Recommended Posts

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


OK - I think we both missed each other's point to a degree - and I may have been a little off-base bringing in the 6000 year thing. That was OT.

I try to look at the question the same way...meaning...could you do thousands and thousands of controlled experiments - providing the building blocks of life in a life-sterilized environment - and expect to see life emerge? I seriously doubt it. We probably agree more than we disagree.

To answer your question (slightly)... UV radiation, insolubility in salt water, and the levels of CO2 at the time would not have sustained life... But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life. In fact, it's almost a miracle to get life from life.

According to your own sources, this is flat wrong. My gosh, just make it up as you go along. First off, viruses were more than likely the original life-forms. Viruses can do all sorts of fun things, like self replicate and survive in increadibly harsh environments, including no oxygen. Next, we don't have the full data set on what the first bactirium or other single-celled creatures looked like, so how can you possibly make such a statement. For example, Orr's work is very clear that the primordial conditions gave rise to single cell life forms. More recent work in deep sea biology is cleary showing that the deep sea vents provide all the necessary conditions for the creation of life: pressure, warmth, and a rich blend of nutrients. The deep sea work is showing that life does occur when conditions are correct. By the way, the deep sea vents aren't exposed to UV radiation. Third, you keep (mis) quoting scientists, yet you disparage the work.

People, D has NO IDEA what he is talking about in this thread. He is making stuff up out of whole cloth.

If anyone else is really interested in learning about evolution, please take it upon yoruself to look up information. I can point you to some good sources as well. This is part of my field and I think I have a good grasp on the topics.

So you are saying that an earth with no ozone layer would have supported life...

OH Wait..

You're saying that because there was no ozone layer, life had to begin in the deepest portion of the sea.

Come on Frosgrim.

Don't you see Science conforming to itself here?

Science should indeed answer a question.

The first question asked is can life have existed on primitive earth.

The first answer is no! UV and CO2 could not sustain it.

Moreover, your discussion of viruses have one problem... Larger viruses are parasitic. That means that they have to have a host to leech from. IF there is no host, the virus cannot live. We know this to be true for viruses that exist now. They have very short lifetimes. So how is it that a virus could be sustained without a host??

Regarding deep sea life:

There is no need of ozone with deep sea origins. The water acts as the radiation buffer. The thermal vents act as the catalyst. The nutrients are supplied by the volcanic activity. Deep sea origens are one of the current thoughts on life erruption around 1 billion years ago.

Re viral origins:

not all viruses use the RNA of a host for replication. Some are self-replicating. The act as self-replicating molicules actually. As I mentioned earlier, some viruses are extremely hardy, not even requiring oxygen. The origens of these viruses are not entirely understood, but the genetic structure indicates that they are extremely old. The larger viruses that you are refering to D, are actually new species (hence speciation in our life times).

I hope this answers your question D. You still haven't actually adressed why you are making up terms and positing statements. Your ideas of micro v. marcoevolution are not in line with the way the terms are used in the science literature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:


please, post some links. In all honesty this was probably one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on this site. It was made more interesting by the fact that while there was disagreement, civility has prevailed! BRAVO!

Thanks for the props.

I am at work, but I will try to get a set of links up by this evening for people to visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


I hope this answers your question D. You still haven't actually adressed why you are making up terms and positing statements. Your ideas of micro v. marcoevolution are not in line with the way the terms are used in the science literature.

Is this what you mean... WHEN I SAID...

Quote:


What here's how I discuss it:

microevolution: Small changes over a small amount of time.

Macroevolution: Changes over a large amount of time.

Adaptation: Changes that happened based on something added or taken away from the system.

Oh, let's look at a more formal definition shall we?

Quote:


Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

Microevolution (wikipedia)

Same source defines Macroevolution:

Quote:


Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution).

And Adaptation

Quote:


Adaptation is the change in organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptations can be structural, behavioral or physiological.

before we go any further, you said that i was "making up terms" and then you said that I was " not in line with the way that these terms were used in scientific literature".

Although my usage is general and not very specified or confined to alleles, my general language is not made up nor off point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the deep sea.

