Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't animals have emotion is the part I'm getting at. Instead they just eat their babies if there isn't enough food to go around.

Animals don't have emotions?
That one's new to me...
Maybe you should research your animals a bit more.
It also depends on what species you are talking about.
Some are more reliant on their group while others are not.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't think animals can imagine things and act on them. Or they would and we could observe it.

So when a dog is whining in it's sleep, and it's clear that it's a dream of some sort, that's not imagination?

Also, you're grouping animals as if they are one species. Some have brains which work similar to humans and some do not. Some have evolutionary reasons to be creative while others do not.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't animals have emotion is the part I'm getting at. Instead they just eat their babies if there isn't enough food to go around.

Animals don't have emotions?
That one's new to me...
Maybe you should research your animals a bit more.
It also depends on what species you are talking about.
Some are more reliant on their group while others are not.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't think animals can imagine things and act on them. Or they would and we could observe it.

So when a dog is whining in it's sleep, and it's clear that it's a dream of some sort, that's not imagination?

Also, you're grouping animals as if they are one species. Some have brains which work similar to humans and some do not. Some have evolutionary reasons to be creative while others do not.

Scientists themselves recommend not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion. Although I do agree that possibly pets have some sort of quasi-emotion.

en.wikipedia.org...
While the study of emotion is a respectable field, those who work in it are usually academic psychologists who confine their studies to human emotions. The standard reference work, The Oxford Companion to Animal Behavior, advises animal behaviorists that "One is well advised to study the behaviour, rather than attempting to get at any underlying emotion".

I don't think there is any proof that dreaming is imagination.

Dreams:

en.wikipedia.org...
There is no universally agreed biological definition of dreaming.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't think there is any proof that dreaming is imagination.

What do you think a dream is?

Originally posted by flyindevil

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't think there is any proof that dreaming is imagination.

What do you think a dream is?

I can't claim to know what dreams are either way.

Although I can say that through dreams people have done/forseen some pretty remarkable stuff (outside of the bible, as well as in).

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I can't claim to know what dreams are either way.

I can respect that

Although I can say that through dreams people have done/forseen some pretty remarkable stuff (outside of the bible, as well as in).

I agree. Dreams are amazing, aren't they? They can be completely random, or have a very obvious meaning.

Originally posted by flyindevil
I agree. Dreams are amazing, aren't they? They can be completely random, or have a very obvious meaning.

Big time.

I don't think they are easy to explain. I mean TOO many unexplainable things can be attributed to dreams.

Actually one of the reasons I believe in a Creator (call it what you will).

Abiogenesis is a new science, the reason it's not associated with evolution is because the principles of evolution could be seen and studied long, long before anyone could imagine how it all started.

It's not a soup that scientists imagine in abiogenesis, it's open primordial oceans, deep down by thermal vents and that stuff.

Also don't be fooled by the title of Darwin's book, 'The Origin of Species'. The book doesn't try answer the origin of life itself, but how a new species comes about.

Evolution only occurs when life is already around. Abiogenesis involves non-living organic matter becoming living.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Abiogenesis is a new science, the reason it's not associated with evolution is because the principles of evolution could be seen and studies long, long before anyone could imagine how it all started.

It's not a soup that scientists imagine in abiogenesis, it's open primordial oceans, deep down by thermal vents and that stuff.

Also don't be fooled by the title of Darwin's book, 'The Origin of Species'. The book doesn't try answer the origin of life itself, but how a new species comes about.

Evolution only occurs when life is already around. Abiogenesis involves non-living organic matter becoming living.

Not trying to be a stickler here.

But, Non Living Organic Matter? That's an oxymoron BIG time.

Organic matter MUST be living or have lived. Look it up.

en.wikipedia.org...
Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism...

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

There is an alternate definition or "Organic" used in many branches of science that does not involve once living things.

In physics, a material that contains carbon and hydrogen and usually other elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. Organic compounds can be found in nature or they can be synthesized in the laboratory. An organic substance is not the same as a "natural" substance. A natural material means that it is essentially the same as it was found in nature, but "organic" means that it is carbon based.

www.answers.com...

