I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

helldiver

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Patently untrue, 'science' has never proven such a claim.

Actually you are totally wrong on that one.

Link to wiki on biogenesis.

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.

Okay... So what has science proven.

Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. Attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 19th century with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann. In 1745, John Needham added chicken broth to a flask and boiled it. He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation. In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani repeated Needham's experiment but removed all the air from the flask. No growth occurred. In 1854, Heinrich Schröder (1810–1885) and Theodor von Dusch, and in 1859, Schröder alone, repeated the Helmholtz filtration experiment and showed that living particles can be removed from air by filtering it through cotton-wool.

Interesting. Is that all?
NO.

In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

After obtaining his results, Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

Like I said. You are wrong. This has been proven and is repeatable. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with no support.

That is why it is a hypothesis.

Right sweets, let's try and keep this in context.

Biogenesis (in terms of origin), as in that only life can create life, has been totally discarded. It's on par with the flat earth hypothesis.

Abiogenesis, as in life from non-life, is currently a hot topic. While it is still a hypothesis there is certainly considerable evidence in favour of it. Basically, the evidence is mounting.

Personally speaking i'd put money on that abiogenesis will be proven and that it can even occur via multiple biochemical processes.

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

That is some seriously impressive evidence for biogenesis being totally discarded.
All of the none that you presented I mean... seriously impressive.

Right now the only thing that we know that exists that can induce a hypercycle is life.
Until abiogenesis is validated then biogenesis is all that we know, and I would LOVE to see a link to the repeatable experiments that lead to "discarding" biogenesis.

I'm fine with biogenesis (basically reproduction). Read my post, i did say "in terms of origin" so don't shoot your boots.

In terms of its implications as the only origin of life then it's been discarded. Otherwise we wouldnt be talking about abiogenesis and rna worlds etc.

I would only make an exception to the above for panspermia but only if panspermia brought prokaryotes (i doubt it). Even if that was indeed the case then surely we'd still be talking about abiogenesis as the precursor.

edit on 6-12-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

So basically what you are saying is that you have no idea what sparked the origin of life.
It's a mystery.
You can't give me any evidence to support abiogenesis, only speculation, because it is a hypothesis.
No evidence exists.

I am fine with that. Because that is the truth.
And if we were to look at just the evidence and not speculate beyond the data, then all we currently know is that life is the only known substance that can give rise to life.

I know that this is hard for you fundamentalist scientific establishment types to admit, but it is okay.
It is completely okay to say that you don't know.
That is the first step in the scientific method.

kyviecaldges
And if we were to look at just the evidence and not speculate beyond the data, then all we currently know is that life is the only known substance that can give rise to life.

Abiotic reaction pathways are known and have been empirically tested for the emergence of autocatalytic RNA sets. That's in essence life arising from lifeless matter

rhinoceros

kyviecaldges
And if we were to look at just the evidence and not speculate beyond the data, then all we currently know is that life is the only known substance that can give rise to life.

Abiotic reaction pathways are known and have been empirically tested for the emergence of autocatalytic RNA sets. That's in essence life arising from lifeless matter

Not to mention the fact that life isn't a substance - it's a series of chemical processes. So the quote should read:

"all we currently know is that chemical processes are the only known processes that can give rise to chemical processes"

which sounds a bit silly really!

rhinoceros

kyviecaldges
And if we were to look at just the evidence and not speculate beyond the data, then all we currently know is that life is the only known substance that can give rise to life.

Abiotic reaction pathways are known and have been empirically tested for the emergence of autocatalytic RNA sets. That's in essence life arising from lifeless matter

You are so freaking wrong.

Please show me this. Give me a link to a repeatable peer reviewed study.
We have already discussed the creation of nucleic acid pyrimidines, but no one ever in the history of history has shown how purines could be created.
No one has created purines, you gotta have both for RNA, and to top it off, the reaction that created the pyrimidines was catalyzed with inorganic phosphate.
Not even close to the ATP that we create in our muscles, which is what causes an autocatalytic reaction.

Look up the word hypercycle.
I have already spoken about this and I will no longer repeat myself.
You are wrong. There is no other way to put it.

You should read the thread. We have already discussed this at length.
Before you make ridiculous comments like that you should a) read the thread first and b) link a repeatable experiment validating your claim.

You haven't, obviously, and you can't.

I could just as easily say that Christians have proven that God created everything.
I would be just as correct as you because I gave nothing to support the premise.

PLEASE stop making me repeat myself.

reply to post by MarsIsRed

Not to mention the fact that life isn't a substance - it's a series of chemical processes.

