Abiogenesis

[PokerPacker]

now about the atmosphere, in the link i provided, the new atmosphere decided to be the primitive earth atmosphere seems to be more hospitable to prebiotic life formation.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

now about the atmosphere, in the link i provided, the new atmosphere decided to be the primitive earth atmosphere seems to be more hospitable to prebiotic life formation.

I think "prebiotic life formation" might be an oxymoron, if "biotic" refers to life. Just FYI. :cool:

I would suggest the atmosphere doesn't matter. Even if they made up an atmosphere that consisted of all the materials necessary to build a cell, they still need to figure out a mechanism for getting all the parts together and start functioning.

Basically, they're looking for a miracle without the encumbrance of a god.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

I think "prebiotic life formation" might be an oxymoron, if "biotic" refers to life. Just FYI. :cool:

I would suggest the atmosphere doesn't matter. Even if they made up an atmosphere that consisted of all the materials necessary to build a cell, they still need to figure out a mechanism for getting all the parts together and start functioning.

Basically, they're looking for a miracle without the encumbrance of a god.

taken out of contexed, maybe it is a little oxymoronic, but if you look at it the way i worded it, it might make sense. edit: if you want me to reword it--the formation of life in a prebiotic age.

back to the subject, time is something i have plenty of. people always seem to forget how long billions of years is. if you have the chemicals, the energy, and the time, youu just may start life.

i have a question for you: do you think it is possible for man to create life from non-living materials? even if you don't believe abiogenesis for our beginning, is it a possibility for us to be "god"?

[PokerPacker]

I'd love to stay up and discuss this more, but i was supposed to go to sleep about 5 hours ago...

you game for more tomorrow night?

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

taken out of contexed, maybe it is a little oxymoronic, but if you look at it the way i worded it, it might make sense.

back to the subject, time is something i have plenty of. people always seem to forget how long billions of years is. if you have the chemicals, the energy, and the time, youu just may start life.

i have a question for you: do you think it is possible for man to create life from non-living materials? even if you don't believe abiogenesis for our beginning, is it a possibility for us to be "god"?

I knew what you meant.

Regarding your question: No, I absolutely do not believe we humans can make life from non living materials. I think we'll get to the point where we can engineer our own plants and animals from existing living materials, but I think even that will be a whole lot of trial and a whole lot of error, with just about nothing productive to show for it.

(I'm not talking about making cows give more milk or growing larger tomatos, adjusting something that already exists. I'm talking about making something entirely new.)

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

I'd love to stay up and discuss this more, but i was supposed to go to sleep about 5 hours ago...

you game for more tomorrow night?

probably. See ya when I see ya.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

I knew what you meant.

Regarding your question: No, I absolutely do not believe we humans can make life from non living materials. I think we'll get to the point where we can engineer our own plants and animals from existing living materials, but I think even that will be a whole lot of trial and a whole lot of error, with just about nothing productive to show for it.

(I'm not talking about making cows give more milk or growing larger tomatos, adjusting something that already exists. I'm talking about making something entirely new.)

i'm not asking the probability, but the possibility. if man had millions of years to research that one subject, would it be possible?

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

i'm not asking the probability, but the possibility. if man had millions of years to research that one subject, would it be possible?

I don't know. If we assume a linear progression in knowledge and technology, then perhaps. But man is a quirky creature, and both knowledge and technology are often slaves to politics and disagreement, and so progress won't be linear. It will progress, regress, take dead ends and rabbit trails, etc.

But the things that make it impossible now will still need to be overcome. In order to pull it off, they (we) need to be able to assemble all the components of a working cell and get it to self-sustain. And as I mentioned earlier, we can't even do it with a freshly dead cell where all the components already exist, let alone with non-living components assembled in a lab.

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

The only reason athiests/evolutionists label intelligent design as "religion" is that there is an implication that there is some designer behind the design. But if we're going to stifle debate because of implications, then we really are no better than the middle-centuries church.