Just because you find life there, doesn't mean that life started there.

You're using that as your only answer because there was no ozone layer and life couldn't be supported on the earth.

Here's the problem...

While the conditions may be able to support some kind of life... the conditions cannot create Life.

You then bring up viruses whom nobody knows exactly where they come from and because their is no origin you want to use that as the origin of life.

Just because you don't know where viruses come from, doesn't mean that that was the start of life.

If we go with the facts and forget about the speculation... this is what it boils down to.

1. You cannot get life without life.

2. The non-living chemicals required to make life will in no way self assemble to make life.

Do I need to go into information theory and bioinformatical evaluation of the origins of life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


I hope this answers your question D. You still haven't actually adressed why you are making up terms and positing statements. Your ideas of micro v. marcoevolution are not in line with the way the terms are used in the science literature.

Is this what you mean... WHEN I SAID...

Quote:


What here's how I discuss it:

microevolution: Small changes over a small amount of time.

Macroevolution: Changes over a large amount of time.

Adaptation: Changes that happened based on something added or taken away from the system.

Oh, let's look at a more formal definition shall we?

Quote:


Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

Microevolution (wikipedia)

Same source defines Macroevolution:

Quote:


Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution).

And Adaptation

Quote:


Adaptation is the change in organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptations can be structural, behavioral or physiological.

before we go any further, you said that i was "making up terms" and then you said that I was " not in line with the way that these terms were used in scientific literature".

Although my usage is general and not very specified or confined to alleles, my general language is not made up nor off point...

Definitions must be specific or the user can do what you just did to wiggle out when called on it. The context of your discussion suggests that you did not understand that micro and macro evolution is about changes in alle frequency. If that is what you meant, then you need to be specific. Furthermore, you use "I" when defining the terms, this indicates that the definitions are YOUR definition not the genrally accepted definition. Maybe MY interpretation comes from being too long in academia where you have to watch your p and q's closely.

Please see my next post for information regarding the origins of life on earth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


About the deep sea.

Just because you find life there, doesn't mean that life started there.

You're using that as your only answer because there was no ozone layer and life couldn't be supported on the earth.

Here's the problem...

While the conditions may be able to support some kind of life... the conditions cannot create Life.

You then bring up viruses whom nobody knows exactly where they come from and because their is no origin you want to use that as the origin of life.

Just because you don't know where viruses come from, doesn't mean that that was the start of life.

If we go with the facts and forget about the speculation... this is what it boils down to.

1. You cannot get life without life.

2. The non-living chemicals required to make life will in no way self assemble to make life.

Do I need to go into information theory and bioinformatical evaluation of the origins of life?

There is a lot of evidence to counter your statements here. Let me start with some general statements and then I will provide links at the end of the post to back up my statements and assertions. All the links are from biologists.

First off, the UV problem you are refering to is not a problem for the oldest fossilized bacteria on earth.

Oliva Judson who is a biologist and has a blog on the NYT (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com) has this to say about harsh conditions and bacteria:

"By themselves, such factors needn’t be prohibitive. Plenty of places that appear uninhabitable turn out to house microbial communities. Incredibly, some bacteria live inside Arctic sea ice, respiring at -20C (-4F); others live trapped within the ice of Antarctic lakes; still others live deep in the permafrost. Acid isn’t necessarily a problem either: Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans is a bacterium that enjoys life at the extremely acidic pH of 2; Ferroplasma acidarmanus does even better, thriving at a pH of 0. Nor is radiation: the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans can survive doses of ultraviolet light that are 33 times higher than E. coli can. (Nor is that its only trick: Deinococcus can live comfortably in the water cores of nuclear reactors.)"

The fact that some bacteria can live in radioactive water should end this problem of UV radiation. I do have to admit that I was wrong about the date of the origin of life on earth. The oldest bacteria are 3.5 billion years old. These bacteria had super thick cell walls that were probably shields against radiation.

