Origin of life: EVIDENCE

[paul pawlenko]

Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
what actually did occur.
thanks

[Thrinaxodon]

Well, there is evidence of abiogenesis, such as the Miller-Urrey experiments, of course, it's been falsified, but it started a new field: prebiotic chemistry.

[Robert Camp]

I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety
"evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume
there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the
transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to
conclude from that deficit?

[Paul J Gans]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 29, 2:20?pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first

>> cell formed from inorganic matter? ?I have found a lot of speculation

>> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>> what actually did occur.
>> thanks

>I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety
>"evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume
>there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the
>transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to
>conclude from that deficit?

Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Robert Carnegie]

The conjecture is that life began from chemistry. Clearly and
verifiably, chemistry occurs.

The conjecture also is that the first life was microscopically
small and happened a vastly long time ago, so it's unlikely to
exist now in a recognisable fossil form. I think it's been
claimed that the oldest rocks in the world bear signs of
the activity of life, but they also are less old than the
world itself.

Even that life appeared as "the first cell", as a cell at all,
is speculative. On the other hand, there are non-biological
processes that produce cells; froth obviously.

[jillery]

What would qualify as EVIDENCE to you?

[jillery]

What has been falsified? Abiogenesis? Or the Miller-Urey
experiments? And how was it falsified?

[Thrinaxodon]

We have found out more conditions, since the Miller-Urey experiments, that Miller and Urey got wrong.

[Robert Camp]

On Mar 29, 3:53�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I suppose it depends upon what lower-case paul has to say. If he
responds, "I really don't know, or care, about the evidence for
abiogenesis, I'm going to go on believing what I believe regardless,"
at least his thought processes are coherent, if possibly irrational
(though his question becomes irrelevant).

On the other hand if he says, "I don't believe there's any evidence
for abiogenesis and that lack justifies a belief in supernatural
intervention," then some logical walls have come tumbling down, all
rhetorical hell is breaking loose...dog neurons and cat neurons are
sleeping together...

It's always a crapshoot with these guys, but I'm betting the caps tell
us something significant.

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"Thrinaxodon" wrote in message
>news:cd2e48b3-18bb-4231...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:04:25 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT), Thrinaxodon
>>
>> <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:20:44 PM UTC-4, paul pawlenko wrote:
>>
>> >> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
>>

Cells formed from ORGANIC matter, in water. The first life (not cells) also
seems to have formed in water, mostly from organic compounds.
How did you get the silly idea that anyone claims "the first cell formed
from inorganic matter"?

>> >>
>>

>> >> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> what actually did occur.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> thanks
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, there is evidence of abiogenesis, such as the Miller-Urrey
>> >experiments, of course, it's been falsified, but it started a new field:
>> >prebiotic chemistry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What has been falsified? Abiogenesis? Or the Miller-Urey
>>
>> experiments? And how was it falsified?
>
>We have found out more conditions, since the Miller-Urey experiments, that
>Miller and Urey got wrong.

Thrinny, you are seriously confused and wrong!
The Biggest mistake Miller made was grossly underestimating the range and
quantity of organic compounds that were created.
There were some criticisms of the gas mixture used, but the experiment had
been repeated numerous times with different mixtures, and the results came
out the same.
Sugars, amino acids, and many other organic molecules have been found in
comets, meteors, interstellar clouds of gas and other places.
Klaus

[Earle Jones]

In article <6fc09f53-98df-421f...@googlegroups.com>,

*
What Miller-Urey showed is that simple molecules plus energy in the
right environment can produce more complex molecules.

That has not been falsified.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Thrinaxodon

Really? So what did the experiments get wrong, in your opinion?

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
> cell formed from inorganic matter?

There's very little doubt that the first life was *not* cellular.
Cells formed later, from living compounds.

�I have found a lot of speculation

> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
> what actually did occur.
> thanks

You need to keep reading.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[J. J. Lodder]

No, of course not.
There are some gaps there that you can put a god in,
if that's what you want.

It seems likely he will suffer the common fate
of all gods of the gaps, eventually,

Jan

[jonathan]

"paul pawlenko" <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b5dc0a9-0d08-460f...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Well that's the Big Question isn't it? How exactly do we get
from geology to biology?

I think the only way to figure that out is to have a second
example, say Mars, where we could see how life started there.
And from closely following the 2 rovers, it appears to me
a third intermediate form, a missing link so to speak, between
geology and biology is needed. Something which is not quite
either, having the composition of simple minerals only, but
the cyclic or self organized order or form associated with life.

Less than life, but more than geology.

And from looking at Mars, and comparing with Earth, what
I see is that our banded iron formations, and Mars vast surface
iron deposits, are the place where that first missing link evolved.

Things like this, iron concretions on mars formed in wet soil.


Small Spheres
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML


Large Spheres
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML


And the next step might be the evolution of bacteria, with colonies forming
stromatolites and marine sponges and so on. And once that single-celled
niche is fully filled, the sudden expansion into the adjacent possible can
take place, spontaneously creating the first metazoan. With such large
evolutionary steps happening faster and faster from there.

But if you want to read up on the latest and most vigorous research
into life elsewhere, which is essentially the search for how life first
starts
I'd suggest starting with the NASA annual astrobiology conferences.
The last one was overwhelming in the amount of research taking place
today on this subject. The rovers have caused this field to explode.

NASA Astrobiology Conference 2012 abstracts
Use the search engine to find topics of interest
http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/



Various micro imager pictures of spheres (field of view postage stamp size)


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m182.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/029/1M130761497EFF0454P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/177/1M143896735EFF3336P2957M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

Various wide angle images of spheres

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/1861/1P293402499ESFA000P2562L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html




NASA Technical Memorandum
WORKSHOP ON THE SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS
OF ASTROBIOLOGY

"One of the reasons for this is a sense of urgency: confirmation of
extraterrestrial life could occur at any time and in any of a number of
ways. When it occurs, we may have only limited control over the
situation." page 36

"The discovery may stimulate a worldwide resurgence in religious activity."
page 29

" .... it is extremely important for us to be highly knowledgeable
about the likely reactions of different constituencies (the press, various
religious groups, political leaders, and the general public).
We would be foolish and negligent if we did not study such reactions
well ahead of time and make state-of-the art preparations for major
discoveries." page 6
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/workshops/societal/societal_report.pdf





s

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), paul pawlenko
<sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I agree with your implied point that we have no direct evidence that
life on earth evolved from non life.

