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

reply to post by edmc^2


Every last bit of that applies to your idea of a creator as well. Why don't you use that same scrutiny with your own beliefs? Since we don't know the origin of life, who are you to say that you do? At least science is TRYING to figure it out. You have already made up your mind. What say you?

Originally posted by Daemonicon
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)

No one is faulting you for NOT KNOWING but you just proved my point - there are many more things that evolutionists DON'T KNOW. Yet when someone challenges their POV - like I said in the OP - they start accusing, ridiculing those have different POV and insist that what they believe is THE fact - not just a theory.

They start equating a weak theory to a established scientific facts like computers, electronic devices and vaccines.

Case in point - answer me this please?

Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Every last bit of that applies to your idea of a creator as well. Why don't you use that same scrutiny with your own beliefs? Since we don't know the origin of life, who are you to say that you do? At least science is TRYING to figure it out. You have already made up your mind. What say you?

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

Ahh... that's the difference between you and I. I know what I believe and can prove it where as you don't know what you believe and can't prove it.


Just to name two of hundreds of example.

Life can only come / arise from pre-existing life - science not only can prove it but duplicate it.

The Fine Tuned Universe points to an intelligent Designer / Creator - an Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer. Science not only can prove it but can apply it to reality.

But let me also ask you this question - is Evolution theory a fact or just a theory - an unproven theory?

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?

It's both. There's a natural force that we call evolution. This is a fact. Then there's a theory of evolution (modern synthesis), which attempts to explain the natural force. Just like with gravity. There's a natural force of gravity. It's a fact. Then there are multiple theories of gravity, which attempt to explain it. It's that simple. The world is not black and white like you think. Not every question can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Life can only come / arise from pre-existing life - science not only can prove it but duplicate it.

I already proved you wrong about this with the autocatalytic RNA. Conveniently, you never replied to the last post, probably because you can't admit to being wrong

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?

It's both. There's a natural force that we call evolution. This is a fact. Then there's a theory of evolution (modern synthesis), which attempts to explain the natural force. Just like with gravity. There's a natural force of gravity. It's a fact. Then there are multiple theories of gravity, which attempt to explain it. It's that simple. The world is not black and white like you think. Not every question can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

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

A very smart answer rhinoceros - for that I applaud you.

Natural forces are facts - I agree there but here's where it becomes questionable imho - when someone says that UNDIRECTED natural forces are capable of creating INTELLIGENT life forms, then that to me is just a speculation, a hypothesis.

For example, when someone adamantly states that through natural forces inanimate materials can be transformed into a living thing - that to me is a silly idea.

For the established fact that Life can only come from pre-existing life. This law can't broken no matter how knowledgeable a person is.

But to an evolutionists it's not just plausible but a reality to produce life from inanimate chemicals - even though the facts don't show it. Case in point "RNA".

You call it "life" but any intelligent person with an open mind will say no for the fact that - as I already stated -

-- 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. --

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But if you say:

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.

The fact the we have machines/devices that can re-produce themselves (nanotechnology) that doesn't mean they are alive like any organic living things.

en.wikipedia.org...

We have things in nature that are inanimate but can reproduce themselves as well but they are not considered alive. So for you to say that an "autocatalytic RNA" is alive means that you're trying hard to prove that abioGenesis to be true.

Not gonna happen but good luck!

Mind you though - all of these self-replicating things - have an inherent program in them to be autonomous. Not SELF - aware like us.

Question is where did the program came from?

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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)

SO educate me then, can you please tell me what is this "something" besides God?

Originally posted by edmc^2
Natural forces are facts - I agree there but here's where it becomes questionable imho - when someone says that UNDIRECTED natural forces are capable of creating INTELLIGENT life forms, then that to me is just a speculation, a hypothesis.

There's the fossil record, a mountain of miscellaneous observations including e.g. the distribution of species (island - mainland differences etc.), and live experiments. Then there's genetics, which seals the deal. If to you that is "just a speculation, a hypothesis" there's nothing I can do. Your reality is weird.

Originally posted by edmc^2
You call it "life" but any intelligent person with an open mind will say no for the fact that - as I already stated -

-- 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. --

Yes. That is RNA according to the most simplified version of biology. It's an information carrier in the "DNA > RNA > Protein" dogma. In a just a little bit more complicated version there are also transfer RNAs and ribosomal RNAs. In the next level of complication you start to run into dozens of different kinds of non-coding RNAs. On more theoretical level there's a thing called the RNA world, a postulated biotic, but pre-DNA world. In the very beginning of it, you have autocatalytic RNAs, from which all contemporary life derives. This is what they think the world was like ~4 billion years ago. So more recently, experiments were done in laboratory. From simple pieces of RNA formed autocatalytic RNA molecules and the reaction was spontaneous. That doesn't prove that life began like this. However, it shows that it's possible.

Originally posted by edmc^2
The fact the we have machines/devices that can re-produce themselves (nanotechnology) that doesn't mean they are alive like any organic living things.

en.wikipedia.org...

We have things in nature that are inanimate but can reproduce themselves as well but they are not considered alive. So for you to say that an "autocatalytic RNA" is alive means that you're trying hard to prove that abioGenesis to be true.