Now for the can we get life from non-life. The building blocks of all organisms are amino acids. The question, then is, can we derive amino acids from the surrounding environment? The answer is a resounding yes. Stanley Miller clearly shows this with a very simple experiment. He placed water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, but no oxygen in an airtight beaker (a mixture that was hypothesized to resemble earth's early atmosphere). He heated it repeatedly. After a week he was able to extract 17 of the 20 aminio acids used in protosynthesis from the mixture. The problem with this experiment is that methane may not have been present in the atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago.

This is where the underwater vents come into play. Basic building blocks of life are seen repeatedly formed in these vents.

The ultimate problem is how do you get to DNA that produces protiens? Since this is a chicken-egg problem, I think I understand the confusion. The current theory, which has support, is that ribozymes could handle the transition. These molecules are catalysts and can store information (hence they can create protiens). According to Kimball (a biologist), there have been no discoveries of self-replicating ribozymes that produce protiens in nature; HOWEVER, these organisms can be produced in the lab. The fact that these sorts of organisms are no longer found in the wild is really no surprise. Once protiens are synthesized, the DNA process is more efficient and more stable than the mRNA process. Thus, through natural selection, the self-replicating ribozymes would be replaced by the more efficient DNA-base molocules.

To reiterate some points about my arguments:

1) this is an internet web site, so I don't have the space to go into great details about the chemestry of these processes

2) I have a limited amount of time that I can spend on this (I have to get some work done and I have a paper deadline that I am now up against).

I will post links this evening when I get to my home computer.

For now anyone interested should take a look at the following resources:

Talk Origin.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/

The premier site for understanding evolution on the web.

Evidence for Macroevolution by Doulglas Theorbal, PhD.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

J. Kimball's on-line Biology textbook.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/

Origin of life on earth- shows that you can easily get amino acids from the environment:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...cSynthesis.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Quote:


Quote:


But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life.

Do the facts identify the life that generated the life on this planet or is it an assumption that some unidentified form of life kicked off life on this planet? It seems to me that there is not a good answer to the question of how life originated on Earth at this point and that we are pretty far away from knowing real "facts" regarding the origin of life on this planet. Am I missing something?

Again, I don't understand why you keep saying it is a proven fact that you can't generate life from non-life. As far as I know, there is no proven evidence of life anywhere before life on Earth and yet there is indisputable evidence of life on Earth. Unless you can identify the life that was the source for life on Earth, I cannot understand why anyone would say it is a proven fact that life cannot be created from non-living components.

I do understand criticizing current or prior theories on the origin of life from non-living components but disproving current scientific theory about nonliving origins of life on Earth would not equate to proving that life was generated by life - it would simply disprove the current theory and leave us no closer to identifying the cause of life.

I don't think you are arguing "there is no proof of life from non-life therefore it must be a fact that you cannot generate life from non-life" because that is just pointing out a lack of evidence rather than evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you could just as easily replace that with "there is no proof of life generating the first life on this planet therefore it must be a fact that life on Earth was not generated by life." However, I am not sure how you are reaching the conclusion that it is proven fact that life cannot be generated by non-life. That "fact" seems inconsistent with the amount of debate and lack of hard evidence on the origin of life on this planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


As far as I know, there is no proven evidence of life anywhere before life on Earth and yet there is indisputable evidence of life on Earth. Unless you can identify the life that was the source for life on Earth, I cannot understand why anyone would say it is a proven fact that life cannot be created from non-living components.

Diesel has his own brand of logic. it goes hand in hand with Diesel math. it can't be understood unless you are "special", like him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Home now, so I can pull some links into the post.

List of evolution websites and articles:

Clearing house site for Evolution and related topics:

http://www.evolutionresearchnews.org/ http://www.evolutionresearchnews.org/

Talk Origin.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/ http://www.talkorigins.org/

The premier site for understanding evolution on the web.