I do however note that Genesis 1:20 begins: "And God said, *Let* the
waters bring forth ..." To me that suggests that God created the
universe so that His plan could be carried out using the Natural
processes He set in place. That is, He just *let* it happen naturally.

What we can support with a lot of scientific evidence is that all life
on earth evolved from a single celled ancestor. So I guess it's
possible that God created some pond scum about 3 billion years ago and
let things develop from there.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Thrinaxodon]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:11:19 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> "paul pawlenko" <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b5dc0a9-0d08-460f...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>
> > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
>
> > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>
> > what actually did occur.
>
> > thanks
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Well that's the Big Question isn't it? How exactly do we get
>
> from geology to biology?
>

> > You mean organic chemistry?

>
> I think the only way to figure that out is to have a second
>
> example, say Mars, where we could see how life started there.
>
> And from closely following the 2 rovers, it appears to me
>
> a third intermediate form, a missing link so to speak, between
>
> geology and biology is needed. Something which is not quite
>
> either, having the composition of simple minerals only, but
>
> the cyclic or self organized order or form associated with life.
>
>
>
> Less than life, but more than geology.
>

> > Do you have any knowledge of this, stick to mathematics.

>
> And from looking at Mars, and comparing with Earth, what
>
> I see is that our banded iron formations, and Mars vast surface
>
> iron deposits, are the place where that first missing link evolved.
>

> > BULLSHIT!!!

>
> Things like this, iron concretions on mars formed in wet soil.
>
>

> > True...

>
>
> Small Spheres
>
> http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML
>
>
>
>
>
> Large Spheres
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
>
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML
>
>
>
>
>
> And the next step might be the evolution of bacteria, with colonies forming
>
> stromatolites and marine sponges and so on. And once that single-celled
>
> niche is fully filled, the sudden expansion into the adjacent possible can
>
> take place, spontaneously creating the first metazoan. With such large
>
> evolutionary steps happening faster and faster from there.
>

> > You really think so? You're going to let creationists gain an advantage.
> There are many niches. The first metazoan didn't spontaneously appear, it was
> a gradual process.

> A lot of words, to explain nothing.
>
>
>
>
> s

[Harry K]

On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is some and progress is being made. HOWEVER what we do have is
an entire universe more than there is for aniy god.

Harry K

[Paul J Gans]

The Miller-Urey experiment depended on starting with the
atmosphere that was present on pre-life earth. We now know
that they used an incorrect assumption for the composition
of the atmosphere.

That wasn't their fault. They used the best information
available at that time.

The basic problem here isn't that. It is having folks understand
that science can not rely on supernatural explanations. You
know that, but many who want to compare religious explanations
to scientific ones do not.

For their benefit: science is a methodology to attempt to
explain the observed universe by natural expanations. It
is in constant flux as new things are discovered. Religion
does not work this way. It starts by presupposing that
supernatural explanations can be used.

Thus in reality science and religion can't be compared on
any real basis.

[Paul J Gans]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nah. I'm typing on an ancient portable (I'm on the road) and sometimes
I miss the shift ke.

I just posted a longish reply to questions similar to these upthread
a post or two.

[Thrinaxodon]

> True.
>
>
>
> > Try telling that to Brad, from NO Answers in Genesis Discussion Board.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by paul pawlenko
<sourceco...@yahoo.com>:

>Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>cell formed from inorganic matter?

No one thinks that a cell arose spontaneously from inorganic
matter; cells would have come long after the beginning of
life.

> I have found a lot of speculation
>and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>what actually did occur.

The evidence is far from linearly conclusive (step 1, step
2, etc), but as it's been shown that chemicals plus energy
yields organic molecules (even in interstellar space), and
since those molecules, which are known to have existed on
the prebiotic Earth, are a required step for life to begin,
the circumstantial evidence is fairly strong. Since life did
not exist on Earth at its formation, and it does exist now,
at some point it began here. And so far the only evidence is
that it began via natural processes.

If this isn't the sort of evidence you can accept (even
though all fields of science use similar evidence), please
state what you *would* accept.

>thanks

You're welcome.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[ed wolf]

Am Samstag, 30. M�rz 2013 01:44:20 UTC+1 schrieb Klaus Hellnick:


> Cells formed from ORGANIC matter, in water. The first life (not cells) also
>
> seems to have formed in water, mostly from organic compounds.
>
> How did you get the silly idea that anyone claims "the first cell formed
>
> from inorganic matter"?

maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and "anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry, but there is no proper boundary.
Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism.
regards
ed

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"ed wolf" wrote in message
>news:0c7aafda-3296-4337...@googlegroups.com...

>
>maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide
>between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler
>found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and
> >"anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry,
>but there is no proper boundary.
>Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping
>your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism.
>regards
>ed

Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
directly from INORGANIC matter.
No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
anything like a recognizable cell.
If you would read the original post in this thread, you would see that the
question was not about the origin of life, but cells arising from inorganic
matter.
Perhaps some of the meaning of the terms was lost in translation.
Klaus

[eridanus]

El viernes, 29 de marzo de 2013 21:20:44 UTC, paul pawlenko escribi�:

it depends on what you mean by evidence. Do you presume we can have
some evidence, like a fossil evidence, of the first living molecules
that were formed on the earth some billion years ago? It is a little
exaggerate petition.
The smaller equivalence of this is asking you "have you any evidence
the Cain killed Abel?" Had appeared the arm of the crime? What other
children had Eve? Or by the way, from where came that people where
Cain founded a city. Is it that existed other people in the planet
that were not children of Eve?
Perhaps this story about Cain and Even it is a patched one made out of
different parts. In one part Cain that was a farmer represented the
people that lived in the low lands near bordering the sea. While Able
symbolized the people that lived in the mountains tending sheep. Both
population exchanged food each year. The herders sold sheep for meat
as a exchange for wheat. From time to time they were enemies for a
reason or other. The myth of Cain an Able explain this ancestral
enmity. Then, if Cain killed Able, it meant the people of the low
lands killed their brother that lived by tending sheep. God do not like
the smoke of the vegetable foods, but the smoke of the grease of a
roasting sheep. This fact explains in part, in a later time when the
herders conquered the lands of the farmers, that the eating of pork was
made a taboo, for it was a dishonest competence to the meat of the sheep.

