Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 28, 2022, 3:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How did the chemicals for life come together??..
#31
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
Quote:No, you said more than that. You said you didn't think it could come about by natural processes. Why do you believe this, especially in light of the evidence of abiogenesis?

I doubt natural processes because of the complexity.
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#32
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 5, 2010 at 11:07 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Are you reading the same post as I am? He never said such a thing.

Ok, let me rephrase that, solja easily dismisses any argument that science or we have provided in this forum all this time, if it goes against the possibility of a god(specially the yaweh one), but a random claim from statler he finds it 'fascinating' just because it somewhat supports his belief... Smile

Reply
#33
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm)solja247 Wrote:
Quote:No, you said more than that. You said you didn't think it could come about by natural processes. Why do you believe this, especially in light of the evidence of abiogenesis?

I doubt natural processes because of the complexity.
What about all the science that points to the first lifeforms not being complex at all? If complexity is a reason for rejecting abiogenesis, do you also reject evolution? Mutation and natural selection have shown how complexity can be easily achieved by natural processes.
Reply
#34
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm)LastPoet Wrote:
(November 5, 2010 at 11:07 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Are you reading the same post as I am? He never said such a thing.

Ok, let me rephrase that, solja easily dismisses any argument that science or we have provided in this forum all this time, if it goes against the possibility of a god(specially the yaweh one), but a random claim from statler he finds it 'fascinating' just because it somewhat supports his belief... Smile

The claim of separate genetic lineages amongst non-eukaryotic organisms is not statler's. It was first made by Carl Woese of University of Illinois and George Fox of University of Houston. Subsequent biochemical and genetic work bears them out. Archaea and Bacteria are different enough so it is questionable if they could have descended from a single functioning organism, but similar enough so that they probably arose in very similar chemical environments. This is prima facia evidence that abiogenesis occurred twice in early hydrothermal environment. It lends no support to intelligent design or creationism.

Sol took the prima facia evidence of the repeated occurance of abiogenesis in nature, and appears to convince himself that it really supports the notion that abiogenesis is too hard to occur even once. But this is his style. He didn't know how evolution was nonrandom, but deemed himself to know enough to assert organisms were too complex to form through evolution. He says philosophy is superior to science because it allows him to assert what must be, but exhibit a total unawareness that science is the most productive field of philosophy there ever was. Sol has the Sol style, and Statler has the statler style.

Reply
#35
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
Quote:Ok, let me rephrase that, solja easily dismisses any argument that science or we have provided in this forum all this time, if it goes against the possibility of a god(specially the yaweh one), but a random claim from statler he finds it 'fascinating' just because it somewhat supports his belief...

How does Statler support my belief? I just thought it was fascinating as I have never really believed in the whole 'everything came from a common ancestor'
How did the protista evolve? What was their ancestor? It makes a lot more sense having a couple/several family lineages.

Quote:What about all the science that points to the first lifeforms not being complex at all?

Archaea is still complicated. Sure it is not as complicated as eukaryotic cells but pirimitive lifeforms are still really complicated.

Quote:He didn't know how evolution was nonrandom, but deemed himself to know enough to assert organisms were too complex to form through evolution. He says philosophy is superior to science because it allows him to assert what must be, but exhibit a total unawareness that science is the most productive field of philosophy there ever was. Sol has the Sol style, and Statler has the statler style.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two differnet things.

Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, Some of the beneficial random mutations can lead to becoming the dominant genes in the species (thus over a series of generations it becomes the dominant genes in X). Name one case where evolution is random?
I will name one which isnt.
There are flying insects on a particular island, for some reason the island has a lot more wind than ussual. The insects which fly around are swept out to sea. For some reason there is a minority of these flying insects which have lost their ability to use their wings (a mutation). These minority become the dominant, as they are able to survive. The insects became the dominant, not by chance, but because they were the strongest to survive.

Also, Science is not philosophy.
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#36
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm)solja247 Wrote:
Quote:He didn't know how evolution was nonrandom, but deemed himself to know enough to assert organisms were too complex to form through evolution. He says philosophy is superior to science because it allows him to assert what must be, but exhibit a total unawareness that science is the most productive field of philosophy there ever was. Sol has the Sol style, and Statler has the statler style.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two differnet things.

No, inheritance of molecular properties through molecular self replication has been a necessary part of abiogenesis long before the process culminated in a living cell. The survival of traits developed with each stage of abiogenesis was subject to selection and survival pressure. So abiogenesis was evolution. It may not have been biological evolution yet until the later stages of the process, but it was evolution.

