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: 48
14
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
 


Yeah we must a different perspective. I asked for yours. I can only think of one. How many do you have that have occurred naturally?


Any chemical reaction that doesn't require any direct participation of an intelligent agent, like the myriad of chemical reactions happening in every cell of your body.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Analysis taking place afterwards means there is zero possible chance one or one hundred observers could state with absolute certainty what or even why anything occurred.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


To state these occur is accurate; however, to state it occurs naturally is merely substituting the word natural for theword god.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



Analysis taking place afterwards means there is zero possible chance one or one hundred observers could state with absolute certainty what or even why anything occurred.


If the observers can find no presence of X before the experiment but can detect X after the experiment, it's a pretty fair assumption that X was produced, no?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



To state these occur is accurate; however, to state it occurs naturally is merely substituting the word natural for theword god.


Or the word "pixies", or the word "aliens", or...

If you're claiming that there's an intelligent being continuously monitoring and controlling the chemical reactions in our cells you need to show some evidence for this. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything, you seem to have some difficulties backing up your assertions.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by totallackey
 



Analysis taking place afterwards means there is zero possible chance one or one hundred observers could state with absolute certainty what or even why anything occurred.


If the observers can find no presence of X before the experiment but can detect X after the experiment, it's a pretty fair assumption that X was produced, no?

What or how are still unanswered. Along with the why. This is assuming the experiment (including all possible variables) has been exactly reproduced.
edit on 8-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



What or how are still unanswered.


Not really. This part of abiogenesis research is pretty much all about organic chemistry, which is a well established science and very well understood. Knowing the starting materials and the end product, researchers will in most cases have no problems elucidating the mechanism of the reaction.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



What or how are still unanswered. Along with the why. This is assuming the experiment (including all possible variables) has been exactly reproduced.


I see you edited your post while I was typing. Why a chemical reaction happens is because it can, i.e. because it's energetically favourable to do so. It's called thermodynamics.

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science. That's why every experimental paper contains a description of all methods used so that other researchers can replicate the experiments.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
It seems as if this is akin to:
1) proving a tree falling in the woods is making a sound, even if there is no one there to hear it?

Scientists could prove that easily with technology. All they'd have to do is record a tree falling and listen to the sound after the fact. This would show, that yes, a tree still makes a noise if nobody is there to hear it. The fact that we have technology to study these types of things seems to go way over your head. You keep assuming that if someone can't directly witness something, it didn't happen. What about the Triassic extinction? No human witnessed that, but it's pretty obvious that it happened along with countless other scientific facts of the past.


2) The most basic question is how many different types of chemical reactions are you aware of that naturally occur, and what are the results of these reactions?

Sounds like a good research project for you if you are actually interested in the subject. Your posts say otherwise, though and you've already been caught making up lies about abiogenesis while refusing to back up anything you say by shifting the burden of proof.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Why have they not proven it? And I am not talking about the sound, but the issue at hand. I have yet to see any paper without the words possible or could or might...all inconclusive. Further, none of these papers presented have been replicated...



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Furthermore, quit worrying about what you think or do not think about what I am or am not interested in...stay on topic...:



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Thanks. Thermodynamics. So, entropy would be a key argument against abiogenesis?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Not that I can see. Why should it be?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Well, my understanding is things tend:

1) To stay as they are; or,
2) Fall apart

According to entropy. If the natural state is to conserve energy then what gives rise to expenditure? And if anything is expending energy, then eventually it will fall apart, not coalesce into something more complex.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



Well, my understanding is things tend:

1) To stay as they are; or,
2) Fall apart

According to entropy. If the natural state is to conserve energy then what gives rise to expenditure? And if anything is expending energy, then eventually it will fall apart, not coalesce into something more complex.


Really? So how do you explain a fertilized egg growing into an adult individual while constantly expending energy?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It's an Ideological Crutch to help support the theory of evolution, because the theory needs so much help at it's theoretical foundation to even be plausible to get people to take it seriously.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
^No its not. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution requires life to already exist before it is even possible. That doesn't mean we have to know the exact origins or it disappears. Do you know the origin of gravity? Well, I guess that means gravity doesn't exist right?


Originally posted by totallackey
Why have they not proven it? And I am not talking about the sound, but the issue at hand. I have yet to see any paper without the words possible or could or might...all inconclusive. Further, none of these papers presented have been replicated...


Asking why it hasn't been proven yet, is similar to somebody asking why electricity hasn't been proven back in the 1700s. Simple. We didn't have enough evidence and technology yet. That doesn't conclusively rule it out, however, and if you actually believe that, your understanding of science is much worse than I originally thought. Would you have thought that a cell phone was impossible 50 years ago? If somebody brought the idea up, would you have said it was conclusively ruled out as a possibility, if experiments showed that only a few parts of it were functional?

Just because a paper uses those terms when referring to certain parts of a theory or experiment does not mean the entire paper is just a guess. Which papers are you referring to that haven't been peer reviewed. Let's start there. Please cite them and give specific quotes and information so we at least have something to debate about besides semantics.


Originally posted by totallackey
Furthermore, quit worrying about what you think or do not think about what I am or am not interested in...stay on topic...:

Believe me, I'm not worried about it, but you should be. I just don't like to see blatantly wrong or false statements being referred to as conclusive evidence when its clearly not. I am referring to a statement you made in this thread, dishonestly. Don't pretend that didn't happen. It is most certainly on topic, and it's the reason I'm asking you to provide evidence rather than empty statements that don't prove a thing.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
 


Well, my understanding is things tend:

1) To stay as they are; or,
2) Fall apart

According to entropy. If the natural state is to conserve energy then what gives rise to expenditure? And if anything is expending energy, then eventually it will fall apart, not coalesce into something more complex.


You're misapplying the 2nd law of thermodynamics...and here's why: LINK

In short:



However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?

Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.

In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It's an Ideological Crutch to help support the theory of evolution, because the theory needs so much help at it's theoretical foundation to even be plausible to get people to take it seriously.


Unless by "people" you mean US citizens or citizens of Muslim dictatorships...yup, that's apparently the case.

For the rest of the planet, and especially by people who actually bothered to study in a field related to the theory, it's a complete no brainer. Hell, we actively apply it and over 99% of scientists working in fields of evolution agree with it. There are more scientists called Steve (NOT Steven, Stephan, etc.) than scientists who disagree with evolution.

If you are objective and not brainwashed by religion (aka ignoring facts) you'd realise this.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The Sun is producing energy, of that there can be no doubt; however, the Sun is succumbing to the law of entropy.

Plus, we are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Please remain on topic. Remember, the concept of abiogenesis = life from non-life. Your excerpt is arguing from the concept of:


that life is not a closed system.


So, we are dealing with the principle of entropy prior to life existing on the planet.



new topics




 
14
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join