Here is a better explanation:
en.wikipedia.org...


Here is an interesting article about organic compounds found in meteorites.
news.nationalgeographic.com...



[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

reply to post by B.A.C.

Organic chemistry has little ado with life, merely all sorts of carbon-based chemicals.

Organic chemistry is a discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds that contain carbon. These compounds may contain any number of other elements, including hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur.

en.wikipedia.org...

But if it's the name you have trouble with, then just think a chemical cocktail that has all the elements used in living things, producing a true simple cell (ie, a closed membrane alone). BAM! Abiogenesis.



Description:

The video explains current ideas as to how life might have originated on Earth. The idea that inorganic mud can miraculously turn into cells is a claim made in the Bible and the Qu'ran, not science. What biologists are trying to do is understand how carbon-based chemicals combine to form nucleotides, the building blocks of replicating chemicals. The chemistry is complex, but it's starting to be understood, and it's not magical. Please also see The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007 which gives an excellent description on the latest hypotheses about cell formation.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Sparky63
There is an alternate definition or "Organic" used in many branches of science that does not involve once living things.

In physics, a material that contains carbon and hydrogen and usually other elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. Organic compounds can be found in nature or they can be synthesized in the laboratory. An organic substance is not the same as a "natural" substance. A natural material means that it is essentially the same as it was found in nature, but "organic" means that it is carbon based.

www.answers.com...

Here is a better explanation:
en.wikipedia.org...


Here is an interesting article about organic compounds found in meteorites.
news.nationalgeographic.com...



[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

You are absolutely right.

These are mostly synthetic compounds though and will never become life.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Organic chemistry has little ado with life, merely all sorts of carbon-based chemicals.

Organic chemistry is a discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds that contain carbon. These compounds may contain any number of other elements, including hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur.

en.wikipedia.org...

But if it's the name you have trouble with, then just think a chemical cocktail that has all the elements used in living things, producing a true simple cell (ie, a closed membrane alone). BAM! Abiogenesis.

Description:

The video explains current ideas as to how life might have originated on Earth. The idea that inorganic mud can miraculously turn into cells is a claim made in the Bible and the Qu'ran, not science. What biologists are trying to do is understand how carbon-based chemicals combine to form nucleotides, the building blocks of replicating chemicals. The chemistry is complex, but it's starting to be understood, and it's not magical. Please also see The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007 which gives an excellent description on the latest hypotheses about cell formation.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Nice, I'll check this out.

Originally posted by andre18
What we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material and yes it’s a bunch of chemicals in an atmosphere. Apply electricity you get amino acids.

That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life.

Super-intelligent scientists created life in a lab showing that you don't need intelligence to create life

Are we still discussing the Origin of life conspiracy or debating evolution vs creation or whether evolution is fact or theory?

Is the conspiracy that evolutionists claim that life started from non-life and evolved, but they also claim they are not about the origin of life?

Originally posted by Lannock

Originally posted by andre18
What we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material and yes it’s a bunch of chemicals in an atmosphere. Apply electricity you get amino acids.

That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life.

Super-intelligent scientists created life in a lab showing that you don't need intelligence to create life

Are we still discussing the Origin of life conspiracy or debating evolution vs creation or whether evolution is fact or theory?

Is the conspiracy that evolutionists claim that life started from non-life and evolved, but they also claim they are not about the origin of life?

Nope this isn't about evolution vs creationism, though it has come up lol

But yes I think the reason science won't adopt Abiogenesis into "The Theory of Evolution" (to distinguish from evolution) is because then they would have to admit there was a complete unknown there.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Why should they? It's a theory of biology just as much as anything else in biology.

Evolution explains the diversity of life.

Abiogenesis explains the origin of evolution.

They are different fields of study.

reply to post by TruthParadox


TP, there is a 'viral video' that shows a dog named 'Biscuit' running in his sleep.

What I mean is, this cute dog is laying on his side, asleep....and the paws are movin' like crazy, 'cause he's chasing somethin'!!!