I agree with parts of what you have to say, but I think you're being overly generous in your defense of creationists and stereotyping evolutionists.

There is more than implication that there is a designer behind the design. There's a necessity. It can't be called intelligent design unless there is some entity, regardless what form you believe it takes, who has consciously structured the universe.

Evolutionists don't stifle debate because they don't like the idea of intelligent design. There are actually quite a number of scientists who maintain their spirituality. But when they debate they expect to be debating facts as far as we can show them to be true, principles which can be tested, and data which we can measure. Religion (which, as you've pointed out, is different from suspicion of intelligent design) does not provide these things.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by dfitzo53

I agree with parts of what you have to say, but I think you're being overly generous in your defense of creationists and stereotyping evolutionists.

There is more than implication that there is a designer behind the design. There's a necessity. It can't be called intelligent design unless there is some entity, regardless what form you believe it takes, who has consciously structured the universe.

Evolutionists don't stifle debate because they don't like the idea of intelligent design. There are actually quite a number of scientists who maintain their spirituality. But when they debate they expect to be debating facts as far as we can show them to be true, principles which can be tested, and data which we can measure. Religion (which, as you've pointed out, is different from suspicion of intelligent design) does not provide these things.

Actually, most evolutionists DO stifle the debate. Any time there's a proposal to teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design in a science classroom, you hear people screaming bloody murder about keeping religion out of the science classroom (and usually, keeping it out of school altogether). They incorrectly identify intelligent design as a religion, and attack it accordingly.

Part of the problem is their refusal to see evolution for what it is -- a philosophy of science. They call it science, but it's really not. Science involves observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable theories and phenomeon. Nothing in evolution is subject to any of that. The study of biology or geology is perfectly legitimate science, applying scientific method. Evolution tries to explain how it all got here. Intelligent design also tries to explain how it all got here, making the two theories mutually exclusive, competing theories/philosophies. And one side is most definitely trying to control the debate by stifling the other side.

You're right, intelligent design demands a designer. But it's still just an implication when you're discussing the science aspect. And as long as you're leaving the designer aspect of it alone, there's really no religion involved in the science.

But conversely, evolution demands no god. The whole reason it exists as a theory is an attempt to explain the universe without any god. Evolutionists sort of tip the hat to those who believe in a god who used evolution to get where we are now, but that really just combines the worst of both sides.

(edit) bloody typos!

[PokerPacker]

the difference between the evolutionary theory and intelligent design, is that evolutionists provide evidence towards thier cause, making it a scientific theory.

sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)

n.

1.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

we are observing fossils with similar bone structures, trying to figure out how they became so similar.

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -ries

1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>

2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution> —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY

3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

what observation, experimental evidence, or factual or conceptual analysis has been used in the Intelligent Design theory?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Actually, most evolutionists DO stifle the debate. Any time there's a proposal to teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design in a scinece classroom, you hear people screaming bloody murder about keeping religion out of the science classroom (and usually, keeping it out of school altogether). They incorrectly identify intelligent design as a religion, and attack it accordingly.

I don't see a relation ship between the first sentence and the rest of this paragrph.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Actually, most evolutionists DO stifle the debate. Any time there's a proposal to teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design in a scinece classroom, you hear people screaming bloody murder about keeping religion out of the science classroom (and usually, keeping it out of school altogether). They incorrectly identify intelligent design as a religion, and attack it accordingly.

An elementary school classroom is not the place where the debate we are discussing takes place. We are talking about the scientific debate. That is the place where the Evolutionists provide evidence to support thier arguments, while the Creationists demand equality in the debate without putting up much of anything.

But conversely, evolution demands no god. The whole reason it exists as a theory is an attempt to explain the universe without any god. Evolutionists sort of tip the hat to those who believe in a god who used evolution to get where we are now, but that really just combines the worst of both sides.

