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

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Again: Abiogenesis (or creationism, or anything else) aren't "foundations" of the theory of evolution as for the theory, it doesn't matter how life started. It only details processes of LIFE that lead to changes in the allele frequency in genes, that's all. And it does so because it's fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively using the theory to predict future outcomes. It's a scientific THEORY, and doesn't require abiogenesis as a "foundation" in the first place.

I really don't get your point. Abiogenesis is clearly not a prerequisite (aka "foundation") of evolution. The only prerequisite is "life exists"...what lead up to that is totally irrelevant.

In other words - what you're saying is:

Evolution theory is a baseless and foundationless theory.


Is the official belief of ALL evolutionists or just you?

So hard trying to twist my words, huh?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course the theory of evolution has a basis and foundation...it's called OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEWS that fully back it up. That's how scientific method works

reply to post by MrXYZ

So hard trying to twist my words, huh?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course the theory of evolution has a basis and foundation...it's called OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEWS that fully back it up. That's how scientific method works

Actually it's more like trying to pin the tail on the donkey. You keep changing your words that it's hard to pin them down.

A simple question like - is evolution foundationless gets differing answers from you.

Let;s look again what you said:

So yeah, evolution requires life...and the hypothesis of abiogenesis tries to figure out how that life started. So they're connected that way.

Abiogenesis is clearly not a prerequisite (aka "foundation") of evolution.

Latest one is

Of course the theory of evolution has a basis and foundation...it's called OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEWS that fully back it up.

so which one is it again?

have foundation or no foundation or does not require one?

where should I pin the tail on the donkey?

I'm just gonna end this argument and say life has always existed and was never created..... Please feel free to prove me wrong..........

Originally posted by jheated5
I'm just gonna end this argument and say life has always existed and was never created..... Please feel free to prove me wrong..........

So I take it that you don't believe that the universe and the earth had a beginning, correct?

That around 13 billions years ago - there was a singularity, that the universe is expanding, correct?

In other words you don't believe what astronomers at NASA discovered about the birth of the cosmos, correct?

If so where did you go to learn that " life has always existed and was never created"?

Will you please provide evidence to prove your point?

tc

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.

It's silly because proponents of evolution still hang on to the silly notion that they can create life out of non-living materials. They keep repeating the same experiment over and over expecting that somehow life will appear from mixing chemicals.

As for the "autocatalytic RNA" - I thought I made this clear already! It's not LIFE but just one of the components for LIFE.

In fact, RNA is recognized as information carrier. It transmit/transcript information from the DNA. The coded Information that it receives from the DNA is then decoded to form various types of proteins. But it itself - the RNA - IS NOT LIFE.


How gullible must one be to be convinced that it is ALIVE? I guess it takes a gullible evolutionists to believe that it is.

That's just your unfounded opinion. Autocatalytic RNA is capable of reproduction, subject to natural selection, and thus able to evolve. It's life. If you still disagree, then at least provide a definition of life that justifiably excludes autocatalytic RNA.

reply to post by randyvs

Please go see a dentist instead of whinning.

It's spelled *Winning*

Please to learn english.

Glad to be of service ?

Are you actually responding to me? or.... what?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

Use the same logic you used earlier in your statement.....Something cannot come from nothing.

Don't you know that all forms of logic break down when it comes to the creator? Infinite. Always was. Always will be. Was never created yet still exists. Or he created him self. lol.

The question is more fundamental than whether something can come from nothing. It's whether something can always exist without needing to be created in the first place.

Everything has to come from some place. And if you try arguing energy can't from nothing, you must accept that some energy has always existed... meaning God could exist.

Quite the dilemma eh?

edit on 2-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

And yet, they're so devoid of logical or rationality that they can't even accept that if it's possible that God always existed, then it's possible that life itself has always existed. No Creator necessary. (I don't believe that it has, personally, and I don't believe that some supernatural mythological being was responsible, either.)

If they believe that God is the Creator, then they need to explain where he came from. Who created him? As you go up the line, each Creator must be infinitely more complex and powerful than the one before. Where does it end?

reply to post by edmc^2

A simple question like - is evolution foundationless gets differing answers from you.

Once again, evolution is not based on how life started. So evolution is not foundationless even if we dont know how life started. Even if God created first life, evolution would not be any less valid.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

No there is no growing weakness because I never said God doesn't defy logic. If you follow exactly what my arguement is ? God is equally absurd from the neutral position. It boils dowm to simple choice. In the way you make sense of your uni-verse. I never said anything about what is more logical. It is completely obvious God would defy logic. I just don't speak from the neutral.

And why should God defy logic? The universe and everything in it, including life, obeys the laws of physics. Why should God be any different?

What is illogical in my view ? Is to claim full knowledge of the universe by saying God does not exist. You can't even stop there if you say that. It sets off a chain reaction of illiminations . Soon the paranormal doesn't exist. Then things like love, Jesus Christ, other dimensions the soul and spirituality of man and with those things right there ? Soon the whole uni-verse doesn't exist. This I have seen coming from your side of this arguement.

edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

This is one big strawman argument. No one said God doesn't exist or that it's impossible for him to exist, only that he isn't the Creator.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by jheated5
I'm just gonna end this argument and say life has always existed and was never created..... Please feel free to prove me wrong..........

So I take it that you don't believe that the universe and the earth had a beginning, correct?

That around 13 billions years ago - there was a singularity, that the universe is expanding, correct?

In other words you don't believe what astronomers at NASA discovered about the birth of the cosmos, correct?

If so where did you go to learn that " life has always existed and was never created"?

Will you please provide evidence to prove your point?

tc

You're creating a false dichotomy here. Even if the universe and life did have a beginning, it doesn't automatically mean that God created it.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.

It's silly because proponents of evolution still hang on to the silly notion that they can create life out of non-living materials. They keep repeating the same experiment over and over expecting that somehow life will appear from mixing chemicals.

As for the "autocatalytic RNA" - I thought I made this clear already! It's not LIFE but just one of the components for LIFE.

In fact, RNA is recognized as information carrier. It transmit/transcript information from the DNA. The coded Information that it receives from the DNA is then decoded to form various types of proteins. But it itself - the RNA - IS NOT LIFE.


How gullible must one be to be convinced that it is ALIVE? I guess it takes a gullible evolutionists to believe that it is.

Viruses reproduce and insert themselves into our genome, and yet they're not technically alive. They themselves may have evolved from plasmids--which are not "alive", either.

So what's your point?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.

It's silly because proponents of evolution still hang on to the silly notion that they can create life out of non-living materials. They keep repeating the same experiment over and over expecting that somehow life will appear from mixing chemicals.

As for the "autocatalytic RNA" - I thought I made this clear already! It's not LIFE but just one of the components for LIFE.

In fact, RNA is recognized as information carrier. It transmit/transcript information from the DNA. The coded Information that it receives from the DNA is then decoded to form various types of proteins. But it itself - the RNA - IS NOT LIFE.


How gullible must one be to be convinced that it is ALIVE? I guess it takes a gullible evolutionists to believe that it is.

Viruses reproduce and insert themselves into our genome, and yet they're not technically alive. They themselves may have evolved from plasmids--which are not "alive", either.

So what's your point?

Viruses actually consist of many branches with presumably different origins. For example, nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses probably evolved from eukaryotes. Also, there's no universally accepted definition of life, and many biologists refer to viruses as living (me included).

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.

It's silly because proponents of evolution still hang on to the silly notion that they can create life out of non-living materials. They keep repeating the same experiment over and over expecting that somehow life will appear from mixing chemicals.

As for the "autocatalytic RNA" - I thought I made this clear already! It's not LIFE but just one of the components for LIFE.

In fact, RNA is recognized as information carrier. It transmit/transcript information from the DNA. The coded Information that it receives from the DNA is then decoded to form various types of proteins. But it itself - the RNA - IS NOT LIFE.


How gullible must one be to be convinced that it is ALIVE? I guess it takes a gullible evolutionists to believe that it is.

Viruses reproduce and insert themselves into our genome, and yet they're not technically alive. They themselves may have evolved from plasmids--which are not "alive", either.

So what's your point?

Viruses actually consist of many branches with presumably different origins. For example, nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses probably evolved from eukaryotes. Also, there's no universally accepted definition of life, and many biologists refer to viruses as living (me included).

