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

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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.


Er, all eukaryotes have them and so do some prokaryotes. Not sure where you get the 99.9% number, though.


In the end, organelles are just streamlined bacteria.


Wait, are you saying that organelles are themselves alive?



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.


That is true. However, life usually replicates itself through cell division. Viruses self-assemble once inside the host cell.
edit on 6/4/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/4/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Love how you throw all logic overboard to protect your fantasyland pre-conceived notion of a creator





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?


To make this perfectly clear:

ABIOGENESIS ISN'T A PREREQUISITE (aka foundation) of EVOLUTION!! ONE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER!!

I know you're trying really hard to claim without knowing how life started we can't say evolution is correct...of course all in an effort to leave the door open to your silly genesis story. But that's not how science works! All the theory of evolution requires is objective evidence of the processes it describes (changes in allele frequency in DNA) and the fact that life exits. How that life started is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant when determining that your grand grand grand father's bones are related to you (an example you funny enough keep on ignoring).

So evolution has a "foundation", but it's not reliant on abiogenesis. Claiming otherwise is DUMB, UNEDUCATED, and just plain IGNORANT. Are you subscribing to those traits? Really?
edit on 4-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Winning is something that happens in a contest.

Whining is something that happens in a crib. But I should have went with one N. So push.

Just mess'in with ya any ways.
edit on 4-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Er, all eukaryotes have them and so do some prokaryotes. Not sure where you get the 99.9% number, though.

Most eukaryotes have organelles. Not a single prokaryote has organelles. Prokaryotes make up more than 99.9% of life on Earth.


Originally posted by HappyBunny
Wait, are you saying that organelles are themselves alive?

Well I guess this depends on how we define an organelle. To me, organelle are either mitochondria, mitosomes, hydrogenosomes, or plastids. These were all once free-living bacteria.


Originally posted by HappyBunny
That is true. However, life usually replicates itself through cell division. Viruses self-assemble once inside the host cell.

There's not just one type of cell division. There's e.g. binary fission, budding, and meiosis. Viruses don't obviously care about cell division since they lack cells. Viral replication is more similar to how the nucleus replicates. First it disappears, and then new nuclei are assembled.
edit on 4-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.


It's not a straw man argument. It's an example of what I've seen people from the science community ressort to in the past.

Right here.............on ATS !

I love to say that.

Here maybe this can help you all see thru the education that has blinded you. I think maybe Ed has the same education for the most part. But was smart enough not to let it blind him. Any way with out further ado Billy Preston figured this out a long time ago.

edit on 4-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

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!


Glad that you've figured that one out - n I thought you were the smart one.

So as Barcs said - Matter is Energy or like I said:

"Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy."

But since you have the answer to this - interesting question.

Which one existed first? Was it matter or energy?

What transformed into what first?

I think Barcs believed Matter was first to exist (or was he saying both?), but what say you?

edit:

Oh BTW - just to be precise "Matter is simply one form of Energy" - American Scientific.

edit on 4-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: figure- figured - edit:



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Love how you throw all logic overboard to protect your fantasyland pre-conceived notion of a creator





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?


To make this perfectly clear:

ABIOGENESIS ISN'T A PREREQUISITE (aka foundation) of EVOLUTION!! ONE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER!!

I know you're trying really hard to claim without knowing how life started we can't say evolution is correct...of course all in an effort to leave the door open to your silly genesis story. But that's not how science works! All the theory of evolution requires is objective evidence of the processes it describes (changes in allele frequency in DNA) and the fact that life exits. How that life started is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant when determining that your grand grand grand father's bones are related to you (an example you funny enough keep on ignoring).

So evolution has a "foundation", but it's not reliant on abiogenesis. Claiming otherwise is DUMB, UNEDUCATED, and just plain IGNORANT. Are you subscribing to those traits? Really?
edit on 4-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Like I said - just trying to pin down the tail to the donkey's ass.

But it keeps moving.


So how did evolution theory got its start then if it doesn't "DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER - abioGenesis"?

hint: "The Selfish Gene"


tc



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So how did evolution theory got its start then if it doesn't "DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER - abioGenesis"?


Like I said, in the same way every other scientific theory does...OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, we got tons of it that fully back up the theory.

