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: 28
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

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)


Ah huh, right.




Life DID happen.


That's a fact and no one can dispute that even atheist and the dimmest of the dumbest can agree to that. So that is NOT the issue.

The issue is this:


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.


Is this a fact or just your OPINION - base on WHAT? Based on what YOU DON'T KNOW, correct? So it's not just an opinion but a massive speculation.

A speculation that Life according to you spontaneously arose from inanimate materials without any INTELLIGENCE or GUIDANCE.

That at some point in time by chance event a massive amount of energy formed into a singularity then burst into what we know as the physical universe. Then at some point in time by chance event all of the ingredients for life that resulted from the "Big Bang" somehow by chance event got together in one place and against all odds formed itself into a self-replicating life-form then had the intelligence to protect itself from all harmful effects of its deadly environment. Then eventually evolved into many "species" that we see today.

Is this what you believe happened? Or is it YOU don't know?

But if "Probability doesn't even apply here" then where are you basing your OPINION/SPECULATION from?

Magic?

I mean mathematicians who studied these thing are at a lost of how this is all possible unless of course they close their minds to the facts - yet your only evidence is



Life DID happen.


Great - might as well be a philosopher, after all abiogenesis was concocted by ancient philosophers. And just like you, they "DON'T KNOW" where life came from.

Imagine that, ancient philosophy masquerading as science.

Oh my...




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?

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






posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
 


So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?

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



Is carbon a living molecule?

Evidently you didn't read the article. They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.

I guess we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life and just say some supernatural sky monster did it.

Imagine someone who doesn't have a job. Since he doesn't yet have a job should he stop looking for a job since its been EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED that a job for him doesn't exist, and that JOBS can only come from PRE-EXISTING JOBS?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.



You don't even know what a fact is. 'Life can come from life' is a fact, but that doesn't mean that life can ONLY come from life. What part of that very basic concept do you not understand? I can't possibly explain it any clearer. We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis. You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story, bottom line, thank you drive through, good day sir. If you have evidence post it already, but I'm not counting on it, since it's been like 26 pages in this thread and you haven't backed up a single claim.


They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he will not understand a single word in that entire paragraph, nor will he try to learn what it means.

EMC at least try. Squiz at least understands the basics of science and cites scientific experiments to back up his claims, even though he draw an illogical ridiculous conclusion from them. You just repeat yourself after being proven wrong and neither of you address counterpoints. You can't claim something without evidence, that's why you fail.

*cue original argument being repeated for the 20th time in this thread despite it being utterly demolished hundreds of times*
edit on 10-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Great - might as well be a philosopher, after all abiogenesis was concocted by ancient philosophers. And just like you, they "DON'T KNOW" where life came from.


And neither do you


As I said, nobody knows how first life started...and that's a FACT.




I've proven my case already - practically and scientifically!


No, you really haven't





So what remains is to prove your claim - that the silly abioGenesis hypothesis is a workable idea.


And that's EXACTLY what scientists are currently doing...and the reason they call it a HYPOTHESIS. Look it up, because you still don't seem to even understand what a hypothesis is





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


It really doesn't. It doesn't matter HOW first life started because the theory of evolution makes no claims regarding it, it only proves the process by which allele frequencies change. Life could have started through abiogenesis, god, Allah, the spaghetti monster, or in some other way we haven't even thought of yet...it wouldn't change the FACT that evolution perfectly explains how biodiversity came to be AFTER first life started.




Facts are NOT in your side.


Oh the irony is strong in that post

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



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 
squid has become extremely adept at data mining from abstracts.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.


Such a shame. There is nothing contradictory in anything I said, unless you start with the assumption that there was/is an intelligence involved, which you do.

Not knowing how it began is simply where we are, stating "Ha! god did it then!" is where you argue from.

Finally, if "we don't know" is a belief then I guess "off" is a TV channel.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Response to edmc:

Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...



Originally posted by HappyBunny
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)


Ah huh, right.


Yes, as a matter of fact, it IS right. You just don't understand it...but what's worse is you don't WANT to understand.

No response? Can't come up with anything to refute it? Then shut the hell up and go back to your cave and stay there. You're perfectly free to wallow in ignorance so long as you don't inflict it on the rest of us. Leave the actual discussion to the grown ups who know what they're talking about.


The issue is this:


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.


Is this a fact or just your OPINION - base on WHAT? Based on what YOU DON'T KNOW, correct? So it's not just an opinion but a massive speculation.