The myth of Adam and Eve comes from the idea that in some time in the past
they were the sons of god, not like other people on other lands. To prove
they were the sons of god, they invented the story of Adam and Eve.
Other people were probably the sons of demons, or the children of evil gods,
or whatever.

What evidence do you have about the existence of Adam and Eve?

Eridanus

[Roger Shrubber]

Tell me what an inorganic lipid is.

[chris thompson]

On Mar 30, 3:49�pm, "Klaus Hellnick" <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >"ed wolf" �wrote in message
> >news:0c7aafda-3296-4337...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide
> >between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler
> >found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and
> > >"anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry,
> >but there is no proper boundary.
> >Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping
> >your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism.
> >regards
> >ed
>
> Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
> Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
> directly from INORGANIC matter.
> No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
> anything like a recognizable cell.

Interesting conundrum here, Klaus. While we cannot say what things
were like 2 billion years ago, cell theory says all living things are
composed of cells. What life are you talking about, that made use of
organic chemistry before cells?

Chris

[wiki trix]

Fat rocks.

[jonathan]

"Thrinaxodon" <biol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84341b24-5b41-415d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:11:19 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>> "paul pawlenko" <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

..
>>
>> > BULLSHIT!!!



No it isn't~

Then you're supposed to say ...'yes it is' and then take
your bat and ball and run home to mama.


s

[Earle Jones]

In article <kj76sj$8co$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

*
Paul Gans says that "...science and religion can't be compared on
any real basis."

There have been many attempts to reconcile science and religion � some
are idiotic and some are not. The best attempt to my knowledge is by my
favorite biologist, Edward O. Wilson.

"...We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."

Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

We are doing the same thing that early man did: Searching for meaning
and significance. Only we have much better tools to do this than early
man had.

earle
*

[Thrinaxodon]

> > My, what an ad hominem we got here.
>
>
>
> s

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"Roger Shrubber" wrote in message
>news:T8Wdne-R7clb2crM...@giganews.com...

>Tell me what an inorganic lipid is.

Um, there is no such thing. Lipids are fatty acids and carboxyls.
That was my point. The protocells already were using many organic molecules.
As for the origin of life, I am in the metabolism first camp.
Klaus

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit?

good question
The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with mythology and religion. The �wise tribal leaders� tell the masses what to think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be different. It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is science any different from religion and mythology?

I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can supply me with evidence, the more I find that the �scientific view� of the origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led by �wise tribal leaders��.same as always.

[Roger Shrubber]

Your point is muddled.
That lipids existed does not mean that chemical hypercycles
that produced lipids existed.

There are two issues. One, cells are composed of organic
molecules, not inorganic molecules. Organic is a descriptor
of the composition of the molecules, not their mechanism
of formation. Nothing that qualifies as a _cell_ sensu
biology can be made of inorganic molecules.

The second point is _if_ the biochemistry of life was
operating in a self-sustaining and organized manner
prior to the arrival at units of biochemical activity
we would generally recognize as cells. This is a
popular conjecture with reasonable arguments in its
favor as well as reasonable arguments against it.
We really don't know enough to narrow the error bars
on the conjecture towards anything approaching confidence.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:02:12 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first >cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation >and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of >what actually did occur. >thanks What would qualify as EVIDENCE to you?

As an example take the Big Bang Theory. The motion of the stars exactly matches a mathematical model that can predict their future and past location very accurately. There has never been a noted exception Never has a star that just decides to completely disobey this math model (not talking about dark matter, I�m referring to decisive, gross deviations from the model). This model has been validated for centuries. Therefore, if we assume this model is the same today as it was yesterday�, then all the stars must necessarily have originated from a single point in space as predicted by the model.

In the case of the origin of life, evidence includes:
� Duplication of the process in a lab
� Examining the process in another system
� Physical byproducts (fossils, or equivalent, of early cells and organelles)
� A computer model based upon direct physical laws

[Klaus Hellnick]

Roger, you are seriously confused. Please reread what I actually wrote. You
are misreading something.
You seem to be conflating things AND misattributing some comments.
The attribution problem may be partially my fault; I am using Windows Live
Mail and still have not been able to figure out how to make it format
replies correctly.
Klaus

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the common fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan

Put God in Gaps? I�m asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in science?
Should we not question science always?
Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:17:43 AM UTC-5, Harry K wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks There is some and progress is being made. HOWEVER what we do have is an entire universe more than there is for aniy god. Harry K

I don't understand what that means: "more than there is for any god"

[Roger Shrubber]

It's rather clear you are beyond your competence.
The evidence is that you speak of stars rather than
galaxies. We cannot interpolate backwards from the
motion of stars to a smaller universe. The observations
of the motions of stars according to gravitational
models (those we've made for centuries) say nothing
about the expansion of the universe.

There's also a distinction between tracing motion back
to center and identifying expansion. Your _understanding_
is sophomoric at best. You time would be better spent
learning than pontificating.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:

>> On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit?

>
>good question

> The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with

> mythology and religion. The "wise tribal leaders" tell the masses what to

> think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be
> different. It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is
> science any different from religion and mythology?

> I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That
> does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can

> supply me with evidence, the more I find that the "scientific view" of the

> origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led

> by "wise tribal leaders"..same as always.

So perhaps we can turn the question half way around.

We *DO* have a lot of evidence that all life evolved from a single
celled common ancestor. That ancestor almost certainly existed more
that 2.5 billion years ago.

Given that, what do you think is more likely:

1) God created some pond scum from which we all evolved?
2) Life gradually arose from non-life?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kj76sj$8co$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Thus in reality science and religion can't be compared on
> any real basis.

OK, so we have to compare them on imaginary bases?

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Roger Shrubber]

You said:
> Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
> Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
> directly from INORGANIC matter.
> No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
> anything like a recognizable cell.
> If you would read the original post in this thread, you would see
that the
> question was not about the origin of life, but cells arising from
inorganic
> matter.
> Perhaps some of the meaning of the terms was lost in translation.

There's a great deal of confusion in there between two points.
One point is the bizarre usage of _inorganic_. Inorganic
describes the composition of molecules, not the mechanism
of their synthesis. Cells are by definition composed of
organic matter so they cannot have been assembled from
inorganic molecules.

That's why I asked:

> Tell me what an inorganic lipid is.

The second point of confusion is your assertion that we know
that the metabolism first model is how things happened.
It is a good model but you oversell it as something known.

You retorted:

> Um, there is no such thing. Lipids are fatty acids and carboxyls.
> That was my point. The protocells already were using many organic
> molecules.
> As for the origin of life, I am in the metabolism first camp.

