It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown


No issues here - fact is fact - truth is truth.

Fact that life - INTELLIGENT Life that is, comes from life is plain and simple enough for me.

No need to formulate silly unproven ideas such as abiogenesis - because these silly ideas breeds more silly ideas and in the turn breeds crazier ideas that don't have any answer - but a continuous I DON'T KNOW answer.

Of course only a gullible person will believe such silly idea - that you can create INTELLIGENT life from non-living matter.

And sorry to say - but I'm not that gullible.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown


No issues here - fact is fact - truth is truth.

Fact that life - INTELLIGENT Life that is, comes from life is plain and simple enough for me.

No need to formulate silly unproven ideas such as abiogenesis - because these silly ideas breeds more silly ideas and in the turn breeds crazier ideas that don't have any answer - but a continuous I DON'T KNOW answer.

Of course only a gullible person will believe such silly idea - that you can create INTELLIGENT life from non-living matter.

And sorry to say - but I'm not that gullible.





You should seriously look up the definition of "fact", from your post it's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between fact and belief



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown


No issues here - fact is fact - truth is truth.

Fact that life - INTELLIGENT Life that is, comes from life is plain and simple enough for me.

No need to formulate silly unproven ideas such as abiogenesis - because these silly ideas breeds more silly ideas and in the turn breeds crazier ideas that don't have any answer - but a continuous I DON'T KNOW answer.

Of course only a gullible person will believe such silly idea - that you can create INTELLIGENT life from non-living matter.

And sorry to say - but I'm not that gullible.





You should seriously look up the definition of "fact", from your post it's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between fact and belief


Give it up Mr. XYZ - you can't win this argument because the facts are not in your side.

Admit it - you just plain don't KNOW what I'm about to ask you to dispute.

Dispute this simple scientifically proven fact:

Life comes from life!

And prove that abiogenesis is a fact - not just a hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown


No issues here - fact is fact - truth is truth.

Fact that life - INTELLIGENT Life that is, comes from life is plain and simple enough for me.

No need to formulate silly unproven ideas such as abiogenesis - because these silly ideas breeds more silly ideas and in the turn breeds crazier ideas that don't have any answer - but a continuous I DON'T KNOW answer.

Of course only a gullible person will believe such silly idea - that you can create INTELLIGENT life from non-living matter.

And sorry to say - but I'm not that gullible.





You should seriously look up the definition of "fact", from your post it's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between fact and belief


Give it up Mr. XYZ - you can't win this argument because the facts are not in your side.

Admit it - you just plain don't KNOW what I'm about to ask you to dispute.

Dispute this simple scientifically proven fact:

Life comes from life!

And prove that abiogenesis is a fact - not just a hypothesis.



I never said abiogenesis is a fact, I said WE DON'T KNOW how life first started. Abiogenesis is but one hypothesis scientists are currently exploring, it isn't a proven theory.

What is a FACT is that we simply don't know how life first started.

You on the other hand continue to fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god) without ever providing the slightest shred of objective evidence.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Looks like someone's having serious issues with the FACT that some things are unknown


No issues here - fact is fact - truth is truth.

Fact that life - INTELLIGENT Life that is, comes from life is plain and simple enough for me.

No need to formulate silly unproven ideas such as abiogenesis - because these silly ideas breeds more silly ideas and in the turn breeds crazier ideas that don't have any answer - but a continuous I DON'T KNOW answer.

Of course only a gullible person will believe such silly idea - that you can create INTELLIGENT life from non-living matter.

And sorry to say - but I'm not that gullible.





You should seriously look up the definition of "fact", from your post it's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between fact and belief


Give it up Mr. XYZ - you can't win this argument because the facts are not in your side.

Admit it - you just plain don't KNOW what I'm about to ask you to dispute.

Dispute this simple scientifically proven fact:

Life comes from life!

And prove that abiogenesis is a fact - not just a hypothesis.



I never said abiogenesis is a fact, I said WE DON'T KNOW how life first started. Abiogenesis is but one hypothesis scientists are currently exploring, it isn't a proven theory.

What is a FACT is that we simply don't know how life first started.

You on the other hand continue to fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god) without ever providing the slightest shred of objective evidence.


Hahaha...you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that you can't even answer a very simple question with a simple yes or no.

That life comes from life - leads me to believe that you're in agony on how to respond to it.

Of course the answer is plain YES - that life comes from life.

The opposite is true - life - especially intelligent life - CAN NOT arise or to be precise SPONTANEOUSLY arise from non-living things by chance. It's a scientifically proven fact.