Evidence for Macroevolution by Doulglas Theorbal, PhD.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Transition species from Australopithecus to Homo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/science/...tml?ref=science http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/science/...tml?ref=science

Mutations by Dr. Olivia Judson

Part I

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05...tant-obsession/ http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05...tant-obsession/

Part II

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26...akes/index.html http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26...akes/index.html

PBS Evolution Site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

Whale evolution video from PBS- shows transitional species:

and

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02...e_evolution.php

Human mutation rates increasing:

http://www.thestar.com/article/299886 http://www.thestar.com/article/299886

Understanding Evolution From Berkeley

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Human Evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://www.becominghuman.org/

Univ California Musem of Paleontology

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/index.php http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/index.php

Their on-line exhibits. The one on the History of Life is especially relevant to bacteria and evolution.

J. Kimball's on-line Biology textbook. linked in previous post

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/

Origin of life on earth- shows that you can easily get amino acids from the environment:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...cSynthesis.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


I hope this answers your question D. You still haven't actually adressed why you are making up terms and positing statements. Your ideas of micro v. marcoevolution are not in line with the way the terms are used in the science literature.

Is this what you mean... WHEN I SAID...

Quote:


What here's how I discuss it:

microevolution: Small changes over a small amount of time.

Macroevolution: Changes over a large amount of time.

Adaptation: Changes that happened based on something added or taken away from the system.

Oh, let's look at a more formal definition shall we?

Quote:


Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level

Microevolution (wikipedia)

Same source defines Macroevolution:

Quote:


Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution).

And Adaptation

Quote:


Adaptation is the change in organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptations can be structural, behavioral or physiological.

before we go any further, you said that i was "making up terms" and then you said that I was " not in line with the way that these terms were used in scientific literature".

Although my usage is general and not very specified or confined to alleles, my general language is not made up nor off point...

Definitions must be specific or the user can do what you just did to wiggle out when called on it. The context of your discussion suggests that you did not understand that micro and macro evolution is about changes in alle frequency. If that is what you meant, then you need to be specific. Furthermore, you use "I" when defining the terms, this indicates that the definitions are YOUR definition not the genrally accepted definition. Maybe MY interpretation comes from being too long in academia where you have to watch your p and q's closely.

Please see my next post for information regarding the origins of life on earth

You have got to be kidding me??

My definitions are layman's term. That is precisely why I said that this is how I Define it. Even still, my definitions are very damn close to the formal definitions. Maybe you have been in academia too long... Because your ability to break down what is complicated to what is understandable to anybody is BAD.

If we were in the midst of an Evolution forum... maybe your attacks on my definitions might be OK... And that's probably not likely seeing that everyone there would understand that we were talking about changes in Alleles. However, we're not there.

Still, in respect to science, your p's and q's make no difference in light of my argument.

My argument was never based on the difference of micro and macro evolution. Had you stayed on topic, you would not be ducking and dodging the question that asks:

How can Life comes from Chemicals that are governed by Laws and it has been proven that these chemicals (although they constitute life) cannot be put together in any reasonable assembly and create life.

Thus far, you have talked about forms of life with no none origin.

You have also talked about places that life could have been sustained.

However, you have NO reasonable mechanism for how Life could have evolved out of either circumstance. Especially, without the presence of an Ozone layer. In fact, the Ozone Layer formation cuts the 4.1 Billion years of evolution to 600 million years. Still, no mechanism for how these chemicals came together...reacted and formed life.

Ask the chemist about the impossibility of getting accurate chemical reactions in the absence of light and heat and of all things... IN WATER!!

Ask the information theorist about how likely (the probability) it is that man evolved from the oceans!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life.

Do the facts identify the life that generated the life on this planet or is it an assumption that some unidentified form of life kicked off life on this planet? It seems to me that there is not a good answer to the question of how life originated on Earth at this point and that we are pretty far away from knowing real "facts" regarding the origin of life on this planet. Am I missing something?

Again, I don't understand why you keep saying it is a proven fact that you can't generate life from non-life. As far as I know, there is no proven evidence of life anywhere before life on Earth and yet there is indisputable evidence of life on Earth. Unless you can identify the life that was the source for life on Earth, I cannot understand why anyone would say it is a proven fact that life cannot be created from non-living components.