> Klaus

This fails to recognize the earlier problem about making
cells from _inorganic_ building blocks. I suspect there's
some confusion somewhere about the meaning of the term
_inorganic_. Again, it describes composition, not origins.

And again, you oversell the metabolism first model as
if it is a settled issue. It isn't.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Mar 29, 3:53�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote: > Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 29, 2:20?pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > >> cell formed from inorganic matter? ?I have found a lot of speculation > >> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > >> what actually did occur. > >> thanks > >I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety > >"evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume > >there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the > >transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to > >conclude from that deficit? > > Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it? I suppose it depends upon what lower-case paul has to say. If he responds, "I really don't know, or care, about the evidence for abiogenesis, I'm going to go on believing what I believe regardless," at least his thought proc

esses are coherent, if possibly irrational (though his question becomes irrelevant). On the other hand if he says, "I don't believe there's any evidence for abiogenesis and that lack justifies a belief in supernatural intervention," then some logical walls have come tumbling down, all rhetorical hell is breaking loose...dog neurons and cat neurons are sleeping together... It's always a crapshoot with these guys, but I'm betting the caps tell us something significant.

True.
My insistence on evidence is to do what I can to preserve the integrity of science so that it (or more accurately part of it) does not degrade into �yet another religion�.
But my belief system is based wholly on logic. Specifically this logic:
1) When an archeologist uncovers a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it, all rational people universally agree that such writing must necessarily be the result of intelligence.
2) According to science, living cells arose from inorganic matter by the laws of physics alone.

So what makes the clay tablet so special? No one would dispute that any small stray marking could occur naturally. Yet, taken together, everyone agrees that markings resulting in legible writing require intelligence. What is so special about the arrangement of these markings?
I have yet to receive any logic to explain why such clay tablets must necessarily be the result of intelligence. Whatever physical process that anyone uses to show how life originated, why could not such a process (or the byproducts of such a process) account for the inscriptions on the clay tablet? This is a basic contradiction that no one has resolved for me.

Also, I consider the argument that life arose by a process similar to crystal formation, not random at all, but naturally emerging from the laws of physics. Yet for all these �emergent phenomenon�, we can model them according to the laws of physics. I saw research being done on modeling snowflakes based on physical laws. People model canyons, etc. Where is the physics model for how life originated? If this argument is valid, once we get the starting conditions right, molecules should just start snapping together into complex proteins just like they do for a model of snowflakes.
But such complex proteins do not just spontaneously snap together in any physics model (as far as I know�anyone have EVIDENCE to the contrary?). Just like stray markings never arbitrarily form legible letters on a clay tablet. And IMO it�s because of how numbers grow.

Estimated number of atoms in the universe << 10E100
Estimated age of the universe in plank time units << 10E100
Number of possible images that can be printed on a typical office printer >> 10E1000000 (try writing this number on paper by hand).

With all due respect to Carl Sagan, the complex number spaces required to form life make �billions of billions� of stars completely insignificant in comparison.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> El viernes, 29 de marzo de 2013 21:20:44 UTC, paul pawlenko escribi�: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > > what actually did occur. > > thanks it depends on what you mean by evidence. Do you presume we can have some evidence, like a fossil evidence, of the first living molecules that were formed on the earth some billion years ago? It is a little exaggerate petition. The smaller equivalence of this is asking you "have you any evidence the Cain killed Abel?" Had appeared the arm of the crime? What other children had Eve? Or by the way, from where came that people where Cain founded a city. Is it that existed other people in the planet that were not children of Eve? Perhaps this story about Cain and Even it is a patched one made out of different parts. In one part Cain that was a farmer represented the people that lived in the

low lands near bordering the sea. While Able symbolized the people that lived in the mountains tending sheep. Both population exchanged food each year. The herders sold sheep for meat as a exchange for wheat. From time to time they were enemies for a reason or other. The myth of Cain an Able explain this ancestral enmity. Then, if Cain killed Able, it meant the people of the low lands killed their brother that lived by tending sheep. God do not like the smoke of the vegetable foods, but the smoke of the grease of a roasting sheep. This fact explains in part, in a later time when the herders conquered the lands of the farmers, that the eating of pork was made a taboo, for it was a dishonest competence to the meat of the sheep. The myth of Adam and Eve comes from the idea that in some time in the past they were the sons of god, not like other people on other lands. To prove they were the sons of god, they invented the story of Adam and Eve. Other people were probably the sons of demons, or the children of evil

gods, or whatever. What evidence do you have about the existence of Adam and Eve? Eridanus

None. I am not Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist.
I write software and I believe in logic.
Thank logic for computers, they are so easy to understand and they understand me so well.
Humans�not so much.

[Roger Shrubber]

sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

> True.
> My insistence on evidence is to do what I can to preserve the integrity of science so that it (or more accurately part of it) does not degrade into �yet another religion�.
> But my belief system is based wholly on logic. Specifically this logic:
> 1) When an archeologist uncovers a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it, all rational people universally agree that such writing must necessarily be the result of intelligence.
> 2) According to science, living cells arose from inorganic matter by the laws of physics alone.

No. You do not even understand the meaning of the word "inorganic".
Science does not make that claim(2). You are exposed as a ill-informed
blow-hard.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:28:52 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: >On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit? > >good question > The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with > mythology and religion. The "wise tribal leaders" tell the masses what to > think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be > different. It i

s supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is > science any different from religion and mythology? > I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That > does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can > supply me with evidence, the more I find that the "scientific view" of the > origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led > by "wise tribal leaders"..same as always. So perhaps we can turn the question half way around. We *DO* have a lot of evidence that all life evolved from a single celled common ancestor. That ancestor almost certainly existed more that 2.5 billion years ago. Given that, what do you think is more likely: 1) God created some pond scum from which we all evolved? 2) Life gradually arose from non-life? -- Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

All of the evidence that you refer is predicated on condition that you (apparently) agree that we have no evidence to support. The point here is that science should be reporting the facts but instead is marketing a political agenda with no evidentiary foundation. It�s religion all over again.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:20:47 AM UTC-5, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: > True. > My insistence on evidence is to do what I can to preserve the integrity of science so that it (or more accurately part of it) does not degrade into �yet another religion�. > But my belief system is based wholly on logic. Specifically this logic: > 1) When an archeologist uncovers a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it, all rational people universally agree that such writing must necessarily be the result of intelligence. > 2) According to science, living cells arose from inorganic matter by the laws of physics alone. No. You do not even understand the meaning of the word "inorganic". Science does not make that claim(2). You are exposed as a ill-informed blow-hard.