- Fossil record
- DNA analysis
- Migratory trends
- Applied evolution
- Modern medicine
- Real time observation

The "start" (as you call it) consists of all that objective evidence, and NOT some underlying theory. The same goes for gravity (which allows us to build planes without knowing how gravity first formed) and electric energy (allowing you to type your posts without knowing how it first came to be).

The "donkey" is standing still, you simply can't seem to hit it



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E - from J e ho v a h God the Grand Creator!

Only if you think of time as linear, which it ain't. So you have it partially right. Life does come from other life. It happened because sometime in the future, a chunk of time carrying a microbe slowed down/shifted into the past, and the microbe managed to land on Earth and survive and thrive. That's all. It didn't require any involvement from any kind of spooky supernatural boogie man who is going to judge anybody as being good or bad.

And you can ask, well, where did the original life come from, the one in the future? And I can say that you don't understand how a time loop works, and how something besides "God" can be there at the beginning and the end and throughout all existence. And the words "God" and "Jehovah" are just names you use for your own ignorance.

edit on 4-6-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Glad that you've figured that one out - n I thought you were the smart one.

So as Barcs said - Matter is Energy or like I said:

"Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy."

But since you have the answer to this - interesting question.

Which one existed first? Was it matter or energy?

What transformed into what first?

I think Barcs believed Matter was first to exist (or was he saying both?), but what say you?

edit:

Oh BTW - just to be precise "Matter is simply one form of Energy" - American Scientific.


All matter is energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Asking which came first is like asking whether a house cat came before a feline, when all cats are felines. Obviously it was all raw energy at some point, then it spread out and began to cool down and various energies reacted with each other.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So how did evolution theory got its start then if it doesn't "DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER - abioGenesis"?


Like I said, in the same way every other scientific theory does...OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, we got tons of it that fully back up the theory.

- Fossil record
- DNA analysis
- Migratory trends
- Applied evolution
- Modern medicine
- Real time observation

The "start" (as you call it) consists of all that objective evidence, and NOT some underlying theory. The same goes for gravity (which allows us to build planes without knowing how gravity first formed) and electric energy (allowing you to type your posts without knowing how it first came to be).

The "donkey" is standing still, you simply can't seem to hit it


OK - got all of that already long time ago.

All I'm asking is before evolution (theory) started what was there before it? In other words how did the "allele" arose, appeared before it changed/evolved into another form?

geewizz - can't make it anymore simpler than that.

So let's pin the tail to the donkey's ass again.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





All I'm asking is before evolution (theory) started what was there before it? In other words how did the "allele" arose, appeared before it changed/evolved into another form?


We don't know for sure how first life started. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis that's currently being tested with some remarkable results. Others say god, Allah, or some giant spaghetti monster did it...all without providing any objective evidence. But in the end, we simply don't know yet. All we know is how biodiversity came to be due to evolution.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
Glad that you've figured that one out - n I thought you were the smart one.

So as Barcs said - Matter is Energy or like I said:

"Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy."

But since you have the answer to this - interesting question.

Which one existed first? Was it matter or energy?

What transformed into what first?

I think Barcs believed Matter was first to exist (or was he saying both?), but what say you?

edit:

Oh BTW - just to be precise "Matter is simply one form of Energy" - American Scientific.


All matter is energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Asking which came first is like asking whether a house cat came before a feline, when all cats are felines. Obviously it was all raw energy at some point, then it spread out and began to cool down and various energies reacted with each other.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



Finally - got my answer:




Obviously it was all raw energy at some point


So it was as you say "raw energy" that was there first. Cosmologist refer to this "raw energy" as the "singularity" - or a sudden burst of energy - aka - "Big Bang" theory.

To quote the book Cosmos:



“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse -- Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21


Or as astrophysicist Josip Kleczek stated:


“Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.” -- The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17


Now what was the source of this "RAW ENERGY"?

Where did this "RAW ENERGY" came from?

Did it always existed?

What say you?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Now what was the source of this "RAW ENERGY"?

Where did this "RAW ENERGY" came from?

Did it always existed?

What say you?


We don't know. If you can claim god always existed, then I can claim the energy always existed. Scientifically you can't prove either way, although based on the laws of physics, energy can't be created or destroyed so it WAS always there.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





All I'm asking is before evolution (theory) started what was there before it? In other words how did the "allele" arose, appeared before it changed/evolved into another form?


We don't know for sure how first life started. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis that's currently being tested with some remarkable results. Others say god, Allah, or some giant spaghetti monster did it...all without providing any objective evidence. But in the end, we simply don't know yet. All we know is how biodiversity came to be due to evolution.