I do understand criticizing current or prior theories on the origin of life from non-living components but disproving current scientific theory about nonliving origins of life on Earth would not equate to proving that life was generated by life - it would simply disprove the current theory and leave us no closer to identifying the cause of life.

I don't think you are arguing "there is no proof of life from non-life therefore it must be a fact that you cannot generate life from non-life" because that is just pointing out a lack of evidence rather than evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you could just as easily replace that with "there is no proof of life generating the first life on this planet therefore it must be a fact that life on Earth was not generated by life." However, I am not sure how you are reaching the conclusion that it is proven fact that life cannot be generated by non-life. That "fact" seems inconsistent with the amount of debate and lack of hard evidence on the origin of life on this planet.

How can you keep calling it proven "fact" that life cannot come from non-living components and yet keep failing to address this fundamental question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life.

Do the facts identify the life that generated the life on this planet or is it an assumption that some unidentified form of life kicked off life on this planet? It seems to me that there is not a good answer to the question of how life originated on Earth at this point and that we are pretty far away from knowing real "facts" regarding the origin of life on this planet. Am I missing something?

Again, I don't understand why you keep saying it is a proven fact that you can't generate life from non-life. As far as I know, there is no proven evidence of life anywhere before life on Earth and yet there is indisputable evidence of life on Earth. Unless you can identify the life that was the source for life on Earth, I cannot understand why anyone would say it is a proven fact that life cannot be created from non-living components.

I do understand criticizing current or prior theories on the origin of life from non-living components but disproving current scientific theory about nonliving origins of life on Earth would not equate to proving that life was generated by life - it would simply disprove the current theory and leave us no closer to identifying the cause of life.

I don't think you are arguing "there is no proof of life from non-life therefore it must be a fact that you cannot generate life from non-life" because that is just pointing out a lack of evidence rather than evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you could just as easily replace that with "there is no proof of life generating the first life on this planet therefore it must be a fact that life on Earth was not generated by life." However, I am not sure how you are reaching the conclusion that it is proven fact that life cannot be generated by non-life. That "fact" seems inconsistent with the amount of debate and lack of hard evidence on the origin of life on this planet.

The point is that non-living materials have never created life.

Life has been created by living creatures.

Yes, that does pose a bit of a question. HOW did life began?

Well, based on chemical laws... We know that it's impossible that life began with the chemicals that would have been present:

1. IN Water.

2. IN the lack of Light.

Deep sea vents may have been able to sustain some form of life... but NOT Create it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


How can you keep calling it proven "fact" that life cannot come from non-living components and yet keep failing to address this fundamental question?

Well, it's called the LAW of BIOGENESIS...

Quote:


Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.

The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things
, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed.
It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

D says:

"What here's how I discuss it:

microevolution: Small changes over a small amount of time.

Macroevolution: Changes over a large amount of time.

Adaptation: Changes that happened based on something added or taken away from the system.

Micro and Macroevolution would have to follow a natural selection. I don't believe in natural selection. Like I have been saying, it has no catalyst. If there were natural selection, then we'd be superbeings. Even in microevloution, we would have evolved to conqueor our environment. Because if it has no catalyst, then you're evolved all the time. That means that as you get older, you get better. However, it's just the opposite with man. As we get older, we start to oxidize and die out."

Just because YOU want to discuss it using YOUR terms does not mean I have to agree to those terms. The FACT (as you like to use the word) is that you posted erronious and/or extremely loose definitions. Those definitions are useless when talking about evolution SINCE evolution is about allele frequencies. That is a FACT.

Evolutionary biology is about understanding the changes in alle frequency in populations, species, and across species over time. Thus to use a set of definitions that have nothing to do with alleles is wrong.

You were trying to make an argument about genetic drift v. puncuated equilibrium. I gave you those terms earlier in the discussion but you didn't use them. These terms are used in the science community to talk about the processes you were trying to get at. FYI, the debate about drift v. PE is pretty much over. Most ev. biologist will say that both occur. There are still people on the fringes, but there is strong evidence supporting both positions.