During the big bang no organic matter existed.
According to science organic matter then formed as a direct result of the laws of physics.
I am consistent/accurate and you illustrate my repeated point that science is using indoctrination and social intimidation instead of logic and evidence�.just like religion

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:42:23 AM UTC-5, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? There's very little doubt that the first life was *not* cellular. Cells formed later, from living compounds. �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks You need to keep reading. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Thanks, but I�m not interested in secondary references only evidence.
To be repeatedly clear, my point is that every scientific explanation for the origin of life begins at the big bang, proceeds to the formation of the earth and involves a living cell. From the early earth to the first living cell there was some process. I am looking for evidence of whatever this process was. I have found very little.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:02:37 PM UTC-5, ed wolf wrote:
> Am Samstag, 30. M�rz 2013 01:44:20 UTC+1 schrieb Klaus Hellnick: > Cells formed from ORGANIC matter, in water. The first life (not cells) also > > seems to have formed in water, mostly from organic compounds. > > How did you get the silly idea that anyone claims "the first cell formed > > from inorganic matter"? maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and "anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry, but there is no proper boundary. Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism. regards ed

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:53:34 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 29 March 2013 21:20:44 UTC, paul pawlenko wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > > thanks The conjecture is that life began from chemistry. Clearly and verifiably, chemistry occurs. The conjecture also is that the first life was microscopically small and happened a vastly long time ago, so it's unlikely to exist now in a recognisable fossil form. I think it's been claimed that the oldest rocks in the world bear signs of the activity of life, but they also are less old than the world itself. Even that life appeared as "the first cell", as a cell at all, is speculative. On the other hand, there are non-biological processes that produce cells; froth obviously.

True.
I am referring to �living cells� capable of replication and assimilation. Looking for evidence supporting any part of the process showing how they formed.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:22:21 PM UTC-5, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:02:12 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first >cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation >and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of >what actually did occur. >thanks What would qualify as EVIDENCE to you? > > As an example take the Big Bang Theory. The motion of the stars > exactly matches a mathematical model that can predict their future > and past location very accurately. There has never been a noted > exception Never has a star that just decides to completely disobey > this math model (not talking about dark matter, I�m referring to > decisive, gross deviations from the model). This model has been > validated for centuries. Therefore, if we assume this model is > the same today as it was yesterday�, then all the stars must > necessarily h

ave originated from a single point in space as > predicted by the model. > > In the case of the origin of life, evidence includes: > � Duplication of the process in a lab > � Examining the process in another system > � Physical byproducts (fossils, or equivalent, of early cells and organelles) > � A computer model based upon direct physical laws > It's rather clear you are beyond your competence. The evidence is that you speak of stars rather than galaxies. We cannot interpolate backwards from the motion of stars to a smaller universe. The observations of the motions of stars according to gravitational models (those we've made for centuries) say nothing about the expansion of the universe. There's also a distinction between tracing motion back to center and identifying expansion. Your _understanding_ is sophomoric at best. You time would be better spent learning than pontificating.

Hey Roger,
The sky is blue. Really.

[Klaus Hellnick]

----Original Message-----
From: Roger Shrubber
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:44 PM Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject:
Re: Origin of life: EVIDENCE

Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> Roger, you are seriously confused. Please reread what I actually wrote.
> You
> are misreading something.
> You seem to be conflating things AND misattributing some comments.
> The attribution problem may be partially my fault; I am using Windows Live
> Mail and still have not been able to figure out how to make it format
> replies correctly.
> Klaus
>

You said:
> Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
> Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
> directly from INORGANIC matter.
> No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
> anything like a recognizable cell.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<I said this and it is perfectly clear. THRINAXODON implied that it was
claimed that cells arose directly from inorganic chemicals. >
< I rightly stated that no one says this. Others made the same point in this
thread. I further stated that the earliest cells used organic compounds. >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> If you would read the original post in this thread, you would see
that the
> question was not about the origin of life, but cells arising from
inorganic
> matter.
> Perhaps some of the meaning of the terms was lost in translation.

There's a great deal of confusion in there between two points.
One point is the bizarre usage of _inorganic_. Inorganic
describes the composition of molecules, not the mechanism
of their synthesis. Cells are by definition composed of
organic matter so they cannot have been assembled from
inorganic molecules.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< First off, I know damn well what organic and inorganic mean. Secondly, I
said nothing about synthesis. >
< Thirdly, if you would actually READ WHAT THE HELL I SAID, you would see I
said protocells were made >
< of organic molecules, not formed from inorganic molecules. So, pull your
head out and quit arguing with me when you are agreeing! >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why I asked:
> Tell me what an inorganic lipid is.

The second point of confusion is your assertion that we know
that the metabolism first model is how things happened.
It is a good model but you oversell it as something known.

You retorted:
> Um, there is no such thing. Lipids are fatty acids and carboxyls.
> That was my point. The protocells already were using many organic
> molecules.
> As for the origin of life, I am in the metabolism first camp.
> Klaus

This fails to recognize the earlier problem about making
cells from _inorganic_ building blocks. I suspect there's
some confusion somewhere about the meaning of the term
_inorganic_. Again, it describes composition, not origins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< There you go again! The cells were made of organic molecules that already
existed in the environment. The confusion is all yours, as you simply seem
to be agreeing with me, again! >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And again, you oversell the metabolism first model as
if it is a settled issue. It isn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Here you are simply making things up. If you could read for comprehension,
I acknowledged "origin of life" is a separate issue from "origin of cells".
>
< Furthermore, I implied there were differing views by saying " I am in the
metabolism first camp". I did not oversell anything or say it was settled. >
Klaus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:20:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT), Thrinaxodon
>><biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>>On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:20:44 PM UTC-4, paul pawlenko wrote:
>>>> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>>>> >
>>>> cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
>>>>
>>>> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>>>>
>>>> what actually did occur.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>

>>>Well, there is evidence of abiogenesis, such as the Miller-Urrey experiments, of course, it's been falsified, but it started a new field: prebiotic chemistry.
>
>
>>What has been falsified? Abiogenesis? Or the Miller-Urey
>>experiments? And how was it falsified?
>
>The Miller-Urey experiment depended on starting with the
>atmosphere that was present on pre-life earth. We now know
>that they used an incorrect assumption for the composition
>of the atmosphere.