Thus I have my facts down right - on solid foundation while you have your facts based on what?

I DON'T KNOW - WE DON'T KNOW.

But hey if you're happy with with it more power to you because like I said - it requires more BLIND FAITH to believe in what YOU DON'T KNOW.

Besides I'm not that gullible.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Not gullible...but ignorant


Look, clearly you don't understand the difference between facts and hypotheses...until you do, discussing with you is kind of a waste of time.

You are using the same old "god of the gaps" theory you use in most of your threads, and they're all pretty much you preaching without providing the slightest bit of objective evidence to back up your claims.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

The opposite is true - life - especially intelligent life - CAN NOT arise or to be precise SPONTANEOUSLY arise from non-living things by chance. It's a scientifically proven fact.
Please provide evidence of this. If you can provide a peer review paper, backed by evidence in a laboratory setting and a conclusion leading to the biomechanical impossibility of abiogenesis, I will jam a fork in my retna and go jump into a lake

For years all you do is provide select quotes, taken way out of context, from the same one or two scientists, and parlay this into undeniable fact, and then claim we are not open minded. I may start playing that game. I always liked Quentin Tarantino, I'll just start posting random quotes from Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill
edit on 9-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Not gullible...but ignorant


Look, clearly you don't understand the difference between facts and hypotheses...until you do, discussing with you is kind of a waste of time.

You are using the same old "god of the gaps" theory you use in most of your threads, and they're all pretty much you preaching without providing the slightest bit of objective evidence to back up your claims.



Same old tired circular argument - present the evidence - they say it's just an OPINION.

Life comes from life - is just an opinion.

Back it up with facts that all living things came from pre-existing living things - they say it's just an OPINION.

Back it up with findings from experts in the field - they say "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

Ask to explain their side - the come back with "WE DON'T KNOW".

ON AND ON with the circular argument while ignoring the fact that there's no such thing as abiogenesis.

Like I said - got you figure out already.

Once again - is my FACT correct when I said Life comes from life?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Look up the definition of "circular argument"...clearly you don't even understand what it means



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2

The opposite is true - life - especially intelligent life - CAN NOT arise or to be precise SPONTANEOUSLY arise from non-living things by chance. It's a scientifically proven fact.
Please provide evidence of this. If you can provide a peer review paper, backed by evidence in a laboratory setting and a conclusion leading to the biomechanical impossibility of abiogenesis, I will jam a fork in my retna and go jump into a lake

For years all you do is provide select quotes, taken way out of context, from the same one or two scientists, and casts this off as undeniable fact, and then claim we are not open minded. I may start playing that game. I always liked Quentin Tarantino, I'll just start posting random quotes from Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill


OK - simple experiment that you do yourself.

Take two pieces of meat.

One meat place it in an uncontaminated sealed plate while the other leave on a open plate.

Which one do you think will breed life - i.e maggots?

Or what about the fact that many of the best minds of Science in molecular biology and other life sciences can ONLY re-create life from PRE-EXISTING life? Are these not enough proof that life can only arise from life and the opposite is true that inanimate things cannot produce life - let alone a living cell.

Ever heard of CLONING?

Or what about Artificial "synthetic" Life? Any idea what is the source of these "synthetic" Lifeforms?

Was it by accidentally mixing chemicals or was it from a pre-existing life source.

Can you peer review that?

Here's one of the most talked about experiments ever conducted - please peer review it:

A snipit of what it said:



Dr Venter, a pioneer of genetic code sequencing and his team at the J Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, have been chasing the goal for more than 15 years at a cost of £30m. First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world’s smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer. Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a “watermark” so it was distinguishable from the original natural one. Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. The resulting “synthetic cell” was then “rebooted” and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.


Now please make sure to read the link below in it's entirety and explain how they created LIFE from non-living materials.

www.impactlab.net...

I'll be waiting.

later...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

A reference to Pasteur's experiment as it relates to abiogenesis is even more embarrassing than considering Borel's Law an actual 'law.'

I question whether or not you read the article you linked to. I suggest you read it carefully, very very carefully, with a dictionary by your side.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2
 

A reference to Pasteur's experiment as it relates to abiogenesis is even more embarrassing than considering Borel's Law an actual 'law.'