Now, regarding the chemical processes. You either aren't reading what I posted or you just don't want to understand it. I have presented several examples of amenio acid formation out of normal chemical reactions. These acids are the building blocks of life, once they occur, then life is a strong possible outcome.

Let me put this in another way, there are naturally occurring chemicals that are extremely rare, yet they occur naturally. Some of the silicone-based molecular chains are quite long and require very specific circumstances for them to occur. So, with your logic, just because something is an unlikely event, it can't occur, thus long-complex molecular chains could not happen without- well what?

At this point, D, we all need your theory on the formation of life on Earth. I will not discuss this any further w/out a set of working hypotheses from your end. It is very easy to throw darts; however, it is another story when one has to post his or her own thoughts. The ball is now in your court as I have provided sufficient information for my (and the ev. biology community) in this argument.

NOTE:

A hypothesis is a testable statement about some phenomena. Statements need to be made so that they can be falsified in the light of evidence. Hypotheses are derived from theory. A theory is a set of coherent thoughts the postulate the way some phenomena is organized, opperates, and/or exists.

Simplified

Theory- why something exists

Hypothesis- how something exists

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin

as an interested reader of this thread I will say this.

I read Frosgrim's posts and despite not knowing much on the subject, what he says makes sense and whether it's in lay-terms or not, I understand it. I read Diesel's posts and it's all over the place. It sounds like he's saying one thing, being told something contrary and then going to find websites with differing information to use to continue a discussion that is obviously outside his realm of knowledge. Just my two cents.

also... hasn't science been able to place amino acids, proteins and other naturally occuring chemicals/components together and create things that at the very least, mimic basic signs of life? They would respond to light or heat or show an attraction to other components that in turn allowed them to grow (ie food)? I'd swear I've seen things on TV and read articles on that. To me something like that is creating life from non-life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


as an interested reader of this thread I will say this.

I read Frosgrim's posts and despite not knowing much on the subject, what he says makes sense and whether it's in lay-terms or not, I understand it. I read Diesel's posts and it's all over the place. It sounds like he's saying one thing, being told something contrary and then going to find websites with differing information to use to continue a discussion that is obviously outside his realm of knowledge. Just my two cents.

also... hasn't science been able to place amino acids, proteins and other naturally occuring chemicals/components together and create things that at the very least, mimic basic signs of life? They would respond to light or heat or show an attraction to other components that in turn allowed them to grow (ie food)? I'd swear I've seen things on TV and read articles on that. To me something like that is creating life from non-life.

Yes, there have been several experiments conducted in the lab where ryzohme-like organisms have been produced. Full cell formation is on the horizons according to people that I know (these are folks at various bio-labs around the world that I meet at conferences).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


as an interested reader of this thread I will say this.

I read Frosgrim's posts and despite not knowing much on the subject, what he says makes sense and whether it's in lay-terms or not, I understand it. I read Diesel's posts and it's all over the place. It sounds like he's saying one thing, being told something contrary and then going to find websites with differing information to use to continue a discussion that is obviously outside his realm of knowledge. Just my two cents.

also... hasn't science been able to place amino acids, proteins and other naturally occuring chemicals/components together and create things that at the very least, mimic basic signs of life? They would respond to light or heat or show an attraction to other components that in turn allowed them to grow (ie food)? I'd swear I've seen things on TV and read articles on that. To me something like that is creating life from non-life.

Sure, using some methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia in the presence of large voltages of electricity can form amino acids.

But amino acids doesn't suggest life. It's just a building block of life.

Also, the atmosphere of early earth didn't have methane or ammonia in high enough levels to produce amino acids.

And UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, and Nitriles (side product of the reaction) would have destroyed any organic molecules formed on the earth.

That's why you keep hearing about these deep sea vents. However, in the absence of Light and IN Water for god sakes... that's not going to work at all!

It's like CSI.. They find a man in the dessert dead and the only other thing they find is that he has a broken arm.

Sure they can postulate all sorts of things that could have happened. He could have fallen out of an airplane? He could have been dumped there by the mob. He could have been been poisoned and feel and died.