I strongly disagree. Even if that's what Thrinaxodon is referring to,
that doesn't support his claim that the experiment was falsified. Even
our current understanding of what Earth's atmosphere was like 4
billion years ago necessarily remains an approximation. And later
experiments were run using different gas mixtures and conditions. And
the intent of the experiment was not to validate a particular
atmospheric composition, but to show that complex organic molecules
can be formed by simulating in the lab plausible conditions and
undirected stochastic processes. On that the experiment exceeded
everybody's expectations.

So my question remains unanswered.

>That wasn't their fault. They used the best information
>available at that time.
>
>The basic problem here isn't that. It is having folks understand
>that science can not rely on supernatural explanations. You
>know that, but many who want to compare religious explanations
>to scientific ones do not.
>
>For their benefit: science is a methodology to attempt to
>explain the observed universe by natural expanations. It
>is in constant flux as new things are discovered. Religion
>does not work this way. It starts by presupposing that
>supernatural explanations can be used.
>

>Thus in reality science and religion can't be compared on
>any real basis.

I agree the OP implies as you suggest above, that he's equating
science and religion, but that isn't the misunderstanding Thrinaxodon
expressed and that isn't what I asked about.

[jillery]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:32:12 +1030, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>> "ed wolf" wrote in message
>>> news:0c7aafda-3296-4337...@googlegroups.com...

>>>
>>> maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide
>>> between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler
>>> found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and
>>>> "anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry,
>>> but there is no proper boundary.
>>> Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping
>>> your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism.
>>> regards
>>> ed
>>

>> Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
>> Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
>> directly from INORGANIC matter.
>> No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
>> anything like a recognizable cell.

>> If you would read the original post in this thread, you would see that the
>> question was not about the origin of life, but cells arising from inorganic
>> matter.
>> Perhaps some of the meaning of the terms was lost in translation.
>

>Tell me what an inorganic lipid is.

Perhaps that's what male ovums are made of.

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:04:23 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>>On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:02:12 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first >cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation >and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of >what actually did occur. >thanks


>> What would qualify as EVIDENCE to you?
>
>

>As an example take the Big Bang Theory. The motion of the stars exactly matches a mathematical model that can predict their future and past location very accurately. There has never been a noted exception Never has a star that just decides to completely disobey this math model (not talking about dark matter, I�ｿｽm referring to decisive, gross deviations from the model). This model has been validated for centuries. Therefore, if we assume this model is the same today as it was yesterday�ｿｽ, then all the stars must necessarily have originated from a single point in space as predicted by the model.


The Big Bang Theory is an explanation of evidence, not the evidence
itself. And there are alternative explanations for the observed
motions of galaxies without an initial "single point" required. So
your example doesn't really help to answer my question.

As a counter example, Common Descent is used to explain how related
species appear to radiate out in space, time, and complexity, which
suggests that all life originated from an single source organism, but
there are other explanations as well.

>In the case of the origin of life, evidence includes:

>�ｿｽ Duplication of the process in a lab


Even if one were to create in the lab life from abiotic precursors, it
would not necessarily show that's how life arose on Earth. There are
likely several chemical pathways from goo to you.

And in order to duplicate any process in a lab, one has to have a
pretty good idea of what the conditions were on Earth 4 billion years
ago. You should be able to understand that evidence for that is hard
to find nowadays.


>�ｿｽ Examining the process in another system


Another system? What is the current system you have in mind? Where
would one find another one?


>�ｿｽ Physical byproducts (fossils, or equivalent, of early cells and organelles)


There is a surprisingly large sampling of fossils of bacterial mats,
and mineral deposits which bear the radioisotopic signature of life's
preference for specific isotopes, and primitive soft-bodied Ediacaran
organisms.

But these things are not evidence of first life. Any organism capable
of leaving the kind of evidence you suggest above would be far in
advanced of first life.


>�ｿｽ A computer model based upon direct physical laws


I'm no expert, but I suspect there are lots of simulations that do
something like that. Just a quick Google of "origin of life computer
simulation" provides almost 3 million hits. Why do none of these
satisfy you?

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

[...]

>I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated.

Perhaps you don't know what you're looking for.


[...]

[jillery]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:02:37 PM UTC-5, ed wolf wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 30. M�rz 2013 01:44:20 UTC+1 schrieb Klaus Hellnick: > Cells formed from ORGANIC matter, in water. The first life (not cells) also > > seems to have formed in water, mostly from organic compounds. > > How did you get the silly idea that anyone claims "the first cell formed > > from inorganic matter"? maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when W�hler found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and "anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry, but there is no proper boundary. Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism. regards ed
>
>To be repeatedly clear, my point is that every scientific explanation for the origin of life begins at the big bang, proceeds to the formation of the earth and involves a living cell.

Every scientific explanation? Then it should be easy for you to cite
one, just so everybody knows what you're talking about, of course.

> From the early earth to the first living cell there was some process. I am looking for evidence of whatever this process was. I have found very little.

That explains why you're having no luck. My understanding is there
were many processes involved.

[J. J. Lodder]

<sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
> > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
> > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
> > what actually did occur.
> > thanks No, of course not.
> > There are some gaps there that you can put a god in,
> > if that's what you want.
> > It seems likely he will suffer the common fate of all gods of the gaps,
> > eventually,

>

> Put God in Gaps? I'm asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in science?

> Should we not question science always?
> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?

Then ask the question in a way
that doesn't make you look like a fool,

Jan

[alias Ernest Major]

Firstly, to note that your newsreader seems to have broken the
formatting of messages.

Secondly, while the sky is blue (in some places and at some times) the
stars didn't originate from a single point. The majority of stars
originate in clouds of gas and dust (giant molecular clouds) within
galaxies.

Nor did galaxies originate at a single point. They are also younger than
the universe.