Then you should have no problem providing us a link to validate this.

And you are right.

Your entire comment was silly.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

I apologize in advance that a few of these are links to just the abstracts and not the full papers.


Autocatalytic sets of proteins- www.sciencedirect.com...

Detecting autocatalytic, self-sustaining sets in chemical reaction systems- www.sciencedirect.com...

this addresses both the pros and cons and wherein lie the disagreements amongst molecular biologists and organic chemists-
www.mdpi.com...

Comparison of the Roles of Nucleotide Synthesis, Polymerization, and Recombination in the Origin of Autocatalytic Sets of RNAs-
online.liebertpub.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by peter vlar


Every link that you provided is a hypothesis.

And wouldn't you know it.

n this paper we first describe a polynomial-time algorithm that determines whether any given set of molecules, reactions and catalysations contains a subsystem that is both autocatalytic and able to be sustained from a given subset of the molecules. We also describe some combinatorial properties of this algorithm, and show how it can be used to find irreducible auto-catalysing and sustaining subsystems.

link to source

I have come to expect more from you peter vlar.

I am surprised that you would try to rehash this old argument considering that we have already discussed the use of algorithms, at length.

I really hate telling people to read the thread, but you and I have already discussed this.
Do you not remember or did you not take time to read your links?

UB2120
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

I think State sponsored and even individual learned psychology by a group of approved books which involved the state deeming it proper to teach is pseudoscience.

the study of others religion is called "Religious Studies" right now, it was basically thought of as Theology for the longest time to western academics but a distinction is slowly being made.

it is referred to as "Comparative Religion" or the "Science of Religion" still in most circles, no matter if these designations are relentlessly trying to be changed.

Science of Religion sounds very noble and rational at the same time in my opinion, but I do not think this brand of study will compare or even be in the same category as psychology. Psychology is definitely a subjective field highly dependent on locality, everyone will have different opinions similar to a religion in itself.

Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives

en.wikipedia.org...

"Religious Studies" involve Science along with a host of other academic fields... unfortunately the pseudoscience known as "Psychology" is one of them.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Psychology is Pseudoscience

rhinoceros

kyviecaldges
And if we were to look at just the evidence and not speculate beyond the data, then all we currently know is that life is the only known substance that can give rise to life.

Abiotic reaction pathways are known and have been empirically tested for the emergence of autocatalytic RNA sets. That's in essence life arising from lifeless matter

That experiment I seen on Carl Sagan's Cosmos where they had all the making of life on earth in the form of a black sludge being bombarded with electricity and they were trying to animate the matter and create life... well it didn't work.

There were also so many flaws with that experiment such as contamination and the fact that matter itself could be animate already. Even if we create life from matter which we truly do not understand enough about even though all of it exists already in the universe... get that word eh? "exists"

Science is at a loss even though they are using the most advanced efficient form of verbal communication on the planet, the English language.

The day we create the matter from nothing even thought already exists, and make a cellular size hunk of it animate in a sterilized vacuum give us the heads up.


FAIL!

kyviecaldges
reply to post by MarsIsRed

 

Not to mention the fact that life isn't a substance - it's a series of chemical processes.

Then you should have no problem providing us a link to validate this.

Are you suggesting that living things aren't made up of atoms, arranged in a chemically stable fashion? Perhaps they're magic atoms? I'm not sure what your point of view is, but you are making no sense if you think life is a substance. As for me providing a link... to what? Atoms? Or maybe you have some special knowledge about the make up of the universe that no one else is privy to?

kyviecaldges
You are so freaking wrong.

Please show me this. Give me a link to a repeatable peer reviewed study.
We have already discussed the creation of nucleic acid pyrimidines, but no one ever in the history of history has shown how purines could be created.

Abiotic synthesis of purines and other heterocyclic compounds by the action of electrical discharges. Who is so freaking wrong?

SisyphusRide
That experiment I seen on Carl Sagan's Cosmos where they had all the making of life on earth in the form of a black sludge being bombarded with electricity and they were trying to animate the matter and create life... well it didn't work.

As I recall, that was the Miller-Urey experiment which has nothing to do with autocatalytic RNA sets.

rhinoceros

SisyphusRide
That experiment I seen on Carl Sagan's Cosmos where they had all the making of life on earth in the form of a black sludge being bombarded with electricity and they were trying to animate the matter and create life... well it didn't work.

