It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Basically it seems that he thinks there is some kind of connection or "flow" between abiogenesis and evolution. Something that is underneath. Something that underpins both of them. What works for evolution works for abiogenesis and vice versa.
He understands that. He even agreed that both have nothing to do with each other. (btw check your u2u)
What he is talking about (as far as I understand) that something is driving the process. Something very fundamental. Something that is common to the biological process. Something that is right under there.
The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution', that IMHO calls for scientific answers, don't you think?
What do you mean by 'but science is certainly not yet in any position to make that statement'??
Care to elaborate what you think about Deepak Chopra and his misinterpretation of quantum physics to prove that even atoms have consciousness?
mixed with abuse of science to color your predetermined view at world...
An experiment to test this hypothesis was made in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The scientists put water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen -- all common chemicals available on the primitive Earth -- into a large flask and provided energy in the form of heat. At the conclusion of this experiment very complex chemicals including amino acids, the foundation of organic chemistry, were found in the flask.
In fact, when the sealed vials of the experiment were tested in 2007, they found more than 20 amino acids in the experiment. Life as we know it uses only 20 of these chemicals, so the experiment seemed to indicate the basic chemistry of life could arise spontaneously, given energy and time.
Subsequent experiments also added an electric spark to simulate lightning in the atmosphere and even more complex chemistry was obtained. The obvious conclusion appears to be, given the right mix of chemistry and energy, the evolution of the chemistry of life is inevitable.
Recently in a paper published in Nature Chemistry, a team of scientists at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have taken the earlier work to a wonderful conclusion.
Using just hydrogen sulfide, a gas that smells like rotten eggs, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light from the sun, the team was able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids -- precursors to DNA and RNA molecules.
Hydrogen sulfide is common on Earth and can be found almost anywhere volcanos exist. Hydrogen cyanide can be produced by the interaction of meteors from space as they plunge through the atmosphere. Remember, Earth is under constant meteoric bombardment every day so it would not be hard for these chemicals to come in contact in the presence of ultra-violet light from the sun at a time when there was only a minimal ozone layer to protect Earth
* Source - www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk...
On the early Earth, after a series of meteorite strikes, various chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide would have been present. Bhavesh Patel and Claudia Percivalle used conventional apparatus and reagents to simulate the sorts of chemistry that could have taken place on this early Earth. They took hydrogen cyanide through a series of chemical reactions, and showed that it was possible to assemble precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and even lipids from this simple chemical, with the addition of hydrogen sulphide, using ultraviolet light and copper ions as catalysts. These precursor molecules provide the biomolecular building blocks for coding information in a cell, for producing proteins, and for creating the membrane compartments necessary for forming the first cell.
The team created a protometabolic network of chemistry, which showed how the syntheses of these ribonucleotide, amino acid and lipid precursor molecules are interconnected. This exciting discovery showed that the three subsystems of the first cell could have originated simultaneously through common chemistry, and leads to the idea that life could have originated as a consequence of the fundamental reactivity of hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide.
originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Barcs
Hi barcs, Sorry but I have never defended abiogenesis, as a prerequisite for a process you chaps refer to as evolution. Again another assertion based on not understanding another persons position, or, actually caring about what others think.
I see the usual crowd of God hating heathens have gathered for their ritual feast of derision and egocentric psudo-science. An orgy of self gratification whilst pleasuring themselves on grubby pictures of Charles Darwin. Simple minds that have invested way too much time greedily gobbling every scientific paper they have the capacity to understand and spout, as if they held any credence at all.
Like moths around a dim light, they don’t even know that it is dark all around them. A glimmer of half baked hypothesis and theories, contrived to support wasted lives of useless research. Sadly, It is all they will ever be able to see.
Humankind’s entire scientific knowledge compares to a fleck of dust in an entire universe of matter and yet the ego’s of those that only understand a fraction of that fleck, feel empowered and mighty because their pea brains figured out something that made sense to them.
I have arrived at the firm belief that atheists, simply do not have the capacity to visualise anything more complex than a colouring in book. Brains too compartmentalized, just too small in capacity to imagine for themselves.
It it good that you posted this thread Blue_Jay33, but you must have known that it was an exercise in futility and that you would attract the same slavish adherence to the holy books of scientific follies in a field that compares to investigating a crime that didn't happen.
It is life itself that is the proof of creation, not its remnants. That is why we must never mention the origin of life in our discourse, because it is not related to evolution theory, at least, not to a simple mind.
I gave prior warning that I was a going to over generalise, (ridiculously so in fact) to emphasise that one should not take that too seriously, as it is just a useful way to sum up millions of individuals and inject a little humour. If it where done in a 'face to face' conversation it would be clarified with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow. Oh well, I guess subtleties can be lost on the internet.
I just don't take anything too seriously at all, so, I am always flippant and chuckling to myself when I respond to you guys. I always seem to get the same reaction as a TV host received from the Dali Lamer, when he told him the joke about the Buddhist monk going into a Pizza shop, who asked for 'One with everything' - Just no humour at all those Buddhists.
Not going to happen my friend, because this Forum, if you hadn't noticed is named Origins and Creationism, in fact, What are you lot doing in here? because neither of those words have anything to do with evolution.
In conclusion, I would agree that main problem here is not far different from problem religious people have with Theory of Evolution. While there people dislike idea of being related to animals such as great apes, here people dislike idea that we might be just product of physical and chemistry laws and that such processes are inevitable