You are incorrect. The whole reason Evolution exists as a theory is because it explains the evidence we gather with our own senses and analyze with our own reason. If you think that Evolution was created to justify atheism, you have the cart before the horse.

[Taylor 36]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

You're being generous. It's all speculative!:cool:

The problem with those experiments is that they are trying to recreate supposedly random occurances with carefully crafted plans and equipment.

There is no possible way to do that. They are aiming for a result, and so they start with compounds they presume were there. Unfortunately, the reasoning is completely circular. Their belief is in evolution, consequently they believe life must have originated in the primordial soup, so they went about concocting the soup, and the equipment and the experiments, in order to try and get the results they wanted. And, surprise surprise, they got some results that they wanted.

They have every right to do that, of course, but it's a bit disingenuous for them to present it as evidence that these things could have happened randomly.

I don't think abiogenesis can account for the beginning of life. No matter how many compounds they can come up with using the experiments they use, there's no way to assemble those compounds into a living cell that can replicate itself, consume energy and excrete waste, maintain its own internal pressure with a permeable membrane, and do a bazillion other things that living cells do.

As a matter of fact, all those compounds don't come anywhere near providing all the ingredients of a living cell. So lets say we give the scientists a boost, and provide them with ALL the ingredients of a living cell: a freshly dead cell. They can't turn that into a living cell!

Bottom line -- people are free to believe what they want to believe. But to believe that this (abiogenesis or similar things) can account for the beginning of life is every bit as religious of a belief as believing there's a designer that made it happen.

Excellent post!!!

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

You're right, intelligent design demands a designer. But it's still just an implication when you're discussing the science aspect. And as long as you're leaving the designer aspect of it alone, there's really no religion involved in the science.

But conversely, evolution demands no god. The whole reason it exists as a theory is an attempt to explain the universe without any god. Evolutionists sort of tip the hat to those who believe in a god who used evolution to get where we are now, but that really just combines the worst of both sides.

First of all, tell me of the scientific aspect of intelligent design.

The reason evolution exists in theory is because it is a very well know fact that organisms evlve. This has been demonstrated with micro-organisms, there is very little doubt about that. Secondly, evolution does not explain and does not attempt to explain how the first organisms came out to be.

I think you have it backwards ID was made just to try and make religion or God or the Designer whatever you want to call him/her/it/they while evolution was made to explain the natural world.

[Taylor 36]

Originally posted by Liberty

I don't see a relation ship between the first sentence and the rest of this paragrph.

We only see what we want to see, huh?

[Mooka]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

back to the subject, time is something i have plenty of. people always seem to forget how long billions of years is. if you have the chemicals, the energy, and the time, youu just may start life.

in terms of life spontaneously generating; a billion years is nothing. I'll go back to Borel's law as an example:

Imagine a container a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. To compute the odds of the mixture spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that the odds would be around 2^-n where n is the number of atoms. The number of atoms in this mixture (n) is a number thats un-fathomable: 10^-10^-10. This number dwarfs a billion. A graphing calculator won't even compute it due to overflow.

Of course this example has nothing to do with abiogenesis but its seems to be relative. The chances of abiogenesis occuring dwarfs any number you can think of. There wasn't enough time for the probability to occur. So, some sort of miracle must've occured whether it be natural or some kind of higher power.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Taylor 36

We only see what we want to see, huh?

Debates don't take place in the class room, they take place when scientists publish studies they have done with data that either proves or disproves their hypothesis.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Liberty

Debates don't take place in the class room, they take place when scientists publish studies they have done with data that either proves or disproves their hypothesis.

Yes, but the problem with evolution is that every time they disprove the hypothesis, they don't abandon the hypothesis, they simply morph it to something else.

And yes, debates do take place in the classroom. If they don't, then what's happening in that classroom is not teaching as much as propoganda.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Yes, but the problem with evolution is that every time they disprove the hypothesis, they don't abandon the hypothesis, they simply morph it to something else.

