NationStates Jolt Archive

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance

:rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance
Yes there is. It is all neatly explained in what we call the theory of evolution.

:headbang:

Science, for the most part, has not tried to explain how life began, either here or otherwise.

The oddds of a single cell happening happen over millions of years, which means you will get at least one combination that will work. It doesn't just magically all fall into place.

Hold on, no one is claiming that all of a sudden, there was a cell. No one is claiming that all of a sudden, there was an organelle. No one is claiming that, all of a sudden, there was a complex protein. No one is claiming that, all of a sudden, there was a less complex amino acid such as DNA or RNA. The idea is that, eventually, a bunch of molecules formed an organic chemical. This isn't unlikely at all. It happens all the time when hydrocarbons find themselves in the same "bucket of water".

EDIT: I forgot to add that this stuff takes time. A lot of time. More than that, actually. If you need a lesson in what kind of dimensions of time we're talking about, I'll put a post together to explain it.

And don't rule science as wrong just because you read wrong.

:headbang:

Science, for the most part, has not tried to explain how life began, either here or otherwise.

The oddds of a single cell happening happen over millions of years, which means you will get at least one combination that will work. It doesn't just magically all fall into place.
There has been a lot of material printed about this, in fact. It's just that nobody has managed to do it in a lab as yet.

There has been a lot of material printed about this, in fact. It's just that nobody has managed to do it in a lab as yet.Considering the average human being doesn't last a few hundred million years, that's not much of a surprise...

in fact there are many ways that life could have originated

so many in fact that under the conditions prevelant at the time it would have been resonably unlikly for it not to happen.

life is thought to have started as self replicating catalysing RNA molecules. now these molecules became enveloped in a lipid layer probably from clay. and from there it is a process of logical progression to the prokaryotes and archea.

The idea is that, eventually, a bunch of molecules formed an organic chemical. This isn't unlikely at all. It happens all the time when hydrocarbons find themselves in the same "bucket of water".


So hyrdro carbons on their own in buckets of water form cells? The force that brings them together in the complex way has not been shown.

Considering the average human being doesn't last a few hundred million years, that's not much of a surprise...

So your arguement is "we know it happens but it takes ages so we cant see it". So how do we know it happens if we have never seen it. Thats a non emperical theroy. Its non falisfiable

So hyrdro carbons on their own in buckets of water form cells? The force that brings them together in the complex way has not been shown.Did you bother reading my post? The answer is no.

life is thought to have started as self replicating catalysing RNA molecules. now these molecules became enveloped in a lipid layer probably from clay. and from there it is a process of logical progression to the prokaryotes and archea.

So how did the RNA molicule form? The point is that RNA is exceptionally complex and the force that arranges it has not been shown. Hence sciences problem

Did you bother reading my post? The answer is no.

The scientific community cannot yet prove how said organinc chemical became an organic lifeform. The jump to a cell is near impossible for science to make as yet.

So hyrdro carbons on their own in buckets of water form cells? The force that brings them together in the complex way has not been shown.
Hydro carbons will quite happily form organic molecules. In some instances (Laboratory experiments) said molecules have combined and grown more complex over time, but without fulfilling any of the criteria that define life. It's conceivable that they'd have to spend quite a while getting more complex before they can begin forming DNA and other subcomponents. Nobody has ever claimed that abiogensis took place overnight.

So your arguement is "we know it happens but it takes ages so we cant see it". So how do we know it happens if we have never seen it. Thats a non emperical theroy. Its non falisfiableThing is we don't know how it happens, but we can make a good guess, based on observations of what we have. For all I know we could be developed from cells that made it here on an meteorite that crashed in the oceans. It's just not that as likely that a cell survives the cold of space and heat of entering the atmosphere as it does to develop over a long period of time.

The oddds of a single cell happening happen over millions of years, which means you will get at least one combination that will work. It doesn't just magically all fall into place.

Yes, but you need the mechanism to try all those combinations, which so far has eludided scientists as to explain how it exists.

So your arguement is "we know it happens but it takes ages so we cant see it". So how do we know it happens if we have never seen it. Thats a non emperical theroy. Its non falisfiable
Direct observation is not a prerequisite

Thing is we don't know how it happens, but we can make a good guess, based on observations of what we have. For all I know we could be developed from cells that made it here on an meteorite that crashed in the oceans. It's just not that as likely that a cell survives the cold of space and heat of entering the atmosphere as it does to develop over a long period of time.

Thats just pushing back the problem. How did that cell develop etc

We can make a guess but scientists cannot claim it to be certian, like so many on this forum and in the scientific community claim they can.

Direct observation is not a prerequisite

Yes it is. Otherwise it is non falisfiable. Abiogensis is right up there with string theory. A good guess, fits with some ideas but its non falsifiable because we cant observabe it

The scientific community cannot yet prove how said organinc chemical became an organic lifeform. The jump to a cell is near impossible for science to make as yet.Atoms to molecules. Molecules to organic compounds. Organic compounds to amino acids. Amino acids to complexer proteins. Diverge: Complexer proteins to even complexer proteins on the way of becoming organelles and complexer proteins to even complexer proteins going on in a different direction. Eventually, we have organelles and very simple cells (nothing like single cell organisms you see today). These eventually form a symbiosis and manage to survive whatever it was that killed off most of the organisms during that big extinction.

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean you can take the easy way out.

So your arguement is "we know it happens but it takes ages so we cant see it". So how do we know it happens if we have never seen it. Thats a non emperical theroy. Its non falisfiable
It's possible. God creating the earth as it is now over the course of a week 6004 years ago isn't. If you want to talk about non emperical theories, that's a far better example.

Thats just pushing back the problem. How did that cell develop etc

We can make a guess but scientists cannot claim it to be certian, like so many on this forum and in the scientific community claim they can.They don't... They can be certain to as what didn't happen, or what wasn't as likely to happen.

Yes, but you need the mechanism to try all those combinations, which so far has eludided scientists as to explain how it exists.
Random selection.

They don't... They can be certain to as what didn't happen, or what wasn't as likely to happen.

Some do, which is why religious people get angry with scientists. Fact is they are no more certian of their ideas in many cases than the religious people are.

We can make a guess but scientists cannot claim it to be certian

I claim that science can't explain it, therefore god/magic did it!

Random selection.

For which you need a hand to pull the balls out of the bag. Scinece has yet to explain how the hand works. IE there may be a random element to it but science cannot explain how said element works.

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance

Erm.. I disagree with this on a few points:

1) Reputable scientists have never claimed that human science knows everything at this point in time. Thus, it is irrelavent that science can not yet explain how life came to be.

2) You state that "There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell." This is, pardon me for being harsh, ridiculous. Your argument, if applied in the 16th century, would mean that X-rays, atoms, the constituent parts of atoms, DNA, RNA, and viruses didn't exist BECAUSE SINCE THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN OBSERVED, THEY WERE NOT OBSERVABLE.

3) Finally, it is stated that "The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place." This is the beauty of the "Big Bang" Theory. A massive explosion (well, not explosion per se... expansion might be a better word) that put all of the matter and energy in the universe in motion would probably be considered a throw of the die. Another way of putting it is this: If life is needed to throw this die (as is implied by your statement) then the universe could never have existed. God (if hypothetically He did create the universe) is not alive, because, being God, He cannot die (or at least, he had not died before the creation of the universe). The big lump of matter that was the start of the big bang also could not have "thrown the die", according to your statements, because it too was not alive. Since the universe obviously does exist, your statement must be false.

Sorry this was so long.

Sincerely,

Number III

I claim that science can't explain it, therefore god/magic did it!

Notice what I said at the begining of the thread.


This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance

I claim that science can't explain it, therefore god/magic did it!
Ahhh I love this site
# ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (I)
(1) You weren't there to witness abiogenisis/Big Bang/etc.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Some do, which is why religious people get angry with scientists. Of course. But only idiots listen to fringe group hate preachers.
Fact is they are no more certian of their ideas in many cases than the religious people are.Wrong. Just because both abiogenesis and the book of Genesis aren't provable because we can't ask witnesses, abiogenesis is an educated guess being revised and reformed or even scrapped should new evidence and information come about. When is the last time the Bible got revised, reformed, or scrapped when new evidence came about? It didn't, because religion isn't science. Trying to make religion science will either lead to the death of religion, since religion isn't based on the scientific method or the death of science, since religion isn't based on the scientific method.

Notice what I said at the begining of the thread.

So you just started this thread to say "we don't quite know yet"? Umm, duh! But knowing you, you will take it and run with the whole "then it must have been something supernatural" schtick.

For which you need a hand to pull the balls out of the bag. Scinece has yet to explain how the hand works. IE there may be a random element to it but science cannot explain how said element works.
No, you just need a large chaotic, complex system, that would allow such development to take place. There is no need to invoke a clockmaker in order to rationalise the process.
If you're incapable of grasping this, in all honesty you don't have any business trying to argue abnout science.

Yes, but you need the mechanism to try all those combinations, which so far has eludided scientists as to explain how it exists.Random selection.Not really. Things that fit together tend to be attracted to eachother. Hydrocarbons form really easily because of the atomic structure of the elements. It has nothing to do with random.

Erm.. I disagree with this on a few points:

1) Reputable scientists have never claimed that human science knows everything at this point in time. Thus, it is irrelavent that science can not yet explain how life came to be.


Some have been shown to. Such as the writers in Time magaizie.


2) You state that "There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell." This is, pardon me for being harsh, ridiculous. Your argument, if applied in the 16th century, would mean that X-rays, atoms, the constituent parts of atoms, DNA, RNA, and viruses didn't exist BECAUSE SINCE THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN OBSERVED, THEY WERE NOT OBSERVABLE.

I didnt say that it doesnt exist. I said exactly what you quoted. "There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell". Since we cannot observe this force, there is no eveidence at the momnent to say that it exists. I didnt say that no such force exists, just that we dont have any evidence for it thus at present we cannot be certian as to whether or not it exists.


3) Finally, it is stated that "The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place." This is the beauty of the "Big Bang" Theory. A massive explosion (well, not explosion per se... expansion might be a better word) that put all of the matter and energy in the universe in motion would probably be considered a throw of the die. Another way of putting it is this: If life is needed to throw this die (as is implied by your statement) then the universe could never have existed. God (if hypothetically He did create the universe) is not alive, because, being God, He cannot die (or at least, he had not died before the creation of the universe). The big lump of matter that was the start of the big bang also could not have "thrown the die", according to your statements, because it too was not alive. Since the universe obviously does exist, your statement must be false.


You miss the point. Science claims that matters random arrangement everntualy leads to the creation of life. However in order to prove this you have to show how the matter is being randomly arranged. The universe itsef exists for the matter to be randomly arranged in, but science has not yet shown how the microscopic random arangement of matter happened to create life. I did not say that life is needed to throw the die. I am saying that no one has yet explained how the die that is the probabilty of lifes creation was thrown. You have misinterpeted what I am saying

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance

You're talking about abiogenesis... Life from non-living matter...

However, no one has ever proposed that some singular event occured whereby materials began to spontaneuously interact to form a single cell, or even DNA...