(November 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm)solja247 Wrote: Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, Some of the beneficial random mutations can lead to becoming the dominant genes in the species (thus over a series of generations it becomes the dominant genes in X). Name one case where evolution is random?
I will name one which isnt.
There are flying insects on a particular island, for some reason the island has a lot more wind than ussual. The insects which fly around are swept out to sea. For some reason there is a minority of these flying insects which have lost their ability to use their wings (a mutation). These minority become the dominant, as they are able to survive. The insects became the dominant, not by chance, but because they were the strongest to survive.

So that destroys the "abiogenesis is too complex" argument, doesn't it? If each of the 5000 digit on a 5000 digit combination lock lights up when you get that digit right, it would not be very complex to get all 5000 digit right, would it? Only if the process is random, if you must randomly select all 5000 digits at once and are given no indication of how close you are unless you get all 5000 digits right, could there really exist an issue of whether it was too complex or unlikely to occur.

Also, it's rather silly of you to assert to me familiarity with something I had to tell you only 3 weeks ago:

Quote:
(October 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm)solja247 Wrote:
Quote:This isn't all chance.

How is it not? Evolution is a series of chances which have allowed animals to create a niche, or be on top of the food chain?

(October 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm)Chuck Wrote:
(October 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm)solja247 Wrote: How is it not? Evolution is a series of chances which have allowed animals to create a niche, or be on top of the food chain?

Mutation determines which traits arise. Mutation is by chance. Evolution is the systematic sorting out of which traits survive. Evolution is not by chance.
(November 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm)solja247 Wrote: Also, Science is not philosophy.

The fact that you fancy yourself to be well versed in philosophy, but mainly aspire towards those sections of art that make little houses of cards out of idle assertions, does not mean sciences, which does not care for untestable assertions, has not always been part of philosophy or is not the most vibrant and powerful part of philosophy now. The fact that some people in sections you like think science is not philsophy seem to stem from just how marginalized those card house assertions would seem if compared to the methodological progress that has been made in natural philsophy.
Reply
#37
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
Well, I've watched some great material on abiogenesis on Youtube, and read about it, and it's far more majestic then anything I ever read in the Bible-and keep in mind that I read completely through the NIV, The Message, The New King James, and The New Living Translation. But the process of abiogenesis is so much more beautiful! If more people only understood that the formation and evolution of life on this earth does not take away from human dignity, as Christian theologians think, that would be great, IMO!!Smile It inspires so much more then any religion ever could.
Reply
#38
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 4, 2010 at 2:41 am)theVOID Wrote: And there are more than 20 different amino acids, L and D are only a fraction of the amino acids in life forms.

What, exactly, did you mean by this, Void? I mean, I know there are more than 20 different amino acids. But what do you mean by "L and D are only a fraction of the amino acids in life forms"?
Reply
#39
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
My addition:

The RNA world hypothesis uses evidence that Boron stabilizes free floating RNA and notes evidence that early Earth had quite a bit of Boron in the water. So RNA can develop first as postulated and remain stable for quite some time.

Also, RNA could polymerize in early Earth's high ultraviolet battered surfaces and oceans.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
Reply
#40
RE: How did the chemicals for life come together??..
(November 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm)rjh4 Wrote:
(November 4, 2010 at 2:41 am)theVOID Wrote: And there are more than 20 different amino acids, L and D are only a fraction of the amino acids in life forms.

What, exactly, did you mean by this, Void? I mean, I know there are more than 20 different amino acids. But what do you mean by "L and D are only a fraction of the amino acids in life forms"?

To the best of my knowledge theVOID is referring to the different enantiomers of amino acids due to their chiral centre (Excluding Glycine), D for a molecule that rotates plane polarised light to the right, and L to the left using Glyceraldehyde as a reference molecule. I could be completely mistaken and be taking a bias due to my favouritism of Chemistry.
"God is dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Faith is what you have in things that DON'T exist. - Homer J. Simpson
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Life eating other life. Brian37 42 929 May 14, 2021 at 4:44 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  quality of life or life for life's sake tackattack 37 1441 November 24, 2018 at 9:29 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Las Plagas here we come! frankiej 2 422 February 18, 2017 at 11:59 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  A change in evolution theory we come from sponges? Gooders1002 5 1915 December 13, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Last Post: Justtristo
  at what point did inorganic matter become organic life forms and what caused it? christcahinkilla 56 14327 July 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)