I question whether or not you read the article you linked to. I suggest you read it carefully, very very carefully, with a dictionary by your side.


sounds like Elmer Fudd - vweery- vweery cwarefully...



of course i read it - but need to know your take on it.

did the team created life from a non-living material or from a pre-existing life?


for additional info on how they achieve "synthetic life" see link below:

www.jcvi.org...

snippet:


Methods for Creating the Synthetic M. genitalium The process to synthesize and assemble the synthetic version of the M. genitalium chromosome began first by resequencing the native M. genitalium genome to ensure that the team was starting with an error free sequence. After obtaining this correct version of the native genome, the team specially designed fragments of chemically synthesized DNA to build 101 "cassettes" of 5,000 to 7,000 base pairs of genetic code. As a measure to differentiate the synthetic genome versus the native genome, the team created "watermarks" in the synthetic genome. These are short inserted or substituted sequences that encode information not typically found in nature. Other changes the team made to the synthetic genome included disrupting a gene to block infectivity. To obtain the cassettes the JCVI team worked primarily with the DNA synthesis company Blue Heron Technology, as well as DNA 2.0 and GENEART. From here, the team devised a five stage assembly process where the cassettes were joined together in subassemblies to make larger and larger pieces that would eventually be combined to build the whole synthetic M. genitalium genome. In the first step, sets of four cassettes were joined to create 25 subassemblies, each about 24,000 base pairs (24kb). These 24kb fragments were cloned into the bacterium Escherichia coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next steps, and for DNA sequence validation. The next step involved combining three 24kb fragments together to create 8 assembled blocks, each about 72,000 base pairs. These 1/8th fragments of the whole genome were again cloned into E. coli for DNA production and DNA sequencing. Step three involved combining two 1/8th fragments together to produce large fragments approximately 144,000 base pairs or 1/4th of the whole genome. At this stage the team could not obtain half genome clones in E. coli, so the team experimented with yeast and found that it tolerated the large foreign DNA molecules well, and that they were able to assemble the fragments together by homologous recombination. This process was used to assemble the last cassettes, from 1/4 genome fragments to the final genome of more than 580,000 base pairs. The final chromosome was again sequenced in order to validate the complete accurate chemical structure. The synthetic M. genitalium has a molecular weight of 360,110 kilodaltons (kDa). Printed in 10 point font, the letters of the M. genitalium JCVI-1.0 genome span 147 pages. "This is an exciting advance for our team and the field. However, we continue to work toward the ultimate goal of inserting the synthetic chromosome into a cell and booting it up to create the first synthetic organism," said Dan Gibson, lead author. The research to create the synthetic M. genitalium JCVI-1.0 was funded by Synthetic Genomics, Inc.


edit:

BTW - in case you're not aware of it abiogenesis hypothesis states the following according to www.biology-online.org...


Abiogenesis Abiogenesis (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


that is, spontaneous generation of life from non living matter by chance event - unguided process - by accident.



edit on 9-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: l=link added / edit



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
*sigh* DNA by definition is non-life. However it is responsible for life( with its partners in crime, you know the ones other non-living molecules).

So a non-living molecule is part of the basis for life. This is not an observation or opinion, this is objective evidence.

How these molecules first formed is unknown. There is more than one hypothesis, abiogenesis being one such.

There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same.

Anything other than "we don't know" is currently either blind faith or simple ignorance.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


huh??? what a contradictory nonsense -

So you say




There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same.


then you say




Anything other than "we don't know" is currently either blind faith or simple ignorance.


So if you "don't know" the origin of life then how do you know that "There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same"?

Know what I mean? Either you know or you don't know - make up your mind dude/dudette.

And in my book believing on something you don't know is pure BLIND FAITH based on simple IGNORANCE.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You should really bother reading the links you post, because I don't think you realize they don't actually support your claims


You make one embarrassing point after the other, and every time you display how little you understand about science...or scientific method...or the importance of objective evidence...or the definition of "fact"





And in my book believing on something you don't know is pure BLIND FAITH based on simple IGNORANCE.


That's funny...mostly because that's EXACTLY what your'e doing

edit on 10-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'd love to play poker against anyone applying "creationist probability calculations"


Hope they understand Borel's Law...


says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed.

So happybunny - you should be able to show us how life is possible then using Borel's Law.

From the Big Bang to the formation of a simple DNA Code - all by unguided chance event.

tick tock - clock is ticking....
edit on 9-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: able able


Oh, grow up why don't you.But thanks for taking the bait.

I've explained this a hundred times already. Probability doesn't even apply here--you clearly do not understand Borel's Law and what he was saying--but you do keep continually misapplying it and that's what's so funny and makes you look silly. Why? Because we're talking about an event that happened; therefore, the probability is 1. Everything else is meaningless. Life DID happen. If it arose on its own, then it did so in a way that precludes chance. It originated in tandem with natural laws and the laws of physics. Period, end of discussion.