And yes, debates do take place in the classroom. If they don't, then what's happening in that classroom is not teaching as much as propoganda.

When was evolution dispoven? And secondly, if it is morphed into something else, whatever that is, if it is still correct even on the new evidence (whatever you are reffering to) then what is the problem.

Finally, this topic has been discussed so much, (just look up evolution) that it is getting tiresome. I don't think you were around when there were the giant religion threads with Skins Fan 51, and such, but if you do search you will find them.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Liberty

First of all, tell me of the scientific aspect of intelligent design.

The joke is on you. You can't even carry on a discussion of things without using the language of creationism/intelligent design. For example:

An eye has a lens, a cornea, an iris, rods, cones, an optic nerve, muscles that aim and focus, etc. if you were to describe how they interrelate, you would say things like "the purpose of the iris is to regulate how much light gets through..." You would never say "the iris accidentally does what it does", but this is exactly the underlying theme of evolution.

As a matter of fact (continuing to use the eye as an example), if you were to have all but one of the components (no cornea, for example), you wouldn't have an eye. A fully functioning eye would give its owner a survival advantage in its environment, but a non-functioning partial eye is not only not an advantage, it's a distinct disadvantage. Not only is it not providing sight, it represents a sensitive, vulnerable spot in the skull that would be better served by thick skull-armor.

The reason evolution exists in theory is because it is a very well know fact that organisms evlve. This has been demonstrated with micro-organisms, there is very little doubt about that.

Evolution means change. Nobody argues that there is never change, but what you see with microorganisms, and fruitflies, and pepper moths, etc. is change within species. You don't see microorganisms becoming worms, moths becoming birds, etc.

Secondly, evolution does not explain and does not attempt to explain how the first organisms came out to be.

No, it doesn't explain how the first organisms came about, but it's not for lack of trying! :cool:

I think you have it backwards ID was made just to try and make religion or God or the Designer whatever you want to call him/her/it/they while evolution was made to explain the natural world.

To be honest with you, I don't know what the difference is between "creation science" and "intelligent design". But you're wrong in your assessment, I believe.

For example, we find fossilized bones. Both evolution and creationism attempt to explain how they got there. Intelligent design doesn't address god(s). It addresses the world around us, the same way evolution does.

Biology: This is a frog, this is where it lives, these are its parts, this is how they function.

Evolutionary biology: This frog is the result of millions of years of accidental progress -- we know this because we find fossilized bones that look sort of like them, and there are other animals with other similar bone structures that we think are related (never mind the gaps in the fossile record). It evolved to survive in this environment.

Intelligent design biology: Look how intricately all the parts of this frog work together. All the individual part of it's eyes work together so well, all the individual parts of it knees work together so well, it fits in its environment so well, that most likely it's not the result of an accident.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Liberty

When was evolution dispoven? And secondly, if it is morphed into something else, whatever that is, if it is still correct even on the new evidence (whatever you are reffering to) then what is the problem.

Finally, this topic has been discussed so much, (just look up evolution) that it is getting tiresome. I don't think you were around when there were the giant religion threads with Skins Fan 51, and such, but if you do search you will find them.

If you're tired of the thread, talk to PokerPacker. He's the one who started it, and we had a good ole discussion going on last night.

Well, to start with, original Darwinian evolution started off with gradualism -- the idea that evolutionary changes took place slowly over millions of years. (There was something else about Darwin's theory that was off base pretty much right out of the box, but I forgot what that was. I think it had something to do with genetics being changed by the environment, to use today's vocabulary). So, things we can't observe were attributed to taking millions of years, hence no observation.

But with the fossile record being fleshed out with more and more paleontological discoveries, they eventually came to the conclusion that there was just no way to explain the record with gradualism -- all these fully formed fossiles, no in-between fossiles. So that went out the window, replaced by "punctuated equalibrium" -- the hopeful monster theory. This one basically said that the change between forms happened so fast in the past that we missed it. Life forms existed in their forms for however long, and then suddenly they changed due to evolutionary forces or whatever.