However, you notice that they really can not make a case for what really happened at the scene. They have to go to the lab and search for evidence that makes sense.

Well, same is true here. Evolutionist trying to predict the origin of life talks began to spew out all sorts of postulations because all we really have is: Life and what we are made up from.

However, none of their postulations have yet to come through the "lab" and make sense.

If you're using the tools of chemistry, mathematics, and physics.. what they have postulated doesn't fit.

Me saying that I can make rubber like tire rubber doesn't mean that I can make a car!

What you have is a lot of people taking random guesses at how abiogenesis could have been done but to date there is no

Proof

That abiogenesis could have happen. Just a lot of guesswork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Well, it's called the LAW of BIOGENESIS...

Quote:


Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.

The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things
, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed.
It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.

Haha, what? Just because someone calls it a law doesn't make it fact. The fact that it wasn't happening "in the circumstances commonly observed" on a daily basis like some people used to think, doesn't mean that it's never happened in other circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


as an interested reader of this thread I will say this.

I read Frosgrim's posts and despite not knowing much on the subject, what he says makes sense and whether it's in lay-terms or not, I understand it. I read Diesel's posts and it's all over the place. It sounds like he's saying one thing, being told something contrary and then going to find websites with differing information to use to continue a discussion that is obviously outside his realm of knowledge. Just my two cents.

also... hasn't science been able to place amino acids, proteins and other naturally occuring chemicals/components together and create things that at the very least, mimic basic signs of life? They would respond to light or heat or show an attraction to other components that in turn allowed them to grow (ie food)? I'd swear I've seen things on TV and read articles on that. To me something like that is creating life from non-life.

Sure, using some methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia in the presence of large voltages of electricity can form amino acids.

But amino acids doesn't suggest life. It's just a building block of life.

Also, the atmosphere of early earth didn't have methane or ammonia in high enough levels to produce amino acids.

And UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, and Nitriles (side product of the reaction) would have destroyed any organic molecules formed on the earth.

That's why you keep hearing about these deep sea vents. However, in the absence of Light and IN Water for god sakes... that's not going to work at all!

It's like CSI.. They find a man in the dessert dead and the only other thing they find is that he has a broken arm.

Sure they can postulate all sorts of things that could have happened. He could have fallen out of an airplane? He could have been dumped there by the mob. He could have been been poisoned and feel and died.

However, you notice that they really can not make a case for what really happened at the scene. They have to go to the lab and search for evidence that makes sense.

Well, same is true here. Evolutionist trying to predict the origin of life talks began to spew out all sorts of postulations because all we really have is: Life and what we are made up from.

However, none of their postulations have yet to come through the "lab" and make sense.

If you're using the tools of chemistry, mathematics, and physics.. what they have postulated doesn't fit.

Me saying that I can make rubber like tire rubber doesn't mean that I can make a car!

What you have is a lot of people taking random guesses at how abiogenesis could have been done but to date there is no

<font size=17>

Proof

</font>

That abiogenesis could have happen. Just a lot of guesswork.

I have dealt with every one of these criticisms already. Plus there are articles that I have provided links to. Your task is to provide another option. Criticism is fine up until the point where you can't provide another theory. You haven't.

I stand by my posts which do handle all the issues. Again, there are bacteria that can handle radiation, uv radiation, and ph levels at the extremes. Therefore, your assertion that it can't happen is patently false. Furthermore, 3.5 billion years ago the conditions you are talking about existed YET, there are fossilized bacteria. This means that the antecedents to those life forms developed in similar conditions. Until you can refute the data, you have nothing to stand on.

Post you alternatives so I can throw my darts D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


First off, viruses were more than likely the original life-forms.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but viruses are not organisms, right?

And Diesel, if you dismiss evolution than you must be a creationist. Otherwise life could have never began according to your thoughts. If life CAN'T be created from non-life, than how did life begin? Obviously it had to have been created. I don't think a bunch of aliens 400 million light years away dropped in on earth and created some single celled bacteria knowing that it would develop into large multi-celled organisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.