We do know, hoever, it is possible to pass eletrical charges through "soups" of primordial material, and "Create" pretty complex protien chains; which could then possibly begin acting cooperatively to form some of the most basic forms of life...

No, you just need a large chaotic, complex system, that would allow such development to take place. There is no need to invoke a clockmaker in order to rationalise the process.
If you're incapable of grasping this, in all honesty you don't have any business trying to argue abnout science.

The point is that science has not explained how the large chaotic system works properly yet. Scinece has explaine you need one, but doesnt yet know how it works.

Not really. Things that fit together tend to be attracted to each other. Hydrocarbons form really easily because of the atomic structure of the elements. It has nothing to do with random.
True, but I think it in creationist boy's eyes, anything short of the hand of God assembling the molecules according to a cunning plan is random. Next to thsat it's an entirely random process.

We do know, hoever, it is possible to pass eletrical charges through "soups" of primordial material, and "Create" pretty complex protien chains; which could then possibly begin acting cooperatively to form some of the most basic forms of life...

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be cosidered as science.

:rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Fass, are you sure he can read?

The point is that science has not explained how the large chaotic system works properly yet. Scinece has explaine you need one, but doesnt yet know how it works.
Ok we will go with your supposition of this

So what?

The scientific process is a LEARNING process

I guess I dont see the point ... if you find issue with the curent theory of abiogenisis write up a theory modification and get it peer reviewed

There ya go

If your suposition is correct this is a perfect example of how powerfull the scientific process is ... it constantly works twards a better explination

The point is that science has not explained how the large chaotic system works properly yet. Scinece has explain you need one, but doesnt yet know how it works.
The large chaotic system no longer exists. If it did, there wouldn't be anything else on Earth because most life can't exist under those circumstances.

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be cosidered as science.
Anything that exists within the bounds of the universe is falsafiable either through direct or indirect observation or simulation

Only a dunce thinks direct observation is a necesity

You miss the point. Science claims that matters random arrangement everntualy leads to the creation of life. However in order to prove this you have to show how the matter is being randomly arranged. The universe itsef exists for the matter to be randomly arranged in, but science has not yet shown how the microscopic random arangement of matter happened to create life. I did not say that life is needed to throw the die. I am saying that no one has yet explained how the die that is the probabilty of lifes creation was thrown. You have misinterpeted what I am saying
Not random. The reason there is a branch of chemistry called organic chemistry is because hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen love to form bonds. So much in fact, that there's more hydrocarbon compounds in existence than any other types of compounds put together.

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be cosidered as science.
Like creationism and Intelligent Design, you mean?

Some do, which is why religious people get angry with scientists. Fact is they are no more certian of their ideas in many cases than the religious people are.

Actually, I've not seen a scientist which does... Most religious people get angry, because they refuse to put any thought into studies behind the theories... Instead, appealing to their religious rhetoric as the alternative answer [with no study]... And then make all of us religious folk look idiotic by association to others eyes...

I'm Christian, and neither evolution (in all) nor abiogenesis poses a threat to my beliefs.

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be cosidered as science.What do you mean "non-falsifyiable"? If we were to find evidence of something else that proves that abiogenesis didn't occur, it would be falsified. What's your point?

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be considered as science.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

--from dictionary.com

hmmm, maybe your definition of science needs to be updated. Science is about learning and discovery, and sometimes the process is just an important as the discoveries.

If we use your definition of science (we can't prove it/observe it, then it isn't science) for example, most of quantum theory could be thrown out the window, which is essentially the basis for all of physics and chemistry. its the study to gain knowledge, not just the results.

Edit- and yes, i am arguing for the abiogenesis theory- i think i may have been converted.........

message to creationists/intellegent design

i'm not attacking your religion here for all I care you could belive the sun was really a giant biscuit as long as you arn't trying to teach anybody that in school

basicly

evolution works

it works better then anythign anyone else has come up with

therefor for the moment it is true

if a theory comes along that fits the evidence better then that will be true and evolution will be as outdated as creationism and intellegent design.

I have a question if god does exist why is he/she/it/them such a prick?

I mean look at all the shit happerning in the world

if they/he/it/she is all knowing/all powerfull then they are such a complete bastard for letting all this happerning.

evolution worksThis thread is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Read the OP. It's stated pretty clearly there.

The following post demonstrates good and bad information to post in debates such as this...

The good...

message to creationists/intellegent design

i'm not attacking your religion here for all I care you could belive the sun was really a giant biscuit as long as you arn't trying to teach anybody that in school

basicly

evolution works

it works better then anythign anyone else has come up with

therefor for the moment it is true

if a theory comes along that fits the evidence better then that will be true and evolution will be as outdated as creationism and intellegent design.


The bad...


I have a question if god does exist why is he/she/it/them such a prick?

I mean look at all the shit happerning in the world

if they/he/it/she is all knowing/all powerfull then they are such a complete bastard for letting all this happerning.

Some have been shown to. Such as the writers in Time magaizie.



I didnt say that it doesnt exist. I said exactly what you quoted. "There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell". Since we cannot observe this force, there is no eveidence at the momnent to say that it exists. I didnt say that no such force exists, just that we dont have any evidence for it thus at present we cannot be certian as to whether or not it exists.



You miss the point. Science claims that matters random arrangement everntualy leads to the creation of life. However in order to prove this you have to show how the matter is being randomly arranged. The universe itsef exists for the matter to be randomly arranged in, but science has not yet shown how the microscopic random arangement of matter happened to create life. I did not say that life is needed to throw the die. I am saying that no one has yet explained how the die that is the probabilty of lifes creation was thrown. You have misinterpeted what I am saying

Ah, I see you have read my post. Very good.

1) So according to you "the writers in Time magazine" are reputable scientists?

2) If "there is no observable natural force" then THERE IS NO FORCE THAT CAN BE OBSERVED. If there is no force, then that force is not, then that force does not exist. All you have done is agreed with my statement.

3) In fact, you originally did say that no such force exists (see above), not only that we do not have evidence for it. As an aside, we do have evidence for it, or life wouldn't exist, which would not be conducive to this conversation at all.

4) You say that "Science claims that matters random arrangement everntualy leads to the creation of life. However in order to prove this you have to show how the matter is being randomly arranged. The universe itsef exists for the matter to be randomly arranged in, but science has not yet shown how the microscopic random arangement of matter happened to create life." Do you have a reputable source for this?

5) You also claim that "I did not say that life is needed to throw the die." If this statement is true, then your argument that something needed to cause the matter to start to live could simply refer to the force of gravity or electrostatics, which is contrary to the point that argument originally had. In fact, we do have some idea of how your vaunted die was thrown: the Big Bang. If that does not constitute a force, little does.

As a side note, if you really were not trying to prove that it must be God/magic/some sci-fi entity that created life, you would not spend so much time trying to refute my arguments.

Sincerely,

Number III

Ah, I thought we'd got past the point where biological molecules were considered magical. Some time in the late 19th century, I think, when urea was first synthesised.

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES THAT MEANS THEY REQUIRE LIFE FOR THEM TO REACT/WORK/WHATEVER.

Ahem. Look, there's a fairly decent theory. Life didn't start with DNA, as DNA is not able to replicate itself from scratch (can't start with one nucleotide and go from there). RNA could have been the original genetic material, like a multigenic messenger RNA (molecule involved in transcription/translation of genes, carrys a copy of the gene sequence) or just lots of separate mRNA molecules for each gene.

RNA also exists in two other main forms; transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA. tRNA is a short sequence and only needs one part of the whole sequence to have a set code i.e. the anitcodon stretch, as the rest can be whatever sequence as long as it partially H-bonds with itself to form the recogniseable clover shape. Although an enzyme controlled process in the cell, tRNA can reversibly bond to an amino acid at one point, thus allowing it to take part in polypeptide formation.

Also needed is the rRNA (the ribosome) as a site for the tRNA to match with the mRNA and allow the amino acids attached to tRNAs to align and condense - again, a catalysed reaction, but by the virtue that it is catalysed it means the reaction can possibly occur without enzymes, albeit at a greatly reduced rate. Now, if the sequence on the mRNA happened to lead to the alignment of certain tRNAs with certain amino acids, then BLAMMO! a protein may form. Possibly, by chance, a protein which catalyses the whole process. Or one whch replicates the RNA. The RNA could therefore be replicated or, if the protein simply catalysed the condensation of AAs, it could mean random stretches of mRNA get expressed much faster, in groups even, leading to more proteins etc...

In summary; all that is needed is 3 certain sequences of RNA, two of which can vary greatly (although tRNA has more set confines, it can still vary). I'd like to point out that after the third paragraph, this is just my guesswork based upon applied logic and knowledge.

Yes there is. It is all neatly explained in what we call the theory of evolution.

the theory of evolution does nothing, whatsoever, to even begin to explain where life actually came from in the first place. the only notural process that creates life is called procreation, and that requires life to begin with, so it obviously doesn't work...science cannot even come close, at this point in time at least, to explaining where life originally came from.

It's possible. God creating the earth as it is now over the course of a week 6004 years ago isn't. If you want to talk about non emperical theories, that's a far better example.
none of us ever said God created the earth, or that he created it the way it is, or that it took a week, or that he did it 6004 years ago. i do believe God created the earth, but not the way it is now, nowhere close, and not in the course of a week, and not 6004 years ago.

you know its relativly easy to produce deoxyribonuecleic acid. from memory i couldnt produce it. but we did in a biology lesson once.

The simplicity shows that it is possible to create some basis of life, if the right chemicals mix.

Yes, but the idea that this leads to life is non-falsifiable and thus shouldn't be cosidered as science.

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of "falsifiable". If it is proposed to have happened in this universe, by a certain mechanism, that mechanism can be falsified by finding evidence against it. Thus, abiogenesis is just as falsifiable as evolution, or the laws of thermodynamics. If we observe something that is inconsistent with a hypothesis or theory, it is falsified and we either scrap it or modify it.

That is how science works, my dear.

Meanwhile, you keep claiming that we know of no "force" that leads to complexity in molecules. This is patently false. There are all sorts of reactions that lead to more complexity. If you place a bunch of nucleic acids in a solution, some of them will bind into a nucleic acid chain. If that chain can then self-replicate (as some RNA-chains can), it can begin to copy itself. These are all chemical processes that have been observed - simply not all at once.

hmmm, maybe your definition of science needs to be updated.

Careful with suggesting that - you never know what people might go to. A school board in Kansas just decided they could arbitrarily define science in such a way as to allow Intelligent Design into a science classroom. You would think that having to first redefine science would be a clue that it was a bad idea....

message to creationists/intellegent design

i'm not attacking your religion here for all I care you could belive the sun was really a giant biscuit as long as you arn't trying to teach anybody that in school

basicly

evolution works

it works better then anythign anyone else has come up with

therefor for the moment it is true

if a theory comes along that fits the evidence better then that will be true and evolution will be as outdated as creationism and intellegent design.

I have a question if god does exist why is he/she/it/them such a prick?

I mean look at all the shit happerning in the world

if they/he/it/she is all knowing/all powerfull then they are such a complete bastard for letting all this happerning.
people make shit happen...God will not take away people's free will...so He only keeps shit from happening when the people involved want the shit not to happen. so if there's a terrorist who wants shit to happen, then the shit is gonna happen. people who ask God to keep them safe from said shit will come out better on the whole than people who are like "God you're an asshole for letting this happen"

you know its relativly easy to produce deoxyribonuecleic acid. from memory i couldnt produce it. but we did in a biology lesson once.

The simplicity shows that it is possible to create some basis of life, if the right chemicals mix.

It's not that easy. All the individual building blocks of life are not that hard to produce, but you either need a process that creates all (nucleic acids, fatty acids, amino acids), or come up with a model that explains how the individual production steps got integrated. So far, no one has been able to the first, and no model has had major support.

To Dempublicents1: Hear hear.

I also would like to point out that Avalon II (that means you!) has so far failed to explain why in heaven's name he/she made this thread if all he/she wanted to say was that science didn't know everything yet. On the other hand, they do seem to have some sort of other agenda, or they would accept the explanations that have been posted in the last 4 pages...

Sincerely,

Number III

There isn't much use arguing biochemistry against "God did it prove me wrong u can't lol k."

It's not that easy. All the individual building blocks of life are not that hard to produce, but you either need a process that creates all (nucleic acids, fatty acids, amino acids), or come up with a model that explains how the individual production steps got integrated. So far, no one has been able to the first, and no model has had major support.
This is true. DNA can't even condense from nucleotides without the formation of an initial RNA primer, which needs to be synthesised by RNA primase, which needs to have been translated from the DNA sequence in the first place. There's also the problem that you need some complex quaternary proteins (DNA polymerases) to replicate the DNA itself - then there's the problems created by Okazaki fragments, chance mutations (more regular than you'd think)....

none of us ever said God created the earth, or that he created it the way it is, or that it took a week, or that he did it 6004 years ago. i do believe God created the earth, but not the way it is now, nowhere close, and not in the course of a week, and not 6004 years ago.Sad thing is, I've met people that did...

This is true. DNA can't even condense from nucleotides without the formation of an initial RNA primer, which needs to be synthesised by RNA primase, which needs to have been translated from the DNA sequence in the first place. There's also the problem that you need some complex quaternary proteins (DNA polymerases) to replicate the DNA itself - then there's the problems created by Okazaki fragments, chance mutations (more regular than you'd think)....

Not *entirely* true. Short DNA sequences can be formed simply by having the nucleic acids together in solution - you just don't get a specific sequence. A specific sequence can be formed by using nucleic acids with "protected" ends and adding them in sequence, unprotecting the ends when you want them to react. Primers do not necessarily have to be RNA - primers used in PCR, for example, are generally DNA primers (more stable).

You are assuming that the way the DNA is replicated inside the cell is the *only* way it can happen,which isn't actually true, and that DNA must be double-stranded, which also isn't true. However, if you want the kind of accuracy involved in replication of DNA in current life, you do need these processes.

Not *entirely* true. Short DNA sequences can be formed simply by having the nucleic acids together in solution - you just don't get a specific sequence. A specific sequence can be formed by using nucleic acids with "protected" ends and adding them in sequence, unprotecting the ends when you want them to react. Primers do not necessarily have to be RNA - primers used in PCR, for example, are generally DNA primers (more stable).

You are assuming that the way the DNA is replicated inside the cell is the *only* way it can happen,which isn't actually true, and that DNA must be double-stranded, which also isn't true. However, if you want the kind of accuracy involved in replication of DNA in current life, you do need these processes.
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I was talking about the replication process. My mistake. However, these shorter lengths of DNA that condense randomly - could they, in any way, form the code for a working protein? I thought that problem was part of the reason RNA is the prima candidate for the original genetic material.

Not *entirely* true. Short DNA sequences can be formed simply by having the nucleic acids together in solution - you just don't get a specific sequence. A specific sequence can be formed by using nucleic acids with "protected" ends and adding them in sequence, unprotecting the ends when you want them to react. Primers do not necessarily have to be RNA - primers used in PCR, for example, are generally DNA primers (more stable).

You are assuming that the way the DNA is replicated inside the cell is the *only* way it can happen,which isn't actually true, and that DNA must be double-stranded, which also isn't true. However, if you want the kind of accuracy involved in replication of DNA in current life, you do need these processes.

It's not logical to assume that genetic information started with DNA. RNA is the more logical option: it's single-stranded, autocatalytic and has enzymatic properties (ribozymes).

none of us ever said God created the earth, or that he created it the way it is, or that it took a week, or that he did it 6004 years ago. i do believe God created the earth, but not the way it is now, nowhere close, and not in the course of a week, and not 6004 years ago.
Unfortunately, that seems to the standpoint Avalon is arguing from. The fact that nobody's ever managed to make cells with specialised structures assemble themselves from organic molecules under laboratory conditions proves that science is wrong and God did it.
I shouldn't have resorted to a generalisation, but this sort of bullshit really pisses me off.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. I was talking about the replication process. My mistake. However, these shorter lengths of DNA that condense randomly - could they, in any way, form the code for a working protein? I thought that problem was part of the reason RNA is the prima candidate for the original genetic material.

Either could form the code of a working protein, but we have observed no process in which DNA is directly translated into a protein. Also, we have observed no self-replicating DNA molecules (that I know of), but have observed self-replicating RNA. Also, RNA is less stable, so you would expect more forming and reforming to occur in a shorter period of time (so more possibilities). I would say these were probably more of the reasons for RNA being the prime candidate here.

It's not logical to assume that genetic information started with DNA.

Who said anything about any such assumption? I was simply pointing out what seemed to be in error (but was apparently more of a communication glitch)

RNA is the more logical option: it's single-stranded,

Not always. There is double-stranded RNA. There is single-stranded DNA. So this probably doesn't come into play here.

autocatalytic and has enzymatic properties (ribozymes).

And therein lie the important factors.

@dempublicents1: There is a reason the field of OoL isn't part of ET. And that reason is that many of the proposed abiogenesis models are untestable. In theory they are, of course, but in practice we can't. So in practice these models are unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientifically sound. Check out the papers by Wachtershauser, who makes this very clear.

@dempublicents1: There is a reason the field of OoL isn't part of ET. And that reason is that many of the proposed abiogenesis models are untestable. In theory they are, of course, but in practice we can't. So in practice these models are unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientifically sound. Check out the papers by Wachtershauser, who makes this very clear.

Again, you seem to be arguing with something I never said. I never said that abiogenesis was even a theory (it isn't), much less correct. At the moment, it is a hypothesis - it hasn't been tested enough to be a theory. Like everything in science, it could be wrong.

Now, it is possible to test it, even if we do not currently have the capabilities to do so, so it is a scientifically sound hypothesis, as there is currently no evidence to refute it. If we begin to test it, it can move to the level of theory, and so on....

There are many things that are "in practice", untestable right now. However, they are testable and falsifiable. Thus, they can be scientifically proposed. They simply cannot be labeled as theory until such time as they stand up to tests.

Careful with suggesting that - you never know what people might go to. A school board in Kansas just decided they could arbitrarily define science in such a way as to allow Intelligent Design into a science classroom. You would think that having to first redefine science would be a clue that it was a bad idea....


No, don't want to redefine science, i might end up being out of a job at some point. i was suggesting to the OP that his idea of what science is (i.e. something that can possibly be proven false is not science, since we cannot observe it it cannot be true idea, etc.) needed to be updated and gave him the "true" definanition of science (or at least Webster's def.)

If we were to find evidence of something else that proves that abiogenesis didn't occur, it would be falsified.

i'd be pretty amazed for us to discover such evidence - i think we'd then immediately have to disappear in a puff of logic. abiogenesis basically just means 'life from non-life'. and since we know that there was a time before there was life and we know that there is life now, it seems to me that it would be impossible for abiogenesis in some form to not have occured.

where we'll get falsifiability is with particular mechanisms and chemical pathways of how abiogenesis came about. and, in fact, we've already falsified a number of hypotheses.

i'd be pretty amazed for us to discover such evidence - i think we'd then immediately have to disappear in a puff of logic. abiogenesis basically just means 'life from non-life'. and since we know that there was a time before there was life and we know that there is life now, it seems to me that it would be impossible for abiogenesis in some form to not have occured.

where we'll get falsifiability is with particular mechanisms and chemical pathways of how abiogenesis came about. and, in fact, we've already falsified a number of hypotheses.

We cannot get falsifiability. Science: you have an idea, you come up with a hypothesis, you do the experiment. If the experiment fails, your theory is discarded. Now, Origin of Life. You do an experiment and come up with something. First of all that needs to be something that can be labelled 'life' without a doubt. But it's hard to come up with such a definition, just look at the debate whether or not a virus can be said to be alife. Then the next question is: did life as we know it originate in the way we have proposed? It might look like an ancestral form, but is it indeed? Or have we just come up with another way to create 'life'? The only way to be sure is to let it evolve, and see if it then still resembles life as we know it. Now, with complete certainty, I can tell you that no study will ever show how that protolife evolved into a prokaryote, because the time frame is just too long. But even without the problem of the time involved: our protolife will not follow the same evolutionary route. Why? Because evolution is random, not predesigned.

We cannot get falsifiability. Science: you have an idea, you come up with a hypothesis, you do the experiment. If the experiment fails, your theory is discarded. Now, Origin of Life. You do an experiment and come up with something.... Then the next question is: did life as we know it originate in the way we have proposed? It might look like an ancestral form, but is it indeed? Or have we just come up with another way to create 'life'?

the thing you are describing isn't a problem with falsifiability. it is the general problem of all scientific knowledge. if you hadn't come up with life (or proto-life if that's what you were going for) following the conditions and mechanisms proposed by a certain hypothesis, then that hypothesis would have been falsified. but no experiment can ever prove the truth of any scientific theory - it's just sort of our epistemic lot in life.

all theories are underdetermined; there is always another possible explanation that equally fits the data. the best we can hope for with scientific theories is repeated successes against empirical testing that lends a sort of epistemic confirmation to that theory, to the point where it would be perverse to withold belief in the truth of that theory. but we still can't know that some theory actually does correspond to how the universe actually works or worked.

We cannot get falsifiability. Science: you have an idea, you come up with a hypothesis, you do the experiment. If the experiment fails, your theory is discarded. Now, Origin of Life. You do an experiment and come up with something. First of all that needs to be something that can be labelled 'life' without a doubt. But it's hard to come up with such a definition, just look at the debate whether or not a virus can be said to be alife. Then the next question is: did life as we know it originate in the way we have proposed? It might look like an ancestral form, but is it indeed? Or have we just come up with another way to create 'life'? The only way to be sure is to let it evolve, and see if it then still resembles life as we know it. Now, with complete certainty, I can tell you that no study will ever show how that protolife evolved into a prokaryote, because the time frame is just too long. But even without the problem of the time involved: our protolife will not follow the same evolutionary route. Why? Because evolution is random, not predesigned.

Indeed. Until we can successfully create a flux capacitor and a way to provide 1.21 jigawatts of electricty (wtf is a jigawatt anyway? In all my years of studying, I've never heard of the 'jiga') to it, no person or persons will ever be able to prove definitively one way or the other.

And then of course, you get the possibilities of side effects on the space-time continuum and the possibility that the De Lorean's molecular structure somehow altered the primordial soup's structure in such a way as to be the catalyst in the evolutionary process...of course, if such a change did happen, couldnt that be the original catalyst we're looking for?

I'm going to go lay down now, my heard hurts...

C'mon, prove me wrong...anyone, from either side, prove me wrong.

the theory of evolution does nothing, whatsoever, to even begin to explain where life actually came from in the first place. the only notural process that creates life is called procreation, and that requires life to begin with, so it obviously doesn't work...science cannot even come close, at this point in time at least, to explaining where life originally came from.
You quoted me out of context.

The original poster said that we don't know any way to have complex things like DNA to appear. I said "sure we do!" and proceded to point him where he could find such information.

As to where the first part of life originated from... we're working on that. So far, I've seen nothing to point towards any kind of mumbo-jumbo like an "Intelligent designer".

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

Science admits that it has not yet figured out absolutely everything.

Astounding but true!

Things not yet satisfactorilly explained include:

How life started.
How the universe came into being.
Carrot Top's career.

In response to the request for the immediate explanation of "EVerything", the scientific community only responded: "How about you get off your asses, get a sound education, and HELP then. Becuase there is a shitload of discovering left to do!"

Responded the people asking the questions: "Hell no - that's your job! Get me all the answers and convince me Beaker Boy!"

This reporter expects no significant move from these two positions within his lifetime....

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***
<snip>


:eek: Wha-What? really?

seriously, that was too funny.......

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

Science admits that it has not yet figured out absolutely everything.

Astounding but true!

Things not yet satisfactorilly explained include:

How life started.
How the universe came into being.
Carrot Top's career.

In response to the request for the immediate explanation of "EVerything", the scientific community only responded: "How about you get off your asses, get a sound education, and HELP then. Becuase there is a shitload of discovering left to do!"

Responded the people asking the questions: "Hell no - that's your job! Get me all the answers and convince me Beaker Boy!"

This reporter expects no significant move from these two positions within his lifetime....

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

LOL...

I'll line this up next to

"Common Sense is anything but Common..."

The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place.

I like that way of putting it. Good arguement.

I like that way of putting it. Good arguement.

Except, it fails... Probability only exists in the absense of all available information.... PRobability is only applicable to the prediction of future events, when not all variables can be accounted for... There is no such thing as probability for something which "already" occured...

Science is not about defining the probability of an occurance, but does use probability in attempts to refine models of the processes which have caused the occurances, so as to predict the future events under the circumstances...

The "probability" for life to be in this universe is 1:1... from the simple fact that life already exists and has happened... It's science's job to figure out, and model, the processes by which such happened...

Neither the evolutionary theories, nor the hypothetical processes governing abiogenesis, have any effect what-so-ever on my religious beliefs as a Christian.... Regardless of the acuracy of the hypothesis and theories, my faith remains the same... Simply because I am not using one to answer questions from the other... They do not ask the same questions... Nor do they provide answers for the other...

Except, it fails... Probability only exists in the absense of all available information.... PRobability is only applicable to the prediction of future events, when not all variables can be accounted for... There is no such thing as probability for something which "already" occured...

Science is not about defining the probability of an occurance, but does use probability in attempts to refine models of the processes which have caused the occurances, so as to predict the future events under the circumstances...

The "probability" for life to be in this universe is 1:1... from the simple fact that life already exists and has happened... It's science's job to figure out, and model, the processes by which such happened...

Neither the evolutionary theories, nor the hypothetical processes governing abiogenesis, have any effect what-so-ever on my religious beliefs as a Christian.... Regardless of the acuracy of the hypothesis and theories, my faith remains the same... Simply because I am not using one to answer questions from the other... They do not ask the same questions... Nor do they provide answers for the other...
Right. Faith by its very nature, cannot have any connection to the job of puzzling what the universe is and how it works. Claiming otherwise, as the cretins who believe in creationism and id do, is demeaning to both religion and science.

Right. Faith by its very nature, cannot have any connection to the job of puzzling what the universe is and how it works. Claiming otherwise, as the cretins who believe in creationism and id do, is demeaning to both religion and science.

thank you and amen.

There has been a lot of material printed about this, in fact. It's just that nobody has managed to do it in a lab as yet.

It was done in 1953. Click Here (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

And has been repeated several times over.

Except, it fails... Probability only exists in the absense of all available information.... PRobability is only applicable to the prediction of future events, when not all variables can be accounted for... There is no such thing as probability for something which "already" occured...

Science is not about defining the probability of an occurance, but does use probability in attempts to refine models of the processes which have caused the occurances, so as to predict the future events under the circumstances...

The "probability" for life to be in this universe is 1:1... from the simple fact that life already exists and has happened... It's science's job to figure out, and model, the processes by which such happened...

Neither the evolutionary theories, nor the hypothetical processes governing abiogenesis, have any effect what-so-ever on my religious beliefs as a Christian.... Regardless of the acuracy of the hypothesis and theories, my faith remains the same... Simply because I am not using one to answer questions from the other... They do not ask the same questions... Nor do they provide answers for the other...

Forgive me if this just seems nitpicky, but the probability for life existing is not 1:1. It is 1/1, or 1:0. 1:1 is a 50-50 chance, and is equal to 1/2. Sorry again.

Sincerely,

Number III

Except, it fails... Probability only exists in the absense of all available information.... PRobability is only applicable to the prediction of future events, when not all variables can be accounted for... There is no such thing as probability for something which "already" occured...

Science is not about defining the probability of an occurance, but does use probability in attempts to refine models of the processes which have caused the occurances, so as to predict the future events under the circumstances...

The "probability" for life to be in this universe is 1:1... from the simple fact that life already exists and has happened... It's science's job to figure out, and model, the processes by which such happened...

Neither the evolutionary theories, nor the hypothetical processes governing abiogenesis, have any effect what-so-ever on my religious beliefs as a Christian.... Regardless of the acuracy of the hypothesis and theories, my faith remains the same... Simply because I am not using one to answer questions from the other... They do not ask the same questions... Nor do they provide answers for the other...

You miss the point. I am not saying "life cannot happen naturally because its to improbable". What I am saying is that sciene does not yet have the method to explain to us how life came into being. We dont as yet have an observable natural force which can be seen to arange matter in the complex way that is neesecsary for life to form. In order to know that it is 1/6 on a dice, we need to know how to throw the dice.

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

Science admits that it has not yet figured out absolutely everything.

Astounding but true!

Things not yet satisfactorilly explained include:

How life started.
How the universe came into being.
Carrot Top's career.

In response to the request for the immediate explanation of "EVerything", the scientific community only responded: "How about you get off your asses, get a sound education, and HELP then. Becuase there is a shitload of discovering left to do!"

Responded the people asking the questions: "Hell no - that's your job! Get me all the answers and convince me Beaker Boy!"

This reporter expects no significant move from these two positions within his lifetime....

***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!*** ***Newsflash!!!***

Well then perhaps the scientific community could get off itself. It does not know everything and should stop acting like it does.

Well then perhaps the scientific community could get off itself. It does not know everything and should stop acting like it does.

No one in the scientific community acts like we know everything. If we did, we wouldn't still be researching anything, now would we? We'd have all the answers!

There are people outside the scientific community that have convinced themselves that science knows everything - but who cares? There are people who are wrong about everything.

Well then perhaps the scientific community could get off itself. It does not know everything and should stop acting like it does.

Last time I checked the Scientific community wasn't acting like it knew everything. Perhaps you should get off yourself and stop trying to make it seem like science is blowing everything out of proportion.

No one in the scientific community acts like we know everything. If we did, we wouldn't still be researching anything, now would we? We'd have all the answers!

There are people outside the scientific community that have convinced themselves that science knows everything - but who cares? There are people who are wrong about everything.

Much of the scientifc community seems to think it knows enough to prove the Bible wrong. Does the phrase "The God of Genesis was crushed underfoot long ago" mean anything to you. Scientists acting like they know everything. Abiogeneis is an unfalsifiable theroy, comparable with string theory.

Much of the scientifc community seems to think it knows enough to prove the Bible wrong. Does the phrase "The God of Genesis was crushed underfoot long ago" mean anything to you. Scientists acting like they know everything. Abiogeneis is an unfalsifiable theroy, comparable with string theory.

Ironically, many scientists agree that many of the stories in the bible did indeed occur.

Most scientists, however, will not state one way or the other proof of God's existence except as seperate from their scientific theories. God cannot be scientifically proven and therefore has no place in scientific theories. Evolution, however, can and has been proven time and again and therefore is a scientific theory.

Turning to abiogenesis: abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is in the process of being proven / disproven. Should it be proven, it will become theory. Should it be disproven, the scientists working on it will move to another hypothesis concerning the creation of life. Note that as there is no way to prove that God does not exist, his/her/it's existence is not recognized as being a scientific hypothesis even.

Using your very own arguments that God must exist because no one can prove otherwise is the exact same as arguing that abiogenesis happened because at this point in time no one can prove otherwise. Arguing that we dont have a solidly proven theory about the origins of life and therefore God's handiwork was involved is returning to the Dark Ages when anything unexplained was considered the work of God if good and the Devil if bad.

Much of the scientifc community seems to think it knows enough to prove the Bible wrong.

You need to learn to separate a few mouthy individuals from the scientific community as a whole. No serious scientist would claim that the Bible has been proven wrong. Now, there is no empirical evidence to back up the claims of the Bible, so assuming a literal interpretation of, say, parts of Genesis would be incorrect in science.

Does the phrase "The God of Genesis was crushed underfoot long ago" mean anything to you.

I've heard it said. Of course, I've never heard a scientist say it. I'd also point out that most scientists are theists - and many of us are Christian.

Scientists acting like they know everything.

Again, if scientists were "acting like they know everything", they wouldn't be scientists anymore, because there would be nothing to study!

Abiogeneis is an unfalsifiable theroy, comparable with string theory.

(a) Abiogenesis is not a theory at all, but a hypothesis. It has not yet been tested enough to be a theory.

(b) The hypothesis of abiogenesis is quite falsifiable. A process has been posited, and it can be tested. Test results that contradict the hypothesis would falsify it.

Yes it is. Otherwise it is non falisfiable. Abiogensis is right up there with string theory. A good guess, fits with some ideas but its non falsifiable because we cant observabe it

I suggest you read through a dictionary first; translating your jumbled sentences is a headache (and I'm not just talking about "observabe"). On the hand though, direct observation is NOT a prerequisite. We can't see air, but we know it exists. If you honestly think that if you can't see something, you can't use rational determination and deduction to discover the force causing matter to be moved and allowing creatures to fly.

You really ought to get your head out of your arse. You're assaulting scientists, who dedicate their intellectual resources towards scientific inquiry? And what does your side have to offer? Religious superstitions, taboos, primitive rituals, a contradicting collection of oral myths, and a magical creation story that contradicts the nature of a god? Sheesh.

We dont as yet have an observable natural force which can be seen to arange matter in the complex way that is neesecsary for life to form.That would be the electromagnetic force. It should not be confused with excessive use of force, the armed forces, or the dark side of The Force.

What I am saying is that sciene does not yet have the method to explain to us how life came into being.Yes it does. It's called observing similar phenomena and coming up with a logical explanation for that happening.

A cell is a meta-stable chemical unit as is the DNA molecule - There is nothing magical about them, they're just quite complex.

While it's true that science doesn't know how the first cell did form, or first life for that matter: There are only hypotheses how it could have formed, one has to remember that there is absolutely no evidence against its natural formation.

Given that life had at least a billion years to form (life formed on Earth) or even longer (life travelled to Earth) it's a field of science that is rather difficult to study.

(b) The hypothesis of abiogenesis is quite falsifiable. A process has been posited, and it can be tested. Test results that contradict the hypothesis would falsify it.

Yes, but in order to observably test it we would need to (according to some scientists) wait around for 4 billion years or so.

Yes it does. It's called observing similar phenomena and coming up with a logical explanation for that happening.

No, it doesnt. Science has yet to explain how DNA came into being with any degree of certianity as you have described. There are various hypothesis but none of these are emerically testable.

Yes, but in order to observably test it we would need to (according to some scientists) wait around for 4 billion years or so.That's only the case if you have no idea what you're trying to do, like the universe. When you have some idea, you can eliminate the search space considerably.

That's only the case if you have no idea what you're trying to do, like the universe. When you have some idea, you can eliminate the search space considerably.

Rediculous. The universe had no idea of what it was trying to do either, so to experiment to prove it could do what you claim it has done you have to create a situation which has "no idea" also.

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance


The 'dice' is a metaphor you twunt.....jesus (sic)

Rediculous. The universe had no idea of what it was trying to do eitherThat's what I said.
The universe had no idea, so it took 4 billion years.
We do have some idea, so it will probably take us much less. We can estimate the chance to get to the proper situation, once we found out which situations lead to life.

Some scientists said to God. " We dont need you. We can now do everything you can. We can create life from the dust of the earth."

So God said, "OK, show me."

So the scientists filled their petries dish with hydrocarbons, and RNA and the other basic stuff of life.

"Hold it!", said God. "Make your own dust!"

The theories of the process of evolution, and of life's development, are many and varied. But this does not explain the Original Origin of Life. Is the question really meaningfull anyway?. Life is Life - what we do with it can be a more fruitful debate.

The 'dice' is a metaphor you twunt.....jesus (sic)

Yes, and it makes a point. To get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice. To get the many possible arrangements of mollecualr matter that lead to life, you must have a way of manipulating that matter

That's what I said.
The universe had no idea, so it took 4 billion years.
We do have some idea, so it will probably take us much less. We can estimate the chance to get to the proper situation, once we found out which situations lead to life.

You miss the point. If your "trying" to get life then obviously it will happen. However the universe wasnt "trying" to get life, as some people claim. It was just a random chance. Hence if you want to prove it right you have to set up the situation of the random chance.

You miss the point. If your "trying" to get life then obviously it will happen. However the universe wasnt "trying" to get life, as some people claim. It was just a random chance. Hence if you want to prove it right you have to set up the situation of the random chance.No, you miss the point. It's not about creating life, it's about finding out how it can be created, and how likely it is to get there.
That way you can examine the probability of getting to that situation. It's a matter of compositionality.
If you want to know the probability of getting a sum total of 20 when you roll 20 dice, you don't have to repeatedly roll 20 dice and check whether the sum total is 20 (and to get a good answer you'd even have to repeat the proces several dozen times at least). Just knowing that to get 20 you need 20 ones, knowing the probability for 1 die to roll a one (since all die are created equal), and then applying statistics is enough.
You only need to know the situation you want, and the constituent parts that it's made up of, and the probability of those constituent parts.
You can find al those numbers seperately, and in much less time than trying to get them all at once.

Yes, and it makes a point. To get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice. To get the many possible arrangements of mollecualr matter that lead to life, you must have a way of manipulating that matter
If you're refusing point blank to accept that there's any possibility that anything could arise by chance rather than design, regardless of whatever arguments or evidence anyone else provides, why did you start this conversation in the first place?

Yes, and it makes a point. To get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice. To get the many possible arrangements of mollecualr matter that lead to life, you must have a way of manipulating that matter


You don't need a sentient being to manipulate matter. Don't take the dice analogy literally as it suggests that you don't really understand probability.

If you're refusing point blank to accept that there's any possibility that anything could arise by chance rather than design, regardless of whatever arguments or evidence anyone else provides, why did you start this conversation in the first place?

I am not refusing that. Look at what I am saying. In order to get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice first. What that doesnt mean is that God is the dice thrower, but that you have to be shown to do the choosing in a model of science. Science has yet to show the method by which the mollecular matter went about manipulating itself in the various ways it did that were not life etc. It doesnt explain how the process of mollecular random movement went about that lead to life.

You don't need a sentient being to manipulate matter. Don't take the dice analogy literally as it suggests that you don't really understand probability.

YOU DO NOT GET THIS

The dice analogy means to get one selection from any number of possible outcomes, you have to have an instigation of the selection, which in the case of life has not been properly explained yet by scinece.

I am not refusing that. Look at what I am saying. In order to get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice first. What that doesnt mean is that God is the dice thrower, but that you have to be shown to do the choosing in a model of science. Science has yet to show the method by which the mollecular matter went about manipulating itself in the various ways it did that were not life etc. It doesnt explain how the process of mollecular random movement went about that lead to life.
You've just stated that you're refusing to consider any argument that it wasn't achieved by divine fiat again.

The dice analogy means to get one selection from any number of possible outcomes, you have to have an instigation of the selection, which in the case of life has not been properly explained yet by science.Unlike with dice the outcomes in chemistry may select themselves, since they can influence what happens after they've been created (by chance), by acting as catalysts.

YOU DO NOT GET THIS

The dice analogy means to get one selection from any number of possible outcomes, you have to have an instigation of the selection, which in the case of life has not been properly explained yet by scinece.


Firstly, the use of capitals in text where they are not appropriate is the equivalent of shouting in an debate. It is a clear illustration that your argument has failed.

Unfortunately for you and your sub-A-Level grasp of statistics I do 'get it' - you are unable to accept the idea that there isn't 'someone in charge of it all', so to speak, and that's your problem, you are weak-minded.

In determinist religions many people struggle with the basic ideas of randomness and hazard. They simply refuse to accept that events occur in the absence of divine purpose because it contradicts everything they believe in.

Yes there is. It is all neatly explained in what we call the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatever about the origin of life. It merly asserts the manner by which life evolves over time.

I am not refusing that. Look at what I am saying. In order to get a number between 1-6 you have to throw the dice first. What that doesnt mean is that God is the dice thrower, but that you have to be shown to do the choosing in a model of science. Science has yet to show the method by which the mollecular matter went about manipulating itself in the various ways it did that were not life etc. It doesnt explain how the process of mollecular random movement went about that lead to life.

'kay. Throwing the dice.

Let's say there's all this stuff on earth. None of it is 'alive' as we would call it, but it does have the potential. Unfortunately, it can't start itself.

Move further on to assume there are thunderstorms. Lightning hits the earth randomly.

Assume the right combination was hit at the right time, providing the jumpstart that was needed to make things 'alive'.

Move further on in time to see how those change from the orginal start, through chance mutation or through natural selection.

The dice have been thrown.

You miss the point. I am not saying "life cannot happen naturally because its to improbable". What I am saying is that sciene does not yet have the method to explain to us how life came into being. We dont as yet have an observable natural force which can be seen to arange matter in the complex way that is neesecsary for life to form. In order to know that it is 1/6 on a dice, we need to know how to throw the dice.

You are complete oblivious to what people keep repeating to you over and over again...

There is not some "natural force" which "arranges" matter into "complex" forms... There are numerous forces, which operate within relation to one another [not all of which we have observed as of yet] which act together to increase complexity in matter. We however are slowly building a framework of these forces.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatever about the origin of life. It merly asserts the manner by which life evolves over time.
Agreed but that seemed like what he was asking when he asked "how do you get to DNA?" "How can a simple thing become a complex cell?" and so on and so forth.

And THESE questions are answered in the theory of evolution. It's not my fault Avalon II crossed wires and asked evolutionnary questions while wanting to speak about the origin of life...

Yes, but in order to observably test it we would need to (according to some scientists) wait around for 4 billion years or so.

No.... We just need to mimic processes which result in some form of matterial, hrough a reaction, forming some other matterial...

No one is saying that the exact same electrical or chemical process which can form complex amino acids, was the same process which could cause the first cells... Like any other "hypothesis", is will be a set of postulated forces, which as it is refined through testing... could eventually either be scraped or become a theory [or both]...

You miss the point. If your "trying" to get life then obviously it will happen. However the universe wasnt "trying" to get life, as some people claim. It was just a random chance. Hence if you want to prove it right you have to set up the situation of the random chance.

"Random" and "Chance" do not exists... They are mathmatical constructs of use by those who are ignorant of all variables which establish the result of an equation [namely all of us]... The more something is understood, the less random its results become....

"Random" and "Chance" do not exists... They are mathmatical constructs of use by those who are ignorant of all variables which establish the result of an equation [namely all of us]... The more something is understood, the less random its results become....Quantum mechanics anyone?

Besides, doesn't the evolution defy the 3rd law of Aerodynamics?

Besides, doesn't the evolution defy the 3rd law of Aerodynamics?
How so?

Quantum mechanics anyone?
Yes please.

Yes please.Do you want fries with that? :D

Besides, doesn't the evolution defy the 3rd law of Aerodynamics?

No, it's Clark Kent who defies the 3rd law of Aerodynnamics!

Besides, doesn't the evolution defy the 3rd law of Aerodynamics?Some would argue it defies the second law of thermodynamics, but this one I've never heard before.
But the second law fo thermodynamics isn't violated, in case you're wondering, because life is an open system, and it only applies to closed ones.

The scientific community cannot yet prove how said organinc chemical became an organic lifeform. The jump to a cell is near impossible for science to make as yet.

They're not far off. You need to do research. They managed to create the building blocks of life from a stew of chemicals that simulated that of the pre-cellular ocean water, and ran electricity through it, simulating lightning. They've found out ways in which cellular membranes form. From there, after a few hundred million years of this ( and you have no idea how long of a time that actually is. ), things eventually just got together. The true trick right now is how the reproduction thing occurred for the first time. The rest is simple; evolution.

Besides, doesn't the evolution defy the 3rd law of Aerodynamics?


so many things wrong with this. ahem. One, life was not created in a bloody wind-tunnel, so you must mean the laws of thermodynamics. Two, the third law of thermodynamics states that absolute zero is an unattainable state. This doesn't have much to do with life, so you must mean one of the first two laws, being: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. This is what life is all about. Primary producers take basic molecules such as carbon dioxide and water, for most life forms, and turn it into carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, all sorts of stuff. These guys are then eaten by animals that cannot make their own food, but need to eat things. These guys are then subsequently eaten by other things that eat things that eat other things. Now the third law. It says that the entropy of a system (entropy measures the amount of organization of a system, the more organized, the less entropic: a vase is low in entropy, a smashed vase is high in entropy) The third law states that the entropy of a system always increases over time. Life reverses this temporarily. Think of yourself as a vase. basically, when you die, you break. there are more dead people in the works out there than living people. By the way, this entropy thing is going to come back and bite us in the butt in about 50 years or so when we've used up most of the oil on the world.

Some would argue it defies the second law of thermodynamics, but this one I've never heard before.
But the second law fo thermodynamics isn't violated, in case you're wondering, because life is an open system, and it only applies to closed ones.

I think he is referring to the Thermo law where everything ends to go towards a higher state of disorder, not order. It takes more energy for things to become ordered rather than decaying into a state of total entropy.

the idea of abiogenesis and evolution do not defy this law because you need to define the system as well as the surroundings- if you define the system as the universe, then the energy required to bring these molecules together, will cause the universe to go towards entropy.

There is no way to defy the third law due to the fact that the entire universe is constantly going towards a state of entropy and the system is so large that we cannot notice these minute changes towards entropy (in the great grand scheme of things)

The argument that abiogenesis and such defies the third law of thermodynamics is a weak one at best.

out of curiosity, how many of the people replying to this thread have any sort of scientific (life sciences, especially) background?

out of curiosity, how many of the people replying to this thread have any sort of scientific (life sciences, especially) background?

Yeah, that is a good question (BS in moleuclar Bio and organic Chem, working on Chem phd) was a creationist, now completely opposite, mostly due to debates like this and extensive reading

You??

They're not far off. You need to do research. They managed to create the building blocks of life from a stew of chemicals that simulated that of the pre-cellular ocean water, and ran electricity through it, simulating lightning. They've found out ways in which cellular membranes form. From there, after a few hundred million years of this ( and you have no idea how long of a time that actually is. ), things eventually just got together. The true trick right now is how the reproduction thing occurred for the first time. The rest is simple; evolution.

Small problem. The experiment you described was just that. An experiment. Designed to create that situation. Also all chemical reactions are reversable to some extent. When creating a molicule if not extracted from where you created it, it reverts back to what it was. Stanley Millar may have created Amino Acids, but only for a second or so. And also, Karl Popper had this to say about the cell itslef which rases a question to science about its creation

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

Which comes from an interesting web page on the issue

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

I think he is referring to the Thermo law where everything ends to go towards a higher state of disorder, not order. It takes more energy for things to become ordered rather than decaying into a state of total entropy.Yeah, that's the second one.
The 'this' in my post referred to "third law of aerodynamics", which I've never heard of.
I hadn't heard of a third law of thermodynamics either, but I'll accept SmokersDeelite may be right when he says that that's the one about absolute zero being unattainable. (Unfortunately he continues on in his post using third law were he'd have meant second law)

Small problem. The experiment you described was just that. An experiment. Designed to create that situation. Also all chemical reactions are reversable to some extent. When creating a molicule if not extracted from where you created it, it reverts back to what it was. Stanley Millar may have created Amino Acids, but only for a second or so. And also, Karl Popper had this to say about the cell itslef which rases a question to science about its creation


Whoa, not quite sure where this came from, but that is not exactly true-- for eaxmple, combustion reactions- hydrocarbons + heat--->CO2 and Water , the water and CO2 is not going to spontaneously revert back to the hydrocarbons (maybe with the help of an enzyme or catalyst) not all chemical reactions are revirsible- that is just bad science.

out of curiosity, how many of the people replying to this thread have any sort of scientific (life sciences, especially) background?I'm working on my Msc for artificial intelligence, it does include some biology (as it is an inspiration for alife) as well as physics, philosophy, psychology, mathematics (algebra, probability)and pretty much anything you want (which makes it so much fun).
I have a particular interest for artificial evolution, although I haven't had the opportunity to do much with it lately.

Whoa, not quite sure where this came from, but that is not exactly true-- for eaxmple, combustion reactions- hydrocarbons + heat--->CO2 and Water , the water and CO2 is not going to spontaneously revert back to the hydrocarbons (maybe with the help of an enzyme or catalyst) not all chemical reactions are revirsible- that is just bad science.

Sorry, I meant most. My mistake. In the meantime look at that Karl Popper quote and the web page. Very interesting I think you'll agree.

Small problem. The experiment you described was just that. An experiment. Designed to create that situation. Also all chemical reactions are reversable to some extent. When creating a molicule if not extracted from where you created it, it reverts back to what it was. Stanley Millar may have created Amino Acids, but only for a second or so. And also, Karl Popper had this to say about the cell itslef which rases a question to science about its creation



Which comes from an interesting web page on the issue

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

You, sir, are most undeniably an idiot.

What the fuck else is the point of an experiment? To waste the time of scientists? For an experiment to prove any hypothesis, it must be 1) designed for that specific purpose and 2) repeatable.

You, sir, are most undeniably an idiot.

What the fuck else is the point of an experiment? To waste the time of scientists? For an experiment to prove any hypothesis, it must be 1) designed for that specific purpose and 2) repeatable.

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.

Sorry, I meant most. My mistake. In the meantime look at that Karl Popper quote and the web page. Very interesting I think you'll agree.Yep. But Popper is carefull in his statements..
<snip> the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. <snip>
Almost no one expects that there was a jump from a sea of simple organics chemicals to (non-primitive) cells. There are at least have a dozen supposed steps in between.
Self replicating compounds take an important role, since once one is created by chance, they multiply and you'll soon have many. The first one may be unlikely, but every next one nearly inevitable. (Again I refer to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ posted on page one of this thread)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp[/QUOTE]


I only need to glance at this webpage to realise that you are, as many people here have already pointed out, a complete fucking cretin.

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.

So how else are scientists to prove anything? Just sit in their labs waiting for random shit to happen for them to observe?

Once again, sir, you show your idiocy in a most spectacular manner.

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.

This does not mean that God created, but it does mean that science cannot claim it knows how life came into existance
You need to read up on how adding energy to chemical processes creates instability, forcing the system to higher levels of organization.

Small problem. The experiment you described was just that. An experiment. Designed to create that situation. Also all chemical reactions are reversable to some extent. When creating a molicule if not extracted from where you created it, it reverts back to what it was. Stanley Millar may have created Amino Acids, but only for a second or so.

an experiment to replicate conditions like those believed to have existed on the early earth. that is what experiments do.

in any case, it isn't as if the miller-urey experiments are the only ones that have been done. it turns out that making the basic stuff for life is relatively easy under a wide range of conditions, somewhere on the web is a nice graphic showing the different conditions used in different experiments and what they produced. i'll go look.

and you are wrong about how long they lasted or how reversible the process was. the formation of these things is actually thermodynamically favored.

And also, Karl Popper had this to say about the cell itslef which rases a question to science about its creation
...
Which comes from an interesting web page on the issue

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

i see you've discovered the wonderful world of creationist quote mining. if you ever see a quote from some noted defender of science coming from creationist sources, you can always know that they are being misrepresented, quoted out of context, or just being lied about.

The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.
Incorrect. The experiment was designed to replicate the conditions that were believed to have existed when life began. The experiment was designed to test whether or not life could indeed arise under those conditions.

Unlike Creationists, scientists actually TEST their hypotheses.

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.
You're right about the universe: it was not designed to create life. It was not designed at all, and life is not by intelligent design either. So undesigned life could certainly appear from the undesigned universe.

The experiment was not designed to prove that the universe created life on its own, it was designed to determine if the supposed method it tested was a way that it might have happened. Whether the test was passed or failed, the conclusion could only be that that was one way it could have happened or not.

And he's gone....


Get back to your bible, it contains all the answers you're ever likely to need.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp


I only need to glance at this webpage to realise that you are, as many people here have already pointed out, a complete fucking cretin.[/QUOTE]

Again an example of imature insulting. I am not saying evolution and abiogenesis are entirely wrong, just that we dont know everything we think we know about them. Yes there have been experiments which produced amino acids, but considering how reverable that reaction is the acid probebly only existed for a second or two before reverting back into something else.

Incorrect. The experiment was designed to replicate the conditions that were believed to have existed when life began. The experiment was designed to test whether or not life could indeed arise under those conditions.

Unlike Creationists, scientists actually TEST their hypotheses.

Yes, but the experiment was still designed. Implying that designed conditions of the univerese are needed. To do the correct experiment you would first need a random way to get to those conditions. Also we do not know what the conditions at that time were for a certianity. Nor do we know the proportions. We can guess, but only vaguely. Furthermore the creation of Amino-Acids does not nessecalry warant creation of life. Amino accids then have to form into chains which in turn have to form into... etc etc. Its not as easy as people think.

Yes, but the experiment was still designed. Implying that designed conditions of the univerese are needed.

Incorrect.


To do the correct experiment you would first need a random way to get to those conditions.

Incorrect. It does not matter how the conditions came about in order for the experiment to be valid. The only issue that is important is how well the simulation reflects the established conditions.


Also we do not know what the conditions at that time were for a certianity. Nor do we know the proportions. We can guess, but only vaguely.

Now THAT is closer to the real issue. Although to say that we can "only vaguely guess" at the conditions is laughable, since there is a huge amount of information about conditions on Early Earth. Indeed, we have more information about conditions on the surface of the Early Earth than we do about the conditions at the lowest depths of our current oceans.


Furthermore the creation of Amino-Acids does not nessecalry warant creation of life. Amino accids then have to form into chains which in turn have to form into... etc etc. Its not as easy as people think.
That's true, and that is the REAL criticism you can give of that experiment. The first issue you were trying to bring up is nonsense, since one of the most fundamental concepts in science is the use of experimental conditions to investigate real-life phenomena, but now you're starting to think like a real scientist. Right on! :)

Yes, but in order to observably test it we would need to (according to some scientists) wait around for 4 billion years or so.

Anyone suggesting that we cannot test a proposed mechanism without waiting around for 4 billion years is:

(a) Not a scientist
(b) Not a scientist worth the paper their degree is printed on.

out of curiosity, how many of the people replying to this thread have any sort of scientific (life sciences, especially) background?

*Raises hand* Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me!

B.S. in Engineering with a Specialty in Biomedical Engineering (minors in Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics. Also completed Pre-Med requirements)

Working towards a Ph.D. in bioengineering.

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.

You seem to be very confused as to how science works. An experiment can never, ever prove a hypothesis. It can simply provide supporting evidence. This experiment was designed to test a hypothesis for how organic molecules might have come about on Earth. Of course it doesn't *prove* that anything happened that way originally, but it does provide *supporting evidence*, which is all that any experiment can do anyways.

Again an example of imature insulting. I am not saying evolution and abiogenesis are entirely wrong, just that we dont know everything we think we know about them. Yes there have been experiments which produced amino acids, but considering how reverable that reaction is the acid probebly only existed for a second or two before reverting back into something else.

You are the only person making any claims that we *know* any of these things!

Not that I know anything about these matters...
But what started as an interesting debate quickly fell down into a whole bunch of pretty educated people with great skills when it comes to critical thinking mocking fundamentalist christians... which is sort of fun too:)

Although I know nothing about advanced chemestry or the like, I do know that simple molecules can be more or less attracted to eachother and thus can react and form new compounds from just being in the same 'soup'.

Atleast that's what I got out of chemistry class and I might be wrong;)

Anyhow, seeing this debate from a somewhat unbiased point of view, I must give the scientists the lead so far by a score of 4032 to 0.

Good evening.

Not that I know anything about these matters...
But what started as an interesting debate quickly fell down into a whole bunch of pretty educated people with great skills when it comes to critical thinking mocking fundamentalist christians... which is sort of fun too:)


Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't think we were trying to mock the fundamentalist- just trying to enlighten his horribly limited veiws, which have seem to come from a mixture of creationist websites (Oh no, there is no bias there) and a poorly taught highschool chemistry class, on science and the practical use of the scientific method.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't think we were trying to mock the fundamentalist- just trying to enlighten his horribly limited veiws, which have seem to come from a mixture of creationist websites (Oh no, there is no bias there) and a poorly taught highschool chemistry class, on science and the practical use of the scientific method.

Fair enough, but sadly I think its a fight you can't win, I prefer to see it out of its entertainment value hehe...
After all, arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics;)
Keep it up though, if nothing else, we with our ears open and our minds untainted might actually learn something:)

Yes, but the experiment was still designed. Implying that designed conditions of the univerese are needed.

indeed. similarly, if i were to test a hypothesis about the rate at which objects fall to the ground i might construct a vacuum tube to perform some experiments involving dropping different sized objects. which conclusively shows that gravity must require constant interference from a designer.

do you think about the things you say before you write them down?

To do the correct experiment you would first need a random way to get to those conditions.

no. that is a different question entirely. question 1) given these conditions, what happens? question 2) what processes caused these conditions to arise?

Also we do not know what the conditions at that time were for a certianity. Nor do we know the proportions. We can guess, but only vaguely.

true. which is why many variations have been tried out. and it turns out that a huge number of possible conditions all turn out similar results. hell, we've got a meteorite (http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/local/www/jab/astrobiology/murchison.html) that crashed to earth from outer space full of organic compounds, including amino acids. getting organic compounds appears to be easy.

Furthermore the creation of Amino-Acids does not nessecalry warant creation of life. Amino accids then have to form into chains which in turn have to form into... etc etc. Its not as easy as people think.

that is in fact the hard part - now that we know the original hard part is actually easy and quite commonplace. but since we know that they can be so organized (otherwise we couldn't exist), it seems to me that there must be some pathway that allowed that organization to come about. it's just a matter of figuring out the recipe. and i fully expect there to be more than one set of conditions that will do the job.

the real difficulty might arise if one of the key ingredients really is an ocean sized soup of the various organic compounds set on medium heat for 100 million years until some stochastic encounter between the right compounds with the right amount of energy sets the next steps rolling.

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.

One fact that you seem to miss is that the universe is not a single boolean (TRUE/FALSE) variable relating to what created it. In fact, it is irrelavent whether, say, a satelite that crashed into Los Angeles was pushed into the city by an intelligent force or not. The satellite, in the instant before it hits the ground, will not check what caused it to start that movement and say to itself "Oh, an alien race did it, I'll do X damage" or "Oh, it happened by fluke, I'll do Y damage." Similarly, a group of amino acids on the brink of forming a protein, will not check "Oh, this world was designed, let's create life!!!" or "Oh, that other protein is there by fluke, not design...Let's not bother." It is only the conditions that matter, not what caused those conditions to occur.

Sorry for the long post.

Sincerely,

Number III

I only need to glance at this webpage to realise that you are, as many people here have already pointed out, a complete fucking cretin.

Again an example of imature insulting. I am not saying evolution and abiogenesis are entirely wrong, just that we dont know everything we think we know about them. Yes there have been experiments which produced amino acids, but considering how reverable that reaction is the acid probebly only existed for a second or two before reverting back into something else.[/QUOTE]


I'm afraid that referring someone to website with this title is the height of childish ignorance.

Originally Posted by Avalon II
''An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.''

I see that you have made this point several times. Interesting point, and rather important. But perhaps a researcher need only to recreate conditions similar to the ones thought to be favourable for the formation of life from molecules. His design for the experiment would be to try and replicate what he thought had already existed, e.g. a soup of organic molecules. In this way, his design is legitimate, since he is allowing the conditions to produce life, not his design. It isn't important whether the conditions were designed, or if they happened by chance. So long as they are available--that is the important issue. The other important issue is that these conditions have to be capable of producing life without FURTHER interference from the researcher. In other words, it has to be spontaneous, otherwise the life that results cannot be considered spontaneous (which is the point that you are trying to make, I think).

In my personal opinion, intelligence information for life is neither abababababa or bbbbbbaaaaaacccc, much like what we see in rock crystal formation, but more like the words in this sentence. It is precisely because of the exact order of letters, with the right spacing between the letters that gives rise to meaning or intelligence. This is what life requires. All that we could ever get from an organic soup is that order which we observe in non-living material, such as rock crystalls. In a crystal, once you can find the basic unit, then you can see that the whole crystal consists of a repetition of the basic unit (e.g. abababababa). For life, however, we need a source of intelligence that discriminates. It has to work against equilibrium in order to produce information. Life does not simply require symmetry or balance. If you take this sentence, for example, if you could not read, you would not find much symmetry there. But because you can read, you can decipher the meaning of the sentence. It is the meaning that is the intelligent part. And the point of information is that it is specific. Not any old ordering of the pieces is good enough for life.

I guess that puts me on your side of the argument. I don't think that life can ever arise from non-living materials. I cannot see how information can arise from randomness. I have never observed it in nature, and the more I think about it, the more I see that it just doesn't work. But I too am biased, for I first began to think about the possibility of abiogenesis after I believed in God.

I think this is possibly a stronger point to use against the believers, those who ardently hold onto the 'creeds' and 'scriptures' of abiogenesis with little more than their faith and a personal dislike of God or organised religion. Perhaps they should be called the fundamentalists, for they are seriously lacking in their evidence. And yet they continue to believe in the 'miracle' of abiogenesis.

Of course, I'm only having a dig at them. All meant in fun, and no harm intended. And of course everyone believes that his favourite theory is the better one, or he would no longer believe it. No doubt some of them will find this all upsetting, but then again, one should only give so much as he is prepared to take. They certainly seem to have enjoyed taking it out on you.

At the end of the day, a most important issue here is our belief in the existence or the non-existence of God. Some people have imagined that they can conclude the existence of God through a series of observations and deductions. But I disagree. One must either begin with the existence (or the non-existence) of God. You cannot arrive there. It's a bit like the 17th century French philosopher René Descartes, who came up with the "explanation for it all": "I think, therefore I am". He had to begin with this. And based on this starting point, he developed a philosophical view point. The problem is that he had no way of ever proving his statement. He could not demonstrate that he existed. Therefore, his statement remained an assumption, not a conclusion. The same with God. You either have to assume that he exists, or that he does not exist. You cannot do an experiment or make an observation that will decide the answer to the question. (However my reading of the Bible tells me that one need not always have to assume that God exists, but that those who search for Him will find Him, personally, and sometimes, eventually.)

Edit: Abiogenesis is NOT the scientific explanation for the origin of life. It is one explanation, but hardly scientific. It could be considered naturalistic (involves only natural forces, rather than supernatural ones). But when it cannot be observed or repeated, it cannot be considered scientific. And there are plenty in the science community who do not go along with abiogenesis.

Quantum mechanics anyone?

A good illustration. Quantum Mechanics is presently ignorant of any systems whereby exotic particles pop in and out of existance... Thus, such ignorance results in the appearance of "randomness" in the occurances. If all the necessitant variables associated with the individual event could be mapped and measured, the progression and appearance of these particles could be predicted with absolute certainty [This is not saying that we could map all necessitant variables....].

Might I add that we've discovered that comets carry amino acids. Also, through experimentation, scientists have discovered that upon impacting the Earth, the amino acids aren't destroyed, they actually become more complex.

Also, on creationism, Douglas Adams had a good simile. He likened us to a puddle;
"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."
-- Richard Dawkins, in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

I think he is referring to the Thermo law where everything ends to go towards a higher state of disorder, not order. It takes more energy for things to become ordered rather than decaying into a state of total entropy.

You're thinking of the application of entropy to the second law. "In a closed system, entropy must always increase, and not dissipate."

It still, however, is a closed system. Earth, however, is not a closed system.

Net entropy will always increase, this is not to say that entropy must always increase in every point in space... The earth is powered by an external energy source [the sun], which is constantly bombarding the planet with a multitude of useable energy to sustain itself....

An experiment designed to repeat something that was not itself desinged to do anything. The experiment was designed to create life. The universe wasnt. So the fact that he claims that his experiment proves the universe created life on its own is bogus.

Oh, so you know from fact that the universe was not designed to create life? Or, better, that life is not an extension of the framework of forces and principles by which the universe operates?

Might I add that we've discovered that comets carry amino acids. Also, through experimentation, scientists have discovered that upon impacting the Earth, the amino acids aren't destroyed, they actually become more complex.

Also, on creationism, Douglas Adams had a good simile. He likened us to a puddle;
"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."
-- Richard Dawkins, in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

A major problem with the point about the water in the puddle (by the way, a very clear point, even funny) is that there is the assumption that those who believe that the universe is pre-ordained for life arrive at that conclusion through vain conceit. That could hardly be more inaccurate. I personally know people who believe that the God made the universe for us to inhabit, and who are the most humble people I have ever met. There is not a slightest piece of conceit that I could find in them. And if they do have some conceit, I doubt it would be greater than that of Mr. Dawkins.

You need to read up on how adding energy to chemical processes creates instability, forcing the system to higher levels of organization.
Creationists are fixated on the second law of thermodynamics for some reason. (Possibly because they're unaware that there's no such thing as a closed system.) The notion of complex systems inevitably winding down into chaos reassures them, and their conviction that complexity could not arise from simpler forms of existence, you see.

A major problem with the point about the water in the puddle (by the way, a very clear point, even funny) is that there is the assumption that those who believe that the universe is pre-ordained for life arrive at that conclusion through vain conceit. That could hardly be more inaccurate. I personally know people who believe that the God made the universe for us to inhabit, and who are the most humble people I have ever met. There is not a slightest piece of conceit that I could find in them. And if they do have some conceit, I doubt it would be greater than that of Mr. Dawkins.
Yes but do these people believe that the fact that we fit well in our environment is a clear proof that the environment was made for us? Or do they believe that God made the universe for life and that we happen to be that life?

'Cause there's nothing wrong with believing that god made the universe. It is an illogical argument to use our "fitting so well" to justify that belief.

You're thinking of the application of entropy to the second law. "In a closed system, entropy must always increase, and not dissipate."

Just to be pedantic, the second law does not say that entropy must always increase. It states that any spontaneous process in a closed system must result in a change in entropy that is either positive or 0.

And also, since I have seen the entropy = order idea used here, it is important to note that the two are not the same. The order portion of entropy is usually the largest component, so it seems that increasing entropy always means decreasing order. However, when, for instance, a polymer is formed, that process is spontaneous and increases entropy. However, order is also increased. This is because other terms in entropy contribute enough to counterbalance the increase in order.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

=)

Just to be pedantic, the second law does not say that entropy must always increase. It states that any spontaneous process in a closed system must result in a change in entropy that is either positive or 0.

And also, since I have seen the entropy = order idea used here, it is important to note that the two are not the same. The order portion of entropy is usually the largest component, so it seems that increasing entropy always means decreasing order. However, when, for instance, a polymer is formed, that process is spontaneous and increases entropy. However, order is also increased. This is because other terms in entropy contribute enough to counterbalance the increase in order.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

=)

So, karma is, on some level, akin to entropy? Maybe the scientists are all wrong and it's not entropy but karma that they're dealing with...


please, PLEASE, dont miss the sarcasm...

So, karma is, on some level, akin to entropy? Maybe the scientists are all wrong and it's not entropy but karma that they're dealing with...

please, PLEASE, dont miss the sarcasm...

My Shadowrun character gets entropy points then? Cool!

:p

Just to be pedantic, the second law does not say that entropy must always increase. It states that any spontaneous process in a closed system must result in a change in entropy that is either positive or 0.

And also, since I have seen the entropy = order idea used here, it is important to note that the two are not the same. The order portion of entropy is usually the largest component, so it seems that increasing entropy always means decreasing order. However, when, for instance, a polymer is formed, that process is spontaneous and increases entropy. However, order is also increased. This is because other terms in entropy contribute enough to counterbalance the increase in order.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

=)

Entropy is a measure of disorder... Thus there is a coorelation between entropy and order... But when speaking of it alone, you're dealing with the relative disorder of the system to the order. If a reaction results in an equal increase of order and disorder in the system, net entropy is 0. However, in any closed system, where energy is being converted, net entropy will always be on the increase, because, unlike the other forms, entropy is unusable energy in the system.

Entropy is a measure of disorder...

Not completely, no. Order (or disorder) is one component. I'd always thought that too, and then I took a polymers class, where we talked about the entropy contribution from elasticity and that from order, etc. Equating entropy to a measurement of disorder is a simplification made because it is often pretty close to accurate. In truth, entropy is a measure of the energy that can no longer be used.

Thus there is a coorelation between entropy and order...

I never said there was no correlation. I said that people have to be careful not to equate the two.

If a reaction results in an equal increase of order and disorder in the system, net entropy is 0. However, in any closed system, where energy is being converted, net entropy will always be on the increase, because, unlike the other forms, entropy is unusable energy in the system.

Incorrect. Entropy is increased only in an irreversible process. A reversible process would result in an total net entropy change of 0. Now, most, if not all real processes are irreversible, just as most, if not all, systems are open. However, the rule clearly allows for reversible processes.

Thermodynamics 101.

Once again, sir, you show your idiocy in a most spectacular manner.
Neut, you need to back off on those personal attacks. You of all people should know better.

I'd imagine people are getting a trifle frustrated at the twerp's tendency to make incorrect statements then ignore all refutations of them and continue as though the nonsense he's talking was never in any doubt.

I'd imagine people are getting a trifle frustrated at the twerp's tendency to make incorrect statements then ignore all refutations of them and continue as though the nonsense he's talking was never in any doubt.

How about we telegram him constantly until he defends his points or admits to being wrong?

How about we telegram him constantly until he defends his points or admits to being wrong?
Or how about you just continue being irrefutably reasonable? The last thing we want is to go all athioevangelistic. Sensible, controlled argument will eventually make a laughing stock out of him in a completely passive and dignified manner.

Or how about you just continue being irrefutably reasonable? The last thing we want is to go all athioevangelistic. Sensible, controlled argument will eventually make a laughing stock out of him in a completely passive and dignified manner.
That hasn't worked so far, so why should it start working now?

That hasn't worked so far, so why should it start working now?
Err..? Why is it everyone's pointing & laughing at the creationists then?

Seems to be working just fine from where I'm sitting.

Err..? Why is it everyone's pointing & laughing at the creationists then?

Seems to be working just fine from where I'm sitting.
Everybody's mocking the Creationists because they're spouting ridiculous crap.
That hasn't stopped them from spouting ridiculous crap, particularly in Avalon's case, where he keeps spouting thew same ridiculous crap over and over, ignoring any flaws or proof that it's ridiculous crap anybody comes out with. I'm beginning to think that nothing short of death or the amputation of his hands is very likely to stop him posting this drivel. This is why reasonable debate isn't working: people who are completely unreasonable are largely immune to it.

Everybody's mocking the Creationists because they're spouting ridiculous crap.
That hasn't stopped them from spouting ridiculous crap, particularly in Avalon's case, where he keeps spouting thew same ridiculous crap over and over, ignoring any flaws or proof that it's ridiculous crap anybody comes out with. I'm beginning to think that nothing short of death or the amputation of his hands is very likely to stop him posting this drivel. This is why reasonable debate isn't working: people who are completely unreasonable are largely immune to it.

We are not immune to debate. You are just not giving any. Immidately dismmising someone as stupid and claiming your own superiority constantly is not debate.

We are not immune to debate. You are just not giving any. Immidately dismmising someone as stupid and claiming your own superiority constantly is not debate.
Whoa! I thought you'd fled the topic here.

So, care to address some of the numerous points raised here? Or are you intent on proving Cahnt & Neut right?

Whoa! I thought you'd fled the topic here.

So, care to address some of the numerous points raised here? Or are you intent on proving Cahnt & Neut right?

While I'm not sure why I specifically got singled out for my personal attacks when they happen in every thread in General...I do have one question that this brings up:

If I am proven right (which this thread, and the other simliar ones have proven me right on), was it a personal attack or simply stating evidence-based fact?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

While I'm not sure why I specifically got singled out for my personal attacks when they happen in every thread in General...I do have one question that this brings up:

If I am proven right (which this thread, and the other simliar ones have proven me right on), was it a personal attack or simply stating evidence-based fact?
PErhaps it's got something to do with you being former staff? Whatever, politeness is overrated ;)

It's a tricky question though. Can one consider someone an idiot for believing in something wholly idiotic? Well, it's not a tricky question really. The answer is obviously a resounding YES! - Still, it's shit like this that gives your poor ex-collegues gray hair & ulsers.

We are not immune to debate. You are just not giving any. Immidately dismmising someone as stupid and claiming your own superiority constantly is not debate.
So why have you spent most of this thread, and any previous threads on the subject you've participated in, doing that? I'm thinking specifically of the business of demanding that people justify widespread and well regarded theories about evolution, then ignoring said justifications and claiming that creationism has been proven, while refusing to offer any of this alleged proof. That isn't debate, it's more like a six year old throwing a tantrum.
You can't even be bothered (to pick an example) to explain why the cretins claiming that the fossil record fails to show any animals in transition between classes are correct, given the existence of fossils of archeoptrex (a small dinosaur with feathers and wings rather than a bird), various prototype whales and the like. This is the main argument creationists keep putting forwards against the theory of evolution, despite the fact that it appears to be complete and utter bollocks. Are these fossils and everything that has been written about them fakes?

Are these fossils and everything that has been written about them fakes?
Don't worry, I have balls enuff to answer for him.

Yes! It's all a big conspiracy perpetrated by evil atheist commies & their liberal abortion-loving cronies, who own the media & indoctrinate our children.

... Well, at least I'm fairly positive Avalon would like to say this: "Yes! It's all a big conspiracy" - part of it, if he dared.

Don't worry, I have balls enuff to answer for him.

Yes! It's all a big conspiracy perpetrated by evil atheist commies & their liberal abortion-loving cronies, who own the media & indoctrinate our children.

... Well, at least I'm fairly positive Avalon would like to say this: "Yes! It's all a big conspiracy" - part of it, if he dared.
You know, if it really is a big conspiracy, I'd give God a round of applause before I smack him one. It's so completely convoluted and unnecessarily contradictory to common sense that implementing it would be an awesome way to screw around with your creations.

You know, if it really is a big conspiracy, I'd give God a round of applause before I smack him one. It's so completely convoluted and unnecessarily contradictory to common sense that implementing it would be an awesome way to screw around with your creations.
Bill Hicks made that point in his routine about arriving in Heaven and being shown the door"
"Man, there was all this evidence, they had fossils and everything!"
"Giant fucking Lizards? You moron!"

PErhaps it's got something to do with you being former staff? Whatever, politeness is overrated ;)

It's a tricky question though. Can one consider someone an idiot for believing in something wholly idiotic? Well, it's not a tricky question really. The answer is obviously a resounding YES! - Still, it's shit like this that gives your poor ex-collegues gray hair & ulsers.

Ahhh, but here's the rub:

I wasnt calling him an idiot for his beliefs. I think everyone's entitled to believe whatever the hell they want to believe in (I personally have recently converted to the religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn - was blessed yesterday, even). However, I do expect that people who choose to debate their beliefs be able to actually debate them without simply returning to "you're wrong, I'm right because you cant prove me wrong" (referring to an entity that is entirely faith-based).

A point here. I am not discussing evolution. Evolution as a change between species can be shown to happen. However this thread is about the origin of life not the changes between them

There is NO observable natural force that can be shown to arrange matter in the complexity of order that occers in the single cell. The probabiltity arguement (IE that the universe is so big it has to happen at some point) still falls down on the issue that for a dice to be able to get any number between 1 and 6, you have to be able to throw it in the first place. And there enlies sciences problem. There is no natural force which can be seen to arrange matter in the kind of complexitys visable in DNA, let alone an entire cell.


Worng. The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains very nicely how and why ordering occurs in nature. Life itself is a conversion of gibbs free energy into increased entropy, which is then used to acquire more energy from its environment. An engine works in much the same way, using energy from the outside to drive the piston which in turn acquires more energy.

We are not immune to debate. You are just not giving any. Immidately dismmising someone as stupid and claiming your own superiority constantly is not debate.

So do you care to actually counter any of the points that have been made against you? Or are you one of those people who thinks, "Gee, somebody's arguing against me, they must be immediately dismissing my point."

I'll make a short list of some of the arguments against your point:

1) Just because the scientific hypothosis for how life formed is not 100% accurate (which you have failed to prove) does not mean that God created the universe in seven days and seven nights.
2) Just because it is impossible to prove that God does not exist does not mean that God created the universe in seven days and seven nights.
3) It doesn't matter how an environment came into being; a falling comet, while not falling, will not check if its situation was designed by an intelligence.
4) Even if it did, it will not change its course based on the result.
5) The same thing applies to life.
6) Just because you don't actually answer any of these arguments doesn't mean that God created the universe in seven days and seven nights.

And so on and so forth...

These should keep you occupied for now.

Number III