observation still stands though. Spontaneous generation is about currently living organisms, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis. I did. My question stands. You haven't supplied any reason or evidence for your statement.

---

I hunt for the truth

But as has been explained to you many times, Pasteurs experiment is different from any potential experiments which could be conducted into abiogenesis. Look at Miller/Urey or any other experiment which has resulted in complex organic molecules similar to those found in living organisms. The usual reaction from creationists is that the early earths atmosphere is not know so it's been 'fixed' to promote the formation of these organic molecules. But now here you are holding up this one experiment as proof that abiogenesis could not occur, as if a flask of cooked meat broth open to the air is an accurate model of the early earth. Do you think it is a good model?Of course if we repeated Pasteurs experiment and life did appear from the sterile broth you could quite legitimately say this wasn't evidence for abiogenesis on the early earth, and I would agree with you.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

Hi, traste. "Holy crap" is just an expression of surprise.----- What?----- You are using the term premise incorrectly, Traste.Premises are not proven nor tested. You only call something a premise if you are not going to test it. If you are going to test it, you call it a hypothesis.You have been insulting people’s knowledge of logic when you do not even understand the most basic terminology used in logic.----- My logic? Here’s what you said just above that: Here is your logic: In this case, statement X is come only from eggs.And, here is my parody of your logic: In this case, statement X is do not eat grass.It is your logic. You are trying to derive a universal conclusion from Pasteur’s limited data set, just as I was trying to derive a universal conclusion from my limited data set of tigers.When a scientist has a little bit of data, he predicts that his conclusions will apply to areas where he has not tested it. But, you cannot say that a prediction based on evidence from sample A is scientifically valid for sample B.Evidence that many important steps of abiogenesis are possible gives us reason to suspect that all life from pre-existing life may not be universal---at least enough reason to entertain further investigation.Adhering to Pasteur’s meat-spoilage experiments as the pre-eminent authority on the origin of life is pointlessly dogmatic and counterproductive.----- Actually, I speak and write two languages, one of which happens to be Mandarin Chinese. I’ll leave you to figure out what the other one is. I can also understand and read Spanish, but, whenever I try to speak it, it always comes out as Chinese.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Blue jay wrote: I mean, Im not surprise, you are. You are higly pretentious!! Are you ashame of your beliefs?? Im not, you are. For example if my premse is: All educated people went to school. Bleujay went to school. Therefore Bluejay is educated. Is the premise was not tested and proven? If the premise was not tested and proven then the concclusion might be invalid. Actually this is very evident to your logic. Frankly Pasteur's experiment is apply to all because, it refers to a condition that life might spontaneously arose. And, here is my parody of your logic: Statement X is incorrect because it challenge my beliefs.Frankly Pasteur's experiment challenge all fundamental beliefs that life might arose from non- living thing. No! Im, trying to derive a specific conclusion and applied it universally. This method ia called,deduction. It like integral calculus from specific to universal. This is an appropriate description of all evolutonary research. For example because they observe microchange,they reason out that micro evolution is possible. But this logic is like saying because a man can jump at 2 meters he might as well jump at 1000000 meters. Very illogical. If we substitute reason with faith and reality with illusion you might getit correctly. If I have boundless optimism and wishful speculations I might to believe that abiogenesis is correct. Fortunately I,am a very reasonable person, and I dont like to believe such things that filled with illusion. Actually lP did not performed such experiment,it was FR. Well, fine. Good job!

Malcolm wrote: I know Urey and Miller's experiment, that experiment rest on the assumption that the primative atmosphere was reducing, as Miller and his co workres put it " the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere. But that still leave the possibilities that life might arose spontaneuosly. And you will say this is acceptable. But as we know Pasteur's expriment did not in favor of that.

I would like to like to know if you see the obvious erreor in logic here. Maybe that's the reason you can't understand the answers given to you?

Huntard wrote: Unfortunately it doesn't. It absolutely does my friend,unless you have prior conviction. And your evidence is?? Have suplied intermidiate form of organism?

Absolutely flawed analogy. Typical creation "science" at work.Please don't try to take up a career in science; you don't seem to grasp the essentials. Your method of thinking seems to be influenced by your a priori religious belief, and that seems to be the opposite of the scientific method.A better analogy might be that a single organism can travel two meters in its lifetime--how many meters from their starting place could be traveled by an ever-expanding population of the same organisms over a period of millions of years?This is a better analogy because its closer to the way evolution works--all of those micro-changes add up to macro-changes over time, whether creationists want them to or not.And I have yet to see a creationist propose a testable or verifiable mechanism that prevents the micro-changes from adding up to macro-changes over time. The reason seems to be that creationists base their opinion here on the bible rather than science, and on the religious belief in "kinds" rather than the scientific evidence for species and speciation. They refuse to see or accept the evidence which shows that particular religious belief to be incorrect--because they hold that idea as a belief, and it is not subject to scientific evidence. (The exact opposite of the scientific method.)And as Heinlein correctly noted,

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

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

Did you actually read his reply? You argue that Urey and Miller's experiment doesn't work because early atmosphere wasn't like the one in the experiment but curiously, you don't apply the same logic with pasteur's.

No it doesn't, becasue abiogenensis is about the earilest forms of life arising, not about currently living forms arising. You really need to learn definitions, mate. If you're asking if there are intermediate forms, yes there are, plenty in fact. This is not the thread to discuss those however.

---

I hunt for the truth

traste has proclaimed that because in 1864, Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life today does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life; an extrapolation of Pasteur's empirical results can be logically made, by him (traste) that states that no life anywhere nor under any circumstances can ever arise except via the mechanism of procreation.traste's astute remark is not unlike Pasteur's summary of his own empirical results, using the Latin phrase, "Omne vivum ex ovo," Latin for "all life [is] from eggs."traste I laud you upon this most profound and useful piece of wisdom it will surely earn you a place in the annals of history. traste, if only it were possible to see you standing there beside our most revered teacher Louis Pasteur, Saviour of silk & wine & humanity.