As a matter of fact, that's not my opinion or speculation. That is just scientific fact. ALL ORGANISMS AND NATURAL PROCESSES, FROM THE SMALLEST VIRUS TO THE UNIVERSE AT LARGE, OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Period, end of discussion. You don't have to like it, but you need to get over it. Your lack of willingness to educate yourself doesn't change FACT.


A speculation that Life according to you spontaneously arose from inanimate materials without any INTELLIGENCE or GUIDANCE.


Strawman. I said nothing of the kind.


That at some point in time by chance event a massive amount of energy formed into a singularity then burst into what we know as the physical universe. Then at some point in time by chance event all of the ingredients for life that resulted from the "Big Bang" somehow by chance event got together in one place and against all odds formed itself into a self-replicating life-form then had the intelligence to protect itself from all harmful effects of its deadly environment. Then eventually evolved into many "species" that we see today.

Is this what you believe happened? Or is it YOU don't know?


That's most likely what did happen. It's a lot more likely than some supernatural egomaniac on a power trip rubbing his magic lamp and saying, "Let there be light."


But if "Probability doesn't even apply here" then where are you basing your OPINION/SPECULATION from?

Magic?


The only thing magical is your stupid belief that a Creator was necessary to achieve the natural and physical diversity present in the universe. Could a Creator have done it? Sure. The probability is still > 0 because there's no such thing as a number so small an event is impossible...but there is no logical reason to think or believe it HAD to happen that way. The odds of a Creator are a lot less than that of a spontaneous chemical reaction.

There is no such thing as magic. It's all superstitious mumbo jumbo reserved for those who can't think.

edit on 7/11/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/11/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
 


So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?

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



Is carbon a living molecule?

Evidently you didn't read the article. They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.

I guess we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life and just say some supernatural sky monster did it.

Imagine someone who doesn't have a job. Since he doesn't yet have a job should he stop looking for a job since its been EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED that a job for him doesn't exist, and that JOBS can only come from PRE-EXISTING JOBS?


Can you imagine his reaction if we told him that the purpose of life is to replicate DNA?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
 


So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?

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



Is carbon a living molecule?

Evidently you didn't read the article. They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.



In other words they use a pre-existing life source as the "raw material" i.e: Mycoplasma genitalium.

Here let me brake it down for you so that you'll have a clearer picture of the whole deal:

Short version:

1) First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world’s smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats.

2) stored the information on a computer

3) 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)

4) Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

Result: “synthetic cell”

www.impactlab.net...

In short - Life from life.

Long version:

1) They began first by resequencing the native M. genitalium genome to ensure that the team was starting with an error free sequence.

2) Next they designed fragments of chemically synthesized DNA to build 101 "cassettes" of 5,000 to 7,000 base pairs of genetic code. This will become the synthetic genome.

3) Then the team created "watermarks" in the synthetic genome to differentiate with the raw material. Made further changes to it (disrupting a gene to block infectivity).

4) Then 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.

To do the sub-assembly they have to:

a) join sets of four cassettes to create 25 subassemblies, each about 24,000 base pairs (24kb).

b) clone the sub assemblies into the bacterium Escherichia coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next steps, and for DNA sequence validation.

c) then combine three 24kb fragments together to create 8 assembled blocks, each about 72,000 base pairs.

d) then were again cloned into E. coli for DNA production and DNA sequencing.

e) followed by another combining of two 1/8th fragments together to produce large fragments approximately 144,000 base pairs or 1/4th of the whole genome.

f) substituted yeast for the E. coli because they found that it tolerated the large foreign DNA molecules well, and that they were able to assemble the fragments together by homologous recombination.

g) Continued the same process to assemble the last cassettes, from 1/4 genome fragments to the final genome of more than 580,000 base pairs.

Finally

4) The chromosome was again sequenced in order to validate the complete accurate chemical structure.

Result: synthetic M. genitalium with a molecular weight of 360,110 kilodaltons (kDa).

In short: life from life.

As for this nonsensical statement of yours:




I guess we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life and just say some supernatural sky monster did it.

Imagine someone who doesn't have a job. Since he doesn't yet have a job should he stop looking for a job since its been EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED that a job for him doesn't exist, and that JOBS can only come from PRE-EXISTING JOBS?


You've got to be kidding me!!

Since when did I say or hinted "we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life"?