It made it to Keith Olbermann's oddball segment on "Countdown".

Point is, everyone who's ever had a pet knows that they dream....at least, mammals dream (can't speak for any other phylum).

There is a chemical in the brain that is supposed to cause a 'partial paralysis' during active REM sleep....ever had a dream where you're trying to run, but it seems as if your legs won't move? Or, you're trying to take off a shirt, and you get stuck? THAT is the chemical that limits you from actually acting out your dream.

Sometimes, it doesn't work. Sleepwalking (somnabulation) is an example.

That dog, 'Biscuit', is an example.

Life originated, somehow, on this planet.....likely on many, many others as well.

We don't, yet, know exactly how. Some have postulated a comet impact....but then, you'd have to agree, life began SOMEWHERE else, because the building blocks were on the alleged comet....

Here's something to ponder....on our own planet, there is life at the bottom of the oceans, near hot lava vents that spew magma, and superheat the water. YET, organisms thrive. They would NOT thrive anywhere else!!! They would die immediately if brought to the surface. They don't need oxygen....in fact, to some of these organisms, oxygen is toxic!

Abiogenesis? Well, when life first developed on the Earth, there was no oxygen to speak of. THESE 'extremophiles' are what began the long, tortured journey to what we now know as life on Earth.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

TP, there is a 'viral video' that shows a dog named 'Biscuit' running in his sleep.

What I mean is, this cute dog is laying on his side, asleep....and the paws are movin' like crazy, 'cause he's chasing somethin'!!!

It made it to Keith Olbermann's oddball segment on "Countdown".

Point is, everyone who's ever had a pet knows that they dream....at least, mammals dream (can't speak for any other phylum).

There is a chemical in the brain that is supposed to cause a 'partial paralysis' during active REM sleep....ever had a dream where you're trying to run, but it seems as if your legs won't move? Or, you're trying to take off a shirt, and you get stuck? THAT is the chemical that limits you from actually acting out your dream.

Sometimes, it doesn't work. Sleepwalking (somnabulation) is an example.

That dog, 'Biscuit', is an example.

Life originated, somehow, on this planet.....likely on many, many others as well.

We don't, yet, know exactly how. Some have postulated a comet impact....but then, you'd have to agree, life began SOMEWHERE else, because the building blocks were on the alleged comet....

Here's something to ponder....on our own planet, there is life at the bottom of the oceans, near hot lava vents that spew magma, and superheat the water. YET, organisms thrive. They would NOT thrive anywhere else!!! They would die immediately if brought to the surface. They don't need oxygen....in fact, to some of these organisms, oxygen is toxic!

Abiogenesis? Well, when life first developed on the Earth, there was no oxygen to speak of. THESE 'extremophiles' are what began the long, tortured journey to what we now know as life on Earth.

Who said animals didn't dream?

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.

Look near the bottom of page five....YOUR post.

Really, go back and look what you wrote.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

B.A.C.

Look near the bottom of page five....YOUR post.

Really, go back and look what you wrote.

www.abovetopsecret.com... this one?

I said I don't think they can imagine things in that one. Imagination takes conciousness, you take a willful part in imagination.

en.wikipedia.org...
Imagination is the faculty through which we encounter everything. The things that we touch, see and hear coalesce into a "picture" via our imagination.

If that's what you meant. I stated nothing about dreaming however.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

How are scientists attempting to find solutions for the origin of life a conspiracy against religion? They may be right, they may be wrong, they say quite clearly that they don't know, so they come up with plausible explanations that could fit the result.

It’s a conspiracy against “religion” because saying that “inorganic matter randomly became alive” is just as credible as saying “the flying spaghetti monster created life.” Scientists are pushing their naturalist agenda. There is no reason The Flying Spaghetti Monster should be left out as a possibility. When you think about it, at least spaghetti exists, unlike inorganic matter that magically becomes alive. After considering that, The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more bearing in reality than Abiogenesis.


[edit on 3/6/2009 by JPhish]