That's not what Borel's law says, either. There is no such thing as a probability so small it is equivalent to impossibility: IT IS STILL > 0. "Unlikely" does not equal "impossible", because seemingly impossible things happen every second of every single day, and have for the last 4.5 billion years the Earth has been in existence.

Let's take my favorite example: license plates. I like this one because it's easy for the mathematically challenged like yourself to understand. Even my kids got it on the first try, it's so easy to get.

There are 247 million registered vehicles in the US. That's not counting the ones that come over the borders from Canada and Mexico, but to make it easier let's just go with the 247 million. All plates have a unique tag, a 7 digit combination of letters and numbers. Throw in the state identifier and you've got a 9 digit combination, each one unique. (This is how we get such long protein strands, not to mention DNA and RNA, out of a finite number of amino acids and nucleotides, by the way. You combine them!)

What are the odds that I'd see the license plate PA ABC 1234 this morning?

You do the math. The odds against are astronomical, yet per you by a misapplication of Borel's Law it's impossible. Yet it happened.

Now, if you really believe that a 10^50 chance against that life arose by itself, you must also accept that the chance of their being a creator is even LESS than that. But still greater than 0.


edit on 7/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Borel's law was referenced by HappyBunny to elicit the exact response you just gave, hoping you would use it to strengthen your argument, thereby embarrassing yourself even further.


And he succeeded spectacularly.
Give them enough rope and they always hang themselves. It never fails.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Dispute this simple scientifically proven fact:

Life comes from life!

And prove that abiogenesis is a fact - not just a hypothesis.



You are still going on about this same argument, yet you have proven nothing. Life comes from life. Okay sure, we know this. You can't, however, prove that life can't come from non life. That's your problem. You think it's absolutely impossible end of question, despite the fact that science is still trying to figure it out. YOU are making claims, and YOU are not backing them up, while any honest person in here is explaining what science DOES know, and claiming that we don't know, when science really doesn't know. You can't just insert a magical god and think it'll make sense or hold weight, just because science hasn't figured it out yet.


The opposite is true - life - especially intelligent life - CAN NOT arise or to be precise SPONTANEOUSLY arise from non-living things by chance. It's a scientifically proven fact.

How can you assert that something is a scientific fact, without providing any evidence? YOU need to prove this statement. Prove that it's impossible. I know you'll just repeat your argument once again and ignore all counterpoints, but that's not my problem. You can live your life in ignorance if you choose. I won't interfere, just don't have the gall to tell others they are wrong, because of your GUESS.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
Dispute this simple scientifically proven fact:

Life comes from life!

And prove that abiogenesis is a fact - not just a hypothesis.



You are still going on about this same argument, yet you have proven nothing. Life comes from life. Okay sure, we know this. You can't, however, prove that life can't come from non life. That's your problem. You think it's absolutely impossible end of question, despite the fact that science is still trying to figure it out. YOU are making claims, and YOU are not backing them up, while any honest person in here is explaining what science DOES know, and claiming that we don't know, when science really doesn't know. You can't just insert a magical god and think it'll make sense or hold weight, just because science hasn't figured it out yet.


The opposite is true - life - especially intelligent life - CAN NOT arise or to be precise SPONTANEOUSLY arise from non-living things by chance. It's a scientifically proven fact.

How can you assert that something is a scientific fact, without providing any evidence? YOU need to prove this statement. Prove that it's impossible. I know you'll just repeat your argument once again and ignore all counterpoints, but that's not my problem. You can live your life in ignorance if you choose. I won't interfere, just don't have the gall to tell others they are wrong, because of your GUESS.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


You got this all upside down - inside out.

I've proven my case already - practically and scientifically! Heck you even confirmed it!



Life comes from life. Okay sure, we know this.


So what remains is to prove your claim - that the silly abioGenesis hypothesis is a workable idea. That YOU can spontaneously create life from inanimate things without any INTELLIGENT guidance then evolve it to become a INTELLIGENT Life.

After all this is where the ENTIRE evolutionary theory rest on.

Come on show us that the evolution theory has a foundation, if not I rest my case once again that your belief is baseless if not an utter philosophical nonsense masquerading as science.


This is your problem - not mine because I know it already that Life comes only from pre-existing life.

Like I said - give it up because you can't win this argument. Facts are NOT in your side.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join