Not gonna happen but good luck!

Mind you though - all of these self-replicating things - have an inherent program in them to be autonomous. Not SELF - aware like us.

Question is where did the program came from?

You didn't provide a definition that excluded autocatalytic RNA. They're organic things, just like us. They reproduce, just like us. They are subject to natural selection, just like us. The question of self-awareness is interesting, but not related to the beginnings of life.

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)

I noticed besides the weak reply of "we don't know" you also like to use "How that life started is irrelevant".

Of course these answers will work for close minded people because they don't wanna know but I guess that's fine with them and that's their choice

It will not work for me though because I wanna know.

And since I know that there's a Creator of life, I can plan for the future according to his will and it means that there's a reason why we're here in the first place.

It also enhances my appreciation of true science - as it opens things that I haven't thought of - they provide answer to the how, when, where.

It allows me to see the DUMB and IGNORANT things taught by close minded people.

So as far as abioGenesis and its offspring Evolution theory/hypothesis is concern - it's a blind alley leading to nowhere - a meaningless, silly idea at its core.

For it to work the truth needs to bend.

Case in point - can you create a living thing out of something dead / inanimate?

can you? rhinoceros says he/she can.

reply to post by edmc^2


I think this answers your question in the simplest of fashions.
Though it seems your repeating the same argument in multiple threads irrespective of the question posed.

reply to post by edmc^2

No one is faulting you for NOT KNOWING but you just proved my point - there are many more things that evolutionists DON'T KNOW. Yet when someone challenges their POV - like I said in the OP - they start accusing, ridiculing those have different POV and insist that what they believe is THE fact - not just a theory.

They start equating a weak theory to a established scientific facts like computers, electronic devices and vaccines.

Computers, electronic devices and vaccines are based on scientific theories that have the same amount of objective evidence behind them as evolution. For crying out loud, we are ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine to accurately forecast future outcomes. So of course you can equate those things, because they're all SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?

Both! Also, are you really gonna dig up that old argument that's been completely debunked?

I know what I believe and can prove it where as you don't know what you believe and can't prove it.

I strongly doubt that, at least the "proving" bit

But you're welcome to prove me wrong

Life can only come / arise from pre-existing life - science not only can prove it but duplicate it.

Yes, and a few hundred years ago people said "flying" is impossible Still ignoring the RNA discoveries? Are they going against your irrational belief and therefore have to be ignored?

So far that seems the case, but we don't know how first life started...so at least for now that's the only honest statement.

The Fine Tuned Universe points to an intelligent Designer / Creator

It really doesn't

Natural forces are facts - I agree there but here's where it becomes questionable imho - when someone says that UNDIRECTED natural forces are capable of creating INTELLIGENT life forms, then that to me is just a speculation, a hypothesis.

Yes...that's why scientists are working on the HYPOTHESIS (!!!) of abiogenesis

For example, when someone adamantly states that through natural forces inanimate materials can be transformed into a living thing - that to me is a silly idea.

To you...but to scientists and science literate people this would be called a "hypothesis".

But to an evolutionists it's not just plausible but a reality to produce life from inanimate chemicals - even though the facts don't show it. Case in point "RNA".

Again, the theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started.

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.

It builds proteins, the very building blocks of life

It's not a cell, but a crucial building block. And if RNA can be created from inanimate objects, it's at least an interesting thought that DNA could be created that way too. Either way, it's a speculation...which is why abiogenesis is a HYPOTHESIS.

The fact the we have machines/devices that can re-produce themselves (nanotechnology) that doesn't mean they are alive like any organic living things.

No...of course not...because they are NON-BIOLOGICAL machines

We have things in nature that are inanimate but can reproduce themselves as well but they are not considered alive.

And what would that be?

SO educate me then, can you please tell me what is this "something" besides God?

The same thing that ensures biodiversity...natural forces. Either way, we don't know for sure how first life started (yet).

I noticed besides the weak reply of "we don't know" you also like to use "How that life started is irrelevant".

It's not a weak answer, it's an honest answer not blinded by religious indoctrination. And I said it's irrelevant in the context of evolution...which it is!

It will not work for me though because I wanna know.

Me too, but that doesn't mean I'll let myself be blinded by religious doctrine that is often demonstrably wrong (like the bible). "Making up stuff" isn't an option for me.

reply to post by edmc^2

And since I know that there's a Creator of life, I can plan for the future according to his will and it means that there's a reason why we're here in the first place.

You are confusing "knowing" with "believing"...again

It also enhances my appreciation of true science - as it opens things that I haven't thought of - they provide answer to the how, when, where.

This "true science" you speak of is pseudo-science...or simply you misinterpreting science in order to conserve your fantasyland religious beliefs.

It allows me to see the DUMB and IGNORANT things taught by close minded people.

So in order to stand up against "close minded people" you create a thread to call scientists working a hypothesis and the entire hypothesis "silly". Kinda ironic, don't you think?