Now that is a classic example of evolutionary theory changing when the evidence is stacked against it. And if you were paying attention, you will have noticed that with punctuated equalibrium, there is no evidence for evolution -- which is excellent evidence for evolution!

Now, just so you notice, I haven't mentioned church or god or any such thing -- my conversation has confined itself to science, but from an intelligent design viewpoint. This conversation could be extended, of course, and people can disagree with me, but as long as the discussion is about science, THAT is representative of what the evolution/ID debate should be like.

(edit) doggone typos!

[Mooka]

Originally posted by Liberty

When was evolution dispoven? And secondly, if it is morphed into something else, whatever that is, if it is still correct even on the new evidence (whatever you are reffering to) then what is the problem.

Finally, this topic has been discussed so much, (just look up evolution) that it is getting tiresome. I don't think you were around when there were the giant religion threads with Skins Fan 51, and such, but if you do search you will find them.

I havn't discussed it

Evolution hasn't been dis-proven exactly but the theory is still missing the "missing-link" between 2 species.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by Mooka

in terms of life spontaneously generating; a billion years is nothing. I'll go back to Borel's law as an example:

Imagine a container a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. To compute the odds of the mixture spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that the odds would be around 2^-n where n is the number of atoms. The number of atoms in this mixture (n) is a number thats un-fathomable: 10^-10^-10. This number dwarfs a billion. A graphing calculator won't even compute it due to overflow.

Of course this example has nothing to do with abiogenesis but its seems to be relative. The chances of abiogenesis occuring dwarfs any number you can think of. There wasn't enough time for the probability to occur. So, some sort of miracle must've occured whether it be natural or some kind of higher power.

that was a completly unthought out post. because you don't think there was enough time, it must have been a supernatural miracle! man, i wish i had your reasoning skills.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

If you're tired of the thread, talk to PokerPacker. He's the one who started it, and we had a good ole discussion going on last night.

Well, to start with, original Darwinian evolution started off with gradualism -- the idea that evolutionary changes took place slowly over millions of years. (There was something else about Darwin's theory that was off base pretty much right out of the box, but I forgot what that was. I think it had something to do with genetics being changed by the environment, to use today's vocabulary). So, things we can't observe were attributed to taking millions of years, hence no observation.

But with the fossile record being fleshed out with more and more paleontological discoveries, they eventually came to the conclusion that there was just no way to explain the record with gradualism -- all these fully formed fossiles, no in-between fossiles. So that went out the window, replaced by "punctuated equalibrium" -- the hopeful monster theory. This one basically said that the change between forms happened so fast in the past that we missed it. Life forms existed in their forms for however long, and then suddenly they changed due to evolutionary forces or whatever.

Now that is a classic example of evolutionary theory changing when the evidence is stacked against it. And if you were paying attention, you will have noticed that with punctuated equalibrium, there is no evidence for evolution -- which is excellent evidence for evolution!

Now, just so you notice, I haven't mentioned church or god or any such thing -- my conversation has confined itself to science, but from an intelligent design viewpoint. This conversation could be extended, of course, and people can disagree with me, but as long as the discussion is about science, THAT is representative of what the evolution/ID debate should be like.

(edit) doggone typos!

I think this was the best of the the evolution threads: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101537&highlight=evolution

It has picture of the "missing links" and it has links to poorf that new species can form from old ones and won't be able to mate (but that doesn't mean animals of different species can't mate, in fact some can.)

DjTj explained here:

Originally posted by DjTj

There have been many many experiments done where the resulting organisms were unable to mate. Here's a huge collection of them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

An excerpt:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%

P1 × P1 - 95%

P2 × P2 - 80%

P1 × P2 - 77%

WH × P1 - 0%

WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.