What we know is that the universe was once very much smaller, very much
denser and very much hotter, and that if you ignore quantum effects and
extrapolate a General Relativity based model backwards you hit a
singularity (a point). We know that we can't ignore quantum effects, but
we don't know how to incorporate them into a model, so we don't know
what happened at times before those at which quantum effects are small
enough to be ingored.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 31/03/2013 06:40, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:42:23 AM UTC-5, SkyEyes wrote:

>> On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? There's very little doubt that the first life was *not* cellular. Cells formed later, from living compounds. I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks You need to keep reading. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

>
> Thanks, but I�m not interested in secondary references only evidence.
> To be repeatedly clear, my point is that every scientific explanation for the origin of life begins at the big bang, proceeds to the formation of the earth and involves a living cell. From the early earth to the first living cell there was some process. I am looking for evidence of whatever this process was. I have found very little.
>

If you want actual physical EVIDENCE, rather than references to the
evidence, you need to get into the laboratory. Or at least offer to pay
acquisition and shipping expenses. If you don't want actual physical
EVIDENCE you shouldn't be distinguishing between references and evidence.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 31/03/2013 06:27, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:28:52 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:

>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: >On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit? > >good question > The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with > mythology and religion. The "wise tribal leaders" tell the masses what to > think and the masses followed without thinking. Science wa

s suppo
sed to be > different. It i
>
> s supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is > science any different from religion and mythology? > I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That > does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can > supply me with evidence, the more I find that the "scientific view" of the > origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led > by "wise tribal leaders"..same as always. So perhaps we can turn the question half way around. We *DO* have a lot of evidence that all life evolved from a single celled common ancestor. That ancestor almost certainly existed more that 2.5 billion years ago. Given that, what do you think is more likely: 1) God created some pond scum from which we all evolved? 2) Life gradually arose from non-life? -- Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>
> All of the evidence that you refer is predicated on condition that you (apparently) agree that we have no evidence to support. The point here is that science should be reporting the facts but instead is marketing a political agenda with no evidentiary foundation. It�s religion all over again.
>

We have evidence that abiogenesis has occurred - once upon a time the
universe was incapable of supporting life, but now it does. If you
ignore hypotheses of new physics, such as wormholes from alternative
universes, abiogenesis can be deduced to have occurred.

Depending on what you consider to be living, it may be that abiogenesis
has been observed. Viruses have been synthesised in the laboratory.
Replicating RNAs spontaneously form in some environments (see
Spiegelman's Monster). But even apart from the fact that few people
would consider the results to be life, neither is plausibly the process
which resulting in the common ancestor of terrestrial life.

What is thinner on the ground is evidence on the process by which
abiogenesis occurred, and there is not enough to infer confidently a
path by which it could occur, never mind the path by which it could occur.

However there is evidence of processes that could plausibly have
contributed to the process, such as abiotic synthesis of amino acids and
other precursors of biological macromolecules, or the spontaneous
formation of lipid micelles. At the other hand, we can infer from
molecular fossils the existence of the "RNA world" (though the
inhabitants of the RNA world would probably be considered living organisms).

Anyway with any reasonable degree of knowledge of the subject should
know this, so your demand for evidence has the appearance of
disingenousness. The rest of your anti-abiogenesis rhetoric is based on
a misunderstanding of how science works, and on ignoring the evidence
that we have that abiogenesis occurred.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 31/03/2013 06:31, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:20:47 AM UTC-5, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: > True. > My insistence on evidence is to do what I can to preserve the integrity of science so that it (or more accurately part of it) does not degrade into �yet another religion�. > But my belief system is based wholly on logic. Specifically this logic: > 1) When an archeologist uncovers a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it, all rational people universally agree that such writing must necessarily be the result of intelligence. > 2) According to science, living cells arose from inorganic matter by the laws of physics alone. No. You do not even understand the meaning of the word "inorganic". Science does not make that claim(2). You are exposed as a ill-informed blow-hard.
>
> During the big bang no organic matter existed.
> According to science organic matter then formed as a direct result of the laws of physics.

Hydrogen atoms were formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang, when the
universe cooled sufficiently to allow free proton and electrons to
recombine. This is a well understood process, for which there is plenty
of evidence. (Why proton and electrons atoms predominate over
antiprotons and positrons is a open question.)

The remaining elements involved in organic matter (predominantly carbon,
oxygen and nitrogen) were formed predominantly by stellar
nucleosynthesis. This is another well understood process, for which
there is plenty of evidence.

In appropriate conditions atoms of these elements spontaneously form
organic compounds (e.g. formaldehyde). This is yet another well
understood process for which there is plenty of evidence.

So there you have it - organic matter being formed as a direct result of
the laws of physics.

[If you mean living organisms, rather than organic matter, then fix your
terminology to be consistent with the usage of the rest of the world.]

> I am consistent/accurate and you illustrate my repeated point that science is using indoctrination and social intimidation instead of logic and evidence�.just like religion
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jonathan]

"Thrinaxodon" <biol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:acd30fa9-fb72-402a...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:46:39 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>> "Thrinaxodon" <biol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:84341b24-5b41-415d...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:11:19 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>>
>> >> "paul pawlenko" <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> ..
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > BULLSHIT!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No it isn't~
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you're supposed to say ...'yes it is' and then take
>>
>> your bat and ball and run home to mama.
>>
>> > My, what an ad hominem we got here.


If by that you mean insult? Yes of course it is.
I have a thing for 'one word' responses to a
lengthly post. If someone can't say why they
disagree, it's just spam.

But maybe I should stop responding in kind.
It is Easter after all~




>>
>>
>>
>> s
>

[mikemille...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 2:20:44 PM UTC-7, paul pawlenko wrote:
> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>
> cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
>
> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>
> what actually did occur.
>
> thanks

How dare you ask for evidence. You must be a creationist. ha ha.

[ed wolf]

Am Samstag, 30. M�rz 2013 20:49:17 UTC+1 schrieb Klaus Hellnick:

> Perhaps you did not understand the terminology.
> Thrin set up a strawman argument that it is claimed that CELLS arose
> directly from INORGANIC matter.
> No one claims this. Life used organic chemistry long before there was
> anything like a recognizable cell.
> If you would read the original post in this thread, you would see that the
> question was not about the origin of life, but cells arising from inorganic
> matter.
> Perhaps some of the meaning of the terms was lost in translation.

> Klaus

I did read, and what I understood was a question about origin of cells from "inorganic matter". To me it looked like another attemt to reanimate vitalism. ( I was thinking of the famous "pond scum" of the IDiots.) The term "organic" is of course dubious in the absence of organs, or cells. It is no meaningful term anyway. The very argument for live from scratch rests on the fact that there is no devision between "organic" and "inorganic". My tiny point was just "dont use organic/inorganic when talking to vitalists"
regards
ed

[Harry K]

On Mar 30, 9:15�pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:17:43 AM UTC-5, Harry K wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows

a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic
matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what
COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur.
> thanks

There is some and progress is being made. HOWEVER what we do have is
an entire universe more than there is for aniy god. Harry K
>
> I don't understand what that means: "more than there is for any god"

More facts and evidence if that helps you any.