So as far as abioGenesis and its offspring Evolution theory/hypothesis

You know evolution is a theory...not a "theory/hypothesis". No matter how much you want it to be comparable to the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Comon', that's a ridiculously lame way to show off your religious bias

Case in point - can you create a living thing out of something dead / inanimate?

can you? rhinoceros says he/she can.

RNA was created that way, and it's a very crucial building block of life. DNA is still missing...which would lead to cells. However, this second step hasn't been accomplished yet. For me, life is a cell. So no, life hasn't been created. Research in the field of abiogenesis has however shown that a major building block of life CAN arrise from inanimate objects.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Daemonicon
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)

No one is faulting you for NOT KNOWING but you just proved my point - there are many more things that evolutionists DON'T KNOW. Yet when someone challenges their POV - like I said in the OP - they start accusing, ridiculing those have different POV and insist that what they believe is THE fact - not just a theory.

They start equating a weak theory to a established scientific facts like computers, electronic devices and vaccines.

Case in point - answer me this please?

Is Evolution just a theory or a fact?

That is not a question that can be answered in an either/or scenario. Technically, it is a theory, but by calling it a theory, you cannot use that as a weakness, such as the old 'it's only a theory'. A theory, in scientific terms, means that it is a well backed up idea, and has yet to be refuted. The longer a theory stays around, and has yet to be refuted, does it more approximate to what most call a fact.

So, like others have said, it is both.


Also, I bring up vaccines and computers, not really in jest, but in reality. Both computers and vaccines have to 'evolve' over time. Notice how every few years or so, there is a 'new strain' of something such as Swine Flu? Why do you think that is? Because it has become resistant, or more resistant to our vaccines, so it evolved to be effective in the face of these vaccines. Which forces us to go back and re-engineer the vaccine to face the new strains.

Originally posted by randyvs
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.

Unless someone in this thread has said that, it's a strawman argument. I certainly didn't claim anything of the kind, and I'm pretty sure no one else did either.

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.

Only in America (or Amercia) would someone claim that education is a bad thing. No wonder our math and science ranks around #30 in the world and our children can't compete in a global economy.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Only in America (or Amercia) would someone claim that education is a bad thing. No wonder our math and science ranks around #30 in the world and our children can't compete in a global economy.

Some of the states are better than others though. NYC seemed ok when I lived there...Kansas on the other hand was a sad place when it comes to science. You wouldn't believe the number of people I met there who told me that the earth is "only 6000 (or 10000) years old".

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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.

Now, they don't have mitochondria, Golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum or even a nucleus. They might not have membranous cell organelles, but they have ribosomes, don't they?

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

Well I guess this depends on how we define an organelle.

Snap. LOL I think this is why we're disagreeing on this point.

To me, organelle are either mitochondria, mitosomes, hydrogenosomes, or plastids. These were all once free-living bacteria.

I agree with that theoretically, but I've never heard anyone claim that mitochondria are themselves alive. I think that's an interesting perspective!

Originally posted by HappyBunny
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)

Viruses don't have a nucleus, though.

Originally posted by edmc^2

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:

Your question is flawed since matter and energy are the same. But, to answer it, energy came first. The early universe was too hot for matter to form. And by early, I mean 10^ -40 seconds or so. Matter (in the form of quarks and gluons) began to form about 10^ -35 seconds after the bang. Later on, after it cooled, we got protons and electrons. It was still too hot for atoms to stick together--that came later after it cooled even more. Once it got cool enough for a proton to hold onto an electron, we got hydrogen. As the universe kept cooling, more and more energy became matter.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Only in America (or Amercia) would someone claim that education is a bad thing. No wonder our math and science ranks around #30 in the world and our children can't compete in a global economy.

Some of the states are better than others though. NYC seemed ok when I lived there...Kansas on the other hand was a sad place when it comes to science. You wouldn't believe the number of people I met there who told me that the earth is "only 6000 (or 10000) years old".

Yeah, that's what's so depressing. Even here in PA, different school districts teach different things. We have over 500 of them so you can just imagine. Fortunately ours is pretty good. High school biology isn't the biology we had--it's all biochemistry and molecular biology. Scaled down so they can understand it, of course, because they haven't had chemistry yet, but very experimentally driven. They spent the entire second half of this year on evolution.

I was going to move to Georgia several years ago and was appalled at their education system. They're two years behind PA. And they put stickers on their science textbooks that said something along the lines of "Warning, this book teaches evolution."

That's not what I want my children taught. All they're learning is how NOT to compete in the world.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

RNA was created that way, and it's a very crucial building block of life. DNA is still missing...which would lead to cells. However, this second step hasn't been accomplished yet. For me, life is a cell. So no, life hasn't been created. Research in the field of abiogenesis has however shown that a major building block of life CAN arrise from inanimate objects.

I say this to people all the time when I get in these discussions, and they look at me like I'm out of my mind:

Take away the biology, and you're left with pure chemistry. That's what Rhino is ultimately pointing out in his examples of autocatalytic RNA. Life is, at its pith and core, a chemical reaction. DNA is nothing more than two anti-parallel polymers with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups, joined with ester bonds.

Chemistry, pure and simple.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best: