(December 4, 2014 at 11:40 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 1, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Chas Wrote: That made no sense whatever. Would you care to try again?

perhaps better to post 'living to living'.

Define living/alive. Be precise.

(December 5, 2014 at 12:31 am)Surgenator Wrote:

(December 4, 2014 at 11:40 pm)snowtracks Wrote: perhaps better to post 'living to living'.

Define living/alive. Be precise.

the common usage of the word.

---

(November 30, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Chuck Wrote: Have any creationists managed to get God to demonstrate that he did zapped any molecule into existence? Much less a molecule that can fulfill a biological function, to say nothing of any complete functioning organism?

No?

Any part of it?


No?

Just to get God to show up and twiddle his holy thumb just to show he actually exists to do anything at all?

No?


Then shut the fuck up. We are making progress. You are still stuck at exactly the same spot as the dumbest of the dumb who believed the most scrupulous arrogant self-serving slick tongued goat fuckers of 800 BC.

you seem angry about something.

God did this god did that. Never an explanation as to how god did it, yet they demand that science explains every little detail NOW or else it was god wafting his mighty wang around and conjuring everything poof like that.

The double standards are showing.

abiogenesis is definitely possible, and as a scientist you have to assume this is what happened.

First of all, don't confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation - abiogenesis was a gradual process that took millions of years.

How exactly it happened we will never know - after all, no one was there to see it. What scientists can do is provide a possible explanation. Basically say: "look, I can prove this way was physically possible, and since life had to come about at some point this is most likely how it happened".

Of course, this is a whole field in itself. So I can't explain it here. However, in a nutshell, what happened was most likely this: fatty acids formed abiotically around geysers. We know fatty acids can self-assemble into lipid bilayers completely by themselves, without any information or energy needed. Probably some sort of RNA-like polymer made its way inside the lipid vesicles. this polymer had two properties: it was able to copy itself (acting like an enzyme) and also the ability to store the information necessary for its own synthesis. polymers that are better at replicating would then be favored in a darwinian selection-mechanism, allowing for evolution by natural selection to start.

Certainly beats claiming that some fucking god played in the dirt.

(December 13, 2014 at 10:43 am)dyresand Wrote:

---

abiogenesis is definitely possible, and as a scientist you have to assume this is what happened.

First of all, don't confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation - abiogenesis was a gradual process that took millions of years.

How exactly it happened we will never know - after all, no one was there to see it. What scientists can do is provide a possible explanation. Basically say: "look, I can prove this way was physically possible, and since life had to come about at some point this is most likely how it happened".

Of course, this is a whole field in itself. So I can't explain it here. However, in a nutshell, what happened was most likely this: fatty acids formed abiotically around geysers. We know fatty acids can self-assemble into lipid bilayers completely by themselves, without any information or energy needed. Probably some sort of RNA-like polymer made its way inside the lipid vesicles. this polymer had two properties: it was able to copy itself (acting like an enzyme) and also the ability to store the information necessary for its own synthesis. polymers that are better at replicating would then be favored in a darwinian selection-mechanism, allowing for evolution by natural selection to start.

---

Nah! That makes too much sense. It had to be a magic 'sky-daddy'.

(December 13, 2014 at 2:43 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 5, 2014 at 12:31 am)Surgenator Wrote: Define living/alive. Be precise.

the common usage of the word.

Common usage doesn't work for virus and bacteria. Willing to try again?

What definition of life cannot be applied to our sun?

(November 18, 2014 at 9:11 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm)snowtracks Wrote: scenarios: 1. cell has a complete membrane with nothing in it. 2. all the cell parts with no membrane. Parts as: nucleus, protoplasm (dna material), vacuoles, etc. 3. Fully functional cell - naturalism posit that this happened but is unexplained.
#2 - cell wouldn't last a nanosecond without a membrane. Maybe the nucleus directed it’s construction faster than that to save the day.

let me prove human evolution with skin color. Climate <- Climate plays a role a very large role on how a persons skin color is going to be back thousands to millions of years ago with ancient man. Darker skin hey you lived in a area with lots of sun and terrible heat. Lighter skin color you live in a area with 4 seasons. moderately or somewhat dark colored you have terrible summers and another or so few seasons.

skin color, really? that's microevolution everyone agrees to that; aka, wings changing color by atmospheric conditions.
-------------------
the chemical evolutionary paradigm - the discussion here - the functional cell requires the membrane; a gambit was needed from the very beginning since the membrane couldn't form on it's own.

(December 26, 2014 at 12:39 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 9:11 pm)dyresand Wrote: let me prove human evolution with skin color. Climate <- Climate plays a role a very large role on how a persons skin color is going to be back thousands to millions of years ago with ancient man. Darker skin hey you lived in a area with lots of sun and terrible heat. Lighter skin color you live in a area with 4 seasons. moderately or somewhat dark colored you have terrible summers and another or so few seasons.

skin color, really? that's microevolution everyone agrees to that; aka, wings changing color by atmospheric conditions.
-------------------
the chemical evolutionary paradigm - the discussion here - the functional cell requires the membrane; a gambit was needed from the very beginning since the membrane couldn't form on it's own.

Its not micro evolution. at one point we used to have tails we don't have it because we don't need it. at one point we used to be covered in hair but we no longer are or we are its rare. its all in the dna code if one code gets turned on well it could turn our poor sense of smell into super smell like that of a dogs.