As I recall, that was the Miller-Urey experiment which has nothing to do with autocatalytic RNA sets.

nice avoidance, touche!

we didn't need a picture of that Frankensteinish experiment, I obviously explained it well enough


I find it odd that all the matter in the universe which exists, already exists and was created in an instant.

RNA eh? -- WEAK!

SisyphusRide

I find it odd that all the matter in the universe which exists, already exists and was created in an instant.

RNA eh? -- WEAK!

You really don't understand science very well, do you?

reply to post by kyviecaldges


You need to get a sense of humor, I included the link pertaining to algorithms as tongue in cheek fun. I thought you would appreciate it. Apparently I was wrong.

AngryCymraeg

SisyphusRide

I find it odd that all the matter in the universe which exists, already exists and was created in an instant.

RNA eh? -- WEAK!

You really don't understand science very well, do you?

you need to get a sense of humor AngryC...

I understand science enough to know that it isn't everything, if you could explain to me the answers we are looking for and trying to address I may get a better grasp on this scientific thing.

rhinoceros

kyviecaldges
You are so freaking wrong.

Please show me this. Give me a link to a repeatable peer reviewed study.
We have already discussed the creation of nucleic acid pyrimidines, but no one ever in the history of history has shown how purines could be created.

Abiotic synthesis of purines and other heterocyclic compounds by the action of electrical discharges. Who is so freaking wrong?

Yes you are wrong. And your link to a simple abstract is disingenuous
You should always link a paper and not an abstract.

But that doesn't matter because none of this is the meat of my argument, which I will get to, but I want to see if you actually pay attention.
I could just as easily link a bible verse saying that God created everything and all the Christians would come out in droves to support me. It doesn't validate a thing.

Also, I don't think that I was totally clear as well. And that was my fault.

No one has synthesized self-propagating RNA. No one.

The problem that you run into is one of creating an environment in which purines and pyrimidines are synthesized at the same time in an environment that will not also produce substances that are poisonous to life..

R-amino acids come to mind. Because they are poisonous to life.
If you were to use the environmental conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment then you would know that the amino acids produced were equal in the number L-amino acids and R-amino acids.

For life to arise you need to have an environment where they all come about together in a self-propagating manner.
Sure.... you want to create a specific environment that produces purines. Go ahead.
You want to create a specific environment where pyrimidines are produced. Go ahead.
You want to create amino acids. Go ahead.

But they will not self-propagate.

peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

You need to get a sense of humor, I included the link pertaining to algorithms as tongue in cheek fun. I thought you would appreciate it. Apparently I was wrong.

I didn't catch that. My bad.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

No one has synthesized self-propagating RNA. No one.

Hmm, maybe you should inform Bio- Synthesis their RNA polymers don't exist.

Today, using improved synthetic and biochemical methods, DNA polymers, long and small double stranded DNA and RNA molecules, RNA polymers, small and large peptides and small proteins can now be routinely synthesized.

Link

Or, perhaps you would like to custom order your RNA?
Link

The Immortal Molecule: Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology

Link

kyviecaldges

rhinoceros

kyviecaldges
You are so freaking wrong.

Please show me this. Give me a link to a repeatable peer reviewed study.
We have already discussed the creation of nucleic acid pyrimidines, but no one ever in the history of history has shown how purines could be created.

Abiotic synthesis of purines and other heterocyclic compounds by the action of electrical discharges. Who is so freaking wrong?

Yes you are wrong. And your link to a simple abstract is disingenuous
You should always link a paper and not an abstract.

But that doesn't matter because none of this is the meat of my argument, which I will get to, but I want to see if you actually pay attention.
I could just as easily link a bible verse saying that God created everything and all the Christians would come out in droves to support me. It doesn't validate a thing.

Also, I don't think that I was totally clear as well. And that was my fault.

No one has synthesized self-propagating RNA. No one.

The problem that you run into is one of creating an environment in which purines and pyrimidines are synthesized at the same time in an environment that will not also produce substances that are poisonous to life..

R-amino acids come to mind. Because they are poisonous to life.
If you were to use the environmental conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment then you would know that the amino acids produced were equal in the number L-amino acids and R-amino acids.

For life to arise you need to have an environment where they all come about together in a self-propagating manner.
Sure.... you want to create a specific environment that produces purines. Go ahead.
You want to create a specific environment where pyrimidines are produced. Go ahead.
You want to create amino acids. Go ahead.

But they will not self-propagate.

edit on 7/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

Let's face it. It doesn't matter what anyone says, you've got an answer for everything; last man standing, checkmate, you're wrong, nice try, try harder, god you're so wrong, ciao...and all that