So bottom line is - you don't know - which pretty much sums up what the evolution community know about this matter.

In other words - it's an easy way OUT not to know the truth. A cop-out answer to the most fundamental question about the origin of Life - "WE DON'T KNOW".

SO Evolution Theory is fundamentally based on what "WE DON'T KNOW".

This makes it even sillier than abioGenesis hypothesis then.




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So bottom line is - you don't know - which pretty much sums up what the evolution community know about this matter.


No, what I'm saying is that not only I don't know...but nobody does





In other words - it's an easy way OUT not to know the truth. A cop-out answer to the most fundamental question about the origin of Life - "WE DON'T KNOW".


It's the only honest answer as we don't have any objective evidence showing us the real truth.




SO Evolution Theory is fundamentally based on what "WE DON'T KNOW".


Still pretending abiogenesis is the basis of evolution...even after all the posts highlighting what a dumb belief that is?


Evolution makes no claims regarding how life started in the first place...and doesn't need to to be a valid theory.




This makes it even sillier than abioGenesis hypothesis then.



No, what this shows is that you're willing to throw logic overboard to protect your fantasy world. Even worse, you pretend your fantasy world is "the truth"



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
To reinforce what XYz is stating:

EVOLUTION describes what happens ONCE LIFE EXISTS. It is NOT a theory as to WHY there is life, but only WHY there is the DIVERSITY we witness.

Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To reinforce what XYz is stating:

EVOLUTION describes what happens ONCE LIFE EXISTS. It is NOT a theory as to WHY there is life, but only WHY there is the DIVERSITY we witness.

Simple as that.


And that's where conundrum lies - the Origin of the Species!

Which this thread is about - if the abioGenesis hypothesis is such a weak, unreliable hypothesis to explain the origin of life - then how can you honestly say that life definitely evolved.

It's like watching a movie with no beginning. What's more you're only left with three or four slides of the film to form the theory on of what the story is all about.

That to me is NOT scientific but a silly idea because you can interpret it in many different ways to arrive at different ending

And based on what we now know - abioGenesis hypothesis was based on philosophy both ancient and modern - whereby life arose from inanimate materials then evolved into different branches of life by "changes in the alleles".

The book by Prof. Richard Dawkins explains this very well. BY way of a short summary the Prof. explains that:

The earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, by lightning, (some say UV) and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” that started life. From there, this molecule had somehow the ability to reproduce itself. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. From there this "selfish gene" evolved and the rest is history.

Evolution proponent tend not bring this up and many like you will try to separate the two for obvious reason - it's just silly.

But without acknowledging the origin of life - the theory by itself is just that a theory.

A weak one at best because it's all based on speculations on "coulda, wouldy and maybe".

So how did life came to be?

Let me guess - "WE DON'T KNOW".

tc



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Which this thread is about - if the abioGenesis hypothesis is such a weak, unreliable hypothesis to explain the origin of life - then how can you honestly say that life definitely evolved.


Again, because even after half a dozen times you don't seem to get it:

The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to be "right" because abiogenesis isn't part of the objective evidence required to prove the theory. We can say stuff has definitely evolved because of all the objective evidence proving it (list above).

To give you the same example you so love to ignore:

We can unearth your grand grand grandfather's bones and determine you are related to him without knowing how first life started. Why? Because the evidence we use to determine you are related isn't part of "how life first started".

I know the main reason you made this thread was to say "oh look, scientists aren't sure about abiogenesis...and since it's a basis for evolution, evolution is therefore wrong too". It's a silly argument that is demonstrably wrong (as my example above shows) and imo you should just let it go


But personally I doubt you're gonna do that. Instead, you're simply going to ignore that it doesn't matter whether abiogenesis is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to the validity of the theory of evolution (aka a fact). Every one of your past thread starts out with a preconceived notion (god exists and did it all), but every single time your "proof" consists of misinterpreting science, using the argument from ignorance, or simply presenting us with a great example of "god of the gaps". Getting a bit tired of it...not that this would stop me from pointing out the logic flaws in your arguments



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




We don't know, and that's the beauty of science. We can admit we don't know everything. We continue to work at it though.

Just remember this thread next time you use your computer, or any electronic device. Hell, even the next time you go to the doctor and get a vaccine.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Daemonicon because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join