And I would agree that viruses are alive, although technically they require a host cell to reproduce I was using the plasmids as an example of how life may possibly have evolved from non-living organic matter, that's all. Viruses clearly play a large role in evolution.

It may be that our definition of "life" is too narrow.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And I would agree that viruses are alive, although technically they require a host cell to reproduce

I fail to understand why this fact would disqualify them from being alive. It's not like humans are autonomous either. We need a suitable environment to reproduce. IMO it's not really any different from viruses needing a suitable environment to reproduce.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And I would agree that viruses are alive, although technically they require a host cell to reproduce

I fail to understand why this fact would disqualify them from being alive. It's not like humans are autonomous either. We need a suitable environment to reproduce. IMO it's not really any different from viruses needing a suitable environment to reproduce.

Well, to paraphrase, viruses are just a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news. They don't have the organelles or other structures that are characteristic of "life", yet they still can pass on their genetic material.

There's no easy answer to this one, but IMO it's clear that at the very least they straddle the boundary between life and not-life. As I said, we might have to expand our definition of what life is. There are other structures like crystals that can self-replicate without having any of the other characteristics of life.

EMC this thread is turning exactly the same as all your others. You don't understand basic science and are playing word games debating semantics and nothing more. Stop dishonestly associating abiogenesis with evolution. They have nothing to do with one another.

Originally posted by edmc^2
I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.

It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.

Now which one existed first, matter or energy?

Matter IS energy.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Basically, you either believe that Life arose spontaneously from non-living matter by guidance chance event or Life was a product of Special Creation.

Since there's no scientific proof of the former then the ONLY logical answer to the origin of Life is the latter - Special Creation. An intelligently directed purposeful Creation.

Still having trouble comprehending basic logic I see. There's no scientific proof of either. Your god theory doesn't hold any weight at all. Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

To say and believe that all of these is the product of evolution - then what's the ultimate purpose of it all?

Irrelevant. Purpose or lack thereof has nothing to do with scientific theory. That is nothing more than your personal opinion. We know evolution happens. That's all we need to know. If you want to invent some magical creator in order to give your life purpose that's fine, but my life has meaning without appealing to magic.

Originally posted by Barcs
EMC this thread is turning exactly the same as all your others. You don't understand basic science and are playing word games debating semantics and nothing more. Stop dishonestly associating abiogenesis with evolution. They have nothing to do with one another.

Originally posted by edmc^2
I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.

It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.

Now which one existed first, matter or energy?

Matter IS energy.

E=mc^2.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Well, to paraphrase, viruses are just a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news. They don't have the organelles or other structures that are characteristic of "life", yet they still can pass on their genetic material.

Bacteria, archaea, and eukarya are just nucleic acids surrounded by a few layers of lipid membranes. I don't think organelles are characteristic of life as over 99.9% of all living lack them. In the end, organelles are just streamlined bacteria. Also, viruses make up more than 99.9% of genetic material on this planet. If you regard to them as living, then you can't really say that complex structures you mentioned are characteristic of life.

As I said, we might have to expand our definition of what life is. There are other structures like crystals that can self-replicate without having any of the other characteristics of life.

I've been saying, there is no universally accepted definition of life. However, those crystals you mentioned are definitely not it (at least not biological life) since they're not subject to natural selection and by extension cannot evolve.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Barcs
EMC this thread is turning exactly the same as all your others. You don't understand basic science and are playing word games debating semantics and nothing more. Stop dishonestly associating abiogenesis with evolution. They have nothing to do with one another.

Originally posted by edmc^2
I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.

It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.

Now which one existed first, matter or energy?

Matter IS energy.

E=mc^2.

hahahaha! When I typed that I didn't even realize that this guy's name is the formula for that! So basically he doesn't even understand what his own screen name means.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Barcs
EMC this thread is turning exactly the same as all your others. You don't understand basic science and are playing word games debating semantics and nothing more. Stop dishonestly associating abiogenesis with evolution. They have nothing to do with one another.

Originally posted by edmc^2
I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.

It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.

Now which one existed first, matter or energy?

Matter IS energy.

E=mc^2.

hahahaha! When I typed that I didn't even realize that this guy's name is the formula for that! So basically he doesn't even understand what his own screen name means.

Define: irony.

I needed a laugh today!