Like I've sayin soooo many times now - we should be thankful and grateful for the scientific achievements by great men and women of science because they further our knowledge of the UNIVERSE!!

Problem is when people start using science as the answer to all - especially when it comes to Origins Of Life - then it becomes fanaticism devoid of logic and common sense.

The "I Don't Know (yet)" point of view replaces what is logically obvious.

That is - instead of life only comes from pre-existing life, life comes from non-life becomes possible in the hopes that science will make it come true.

But like I said - if it makes you happy - more power to you because it takes more faith to believe on something you don't know.

later



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...


happybunny not so happy??? lately???

Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.

In short take a brake dude.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by edmc^2
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.


Such a shame. There is nothing contradictory in anything I said, unless you start with the assumption that there was/is an intelligence involved, which you do.

Not knowing how it began is simply where we are, stating "Ha! god did it then!" is where you argue from.

Finally, if "we don't know" is a belief then I guess "off" is a TV channel.


Yet inspite of your protestation that YOU don't know the origin of life - you still believe and blindly accept that there's no INTELLIGENCE involve in the creation of life.

This inspite of all the evidence we can see all around us - from a HIGHLY FINE TUNED universe down to HIGHLY COMPLEX dna code.

So to me the "I don't know" answer is a cop-out response, a way to dance around the obvious in the hopes that someday the improbable and even the impossible will be proven true.

That non-life begets life instead of the proven fact that life begets life.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.


Not "just a hypothesis" but a silly hypothesis.

As for this silly statement



You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story


So how do want me to prove this?





edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: silly silly siily



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Hilarious how some people crave magic instead of accepting the fact that we don't know everything. Would be even funnier if those same people weren't pretending their nonsense fact.


By the way, thanks edmc for presenting us with yet another argumentative fallacy

edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

The "I Don't Know (yet)" point of view replaces what is logically obvious.

A supernatural sky monster is logically obvious?

Science is the only enterprise that has ever had an answer to anything. If you can name another, like I said before, I will jam a fork in my retna and go jump into a lake.

You keep asking us "Does life come from pre-existing life?"

We respond "is carbon alive?" Then you come back with some nonsensical drivel that are devoid of actual meaning yet conveniently for you have an enormous facility for information.

Is Carbon alive? Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, are these elements alive?

Again, there is nothing inherent in how biological molecules are formed that suggests any sort ultimate purpose. There are an infinite number of ways that this can happen, and each is bound by the laws of chemistry and physics. Just like every thing since the beginning of our universe is bounded by the laws of chemistry and physics.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2


You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story


So how do want me to prove this?


It's not provable. That was my point and the reason why your argument is faulty. You are talking about reproduction of life on earth (life comes from life), while abiogenesis is trying to understand how the FIRST LIFE got here. Saying that all known life comes from life, doesn't mean the FIRST life came from life. They are 2 very different concepts and you are using a fallacy known as equivocation when you claim they are the same thing or even remotely related.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
 





We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.


Not "just a hypothesis" but a silly hypothesis.

As for this silly statement



You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story


So how do want me to prove this?





edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: silly silly siily


Like he said, you CAN'T prove it...which is why it's so laughable that you keep repeating it.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
 





We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.


Not "just a hypothesis" but a silly hypothesis.

As for this silly statement



You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story


So how do want me to prove this?





edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: silly silly siily


Like he said, you CAN'T prove it...which is why it's so laughable that you keep repeating it.


EXACTLY my point. It's laughable because it can't be proven and have no basis, no logic and NO common sense whatsoever can be attached to it. Yet that is what abiogenesis IS all about. The spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter by chance event.

That is why it's a SILLY idea, a SILLY hypothesis - so silly that only close minded and gullible people - sorry to say this - like YOU will believe it because the alternative is unpalatable.

Special Creation - Intelligent Design! - which I might add provable and verifiable both by science and logic.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





EXACTLY my point. It's laughable because it can't be proven and have no basis, no logic and NO common sense whatsoever can be attached to it.


You do realize we were talking about your claim that life cannot come from non-life and not the hypothesis of angiogenesis, right?


So for once I agree with you, there's ZERO logic behind your claims


Once again you entertain all of us with another example of an argumentative fallacy...the argument from complexity

edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...


happybunny not so happy??? lately???

Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.

In short take a brake dude.



Or he could just laugh at all the argumentative fallacies you present us with...like the rest of us



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join