Harry K

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 4:04:14 AM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 31/03/2013 06:40, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Saturday, March 30, 2013 2:42:23 AM UTC-5, SkyEyes wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? There's very little doubt that the first life was *not* cellular. Cells formed later, from living compounds. I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks You need to keep reading. Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com > > Thanks, but I’m not interested in secondary references only evidence. > To be repeatedly clear, my point is that every scientific explanation for the origin of life begins at the big bang, proceeds to the formation of the earth and involves a living cell. From the early earth to the first living cell there was some process. I am looking for evidence of wha

tever this process was. I have found very little. > If you want actual physical EVIDENCE, rather than references to the evidence, you need to get into the laboratory. Or at least offer to pay acquisition and shipping expenses. If you don't want actual physical EVIDENCE you shouldn't be distinguishing between references and evidence. -- alias Ernest Major

Good point.
To be clear, since ASCII text (to my knowledge) cannot provide physical evidence, the medium itself implies that I am looking for direct references to evidence. For example, our model of the solar system is validated by the evidence of the motion of the sun and stars along with the phases of the moon. The big bang is validated by the motion of every start matching the gravitational model.
Indirect references would be something like: “you should read this article about the solar system”. The problem with indirect references is that they shift the burden of proof to “authority”. People who cannot explain contradictions in religion often employ this tactic.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:27:40 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com

wrote:

>On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:28:52 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:

>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: >On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter?  I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit? > >good question

>>> The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with
>>> mythology and religion. The "wise tribal leaders" tell the masses what to
>>> think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be

>>> different. It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is

>>> science any different from religion and mythology?

>>> I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That
>>> does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can
>>> supply me with evidence, the more I find that the "scientific view" of the
>>> origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led
>>> by "wise tribal leaders"..same as always.

>> So perhaps we can turn the question half way around.

>> We *DO* have a lot of evidence that all life evolved from a single celled
>> common ancestor. That ancestor almost certainly existed more that 2.5 billion
>> years ago.

>> Given that, what do you think is more likely:
>> 1) God created some pond scum from which we all evolved?
>> 2) Life gradually arose from non-life?

> All of the evidence that you refer is predicated on condition that you
> (apparently) agree that we have no evidence to support.

The evidence for a single common ancestor for all existing life on earth
is supported by DIRECT evidence. The main (but not the only) evidence
is that ALL known life uses the same five step process (with slight
variations) to construct itself

1) right handed DNA (A,T,G,C) [in 3 letter words]
2) -> RNA (A,U,G,C)
3) -> 20 Amino Acids
4) -> fold into protein
5) -> make stuff

This is the foundation of the "Nested Hierarchy" which links all known
life into one large family.

> The point here is that science should be reporting the facts but instead is

> marketing a political agenda with no evidentiary foundation. It's religion
> all over again.

Not religion. It is the least complicated explanation needed to explain
*ALL* the available evidence.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:55:49 AM UTC-5, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 2:20:44 PM UTC-7, paul pawlenko wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > > cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > > what actually did occur. > > thanks How dare you ask for evidence. You must be a creationist. ha ha.

Lol. Thou shalt not question evolution. For whomsoever shalt dare question evolution shall have thy name smitten from the book of logic for ever and ever.
No. Actually I am not a creationist. I write software and defend logic in my free time.

[wiki trix]

On Mar 30, 11:56 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter?  I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit?
>
> good question
> The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with mythology and religion.  The “wise tribal leaders” tell the masses what to think and the masses followed without thinking.  Science was supposed to be different.  It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE.   Without it, how is science any different from religion and mythology?
>

> I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated.  That does not mean it does not exist.  Yet, the more I search for anyone who can supply me with evidence, the more I find that the “scientific view” of the origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led by “wise tribal leaders”….same as always.

Hardly. Origin of life is very much an open question. Nobody knows
much about it. The research is more about how it could happen rather
than how it did happen. Personally, I find the question of how it
could happen much more interesting that how it did happen. Can you
give an example of this indoctrination and social intimidation you
refer to?

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"ed wolf" wrote in message

>news:40949bc1-5bbe-44d7...@googlegroups.com...

>I did read, and what I understood was a question about origin of cells from
>"inorganic matter". To me it looked like another attemt to reanimate
>vitalism. ( I was thinking of the famous "pond scum" of the IDiots.) The
>term >"organic" is of course dubious in the absence of organs, or cells. It
>is no meaningful term anyway. The very argument for live from scratch rests
>on the fact that there is no devision between "organic" and "inorganic". My
>tiny >point was just "dont use organic/inorganic when talking to vitalists"
>regards
>ed

You are using a strange definition of "organic". Organic, in chemistry,
refers to the chemical make up of molecules.
Specifically, it refers to carbon based compounds, excluding simple oxides,
cyanides, and carbides.
It used to be ASSUMED that these molecules had to be produced by life, but
that was disproven almost 200 years ago with Wohler's synthesis of urea.
There is some dispute of the exact definition of simple organic molecules,
with some arguing that it needs to include C-H bonds.
At any rate, complex organic molecules seem widespread in the universe and
can by formed under a very wide range of conditions.
Klaus

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"jonathan" wrote in message
>news:pLednYZ7xZNggsXM...@giganews.com... But maybe I should

>stop responding in kind.
>It is Easter after all~

Happy spring equinox fertility festival!
Easter is the festival of the Goddess of Dawn, Fertility, and Renewel. She
is known as Easter, Eostre, Eos, Ostara, Ishtar, and many other names.
Rituals include decorating eggs and displays of flowers, at the spring
equinox. Her symbols are eggs, rabbits, and flowers. A newer religion has
also tried to steal the Holy Day, but oddly, they kept the symbols, many of
the rituals, and the name.
Klaus

[Thrinaxodon]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 1:41:37 AM UTC-4, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:02:37 PM UTC-5, ed wolf wrote:
>

> > Am Samstag, 30. März 2013 01:44:20 UTC+1 schrieb Klaus Hellnick: > Cells formed from ORGANIC matter, in water. The first life (not cells) also > > seems to have formed in water, mostly from organic compounds. > > How did you get the silly idea that anyone claims "the first cell formed > > from inorganic matter"? maybe there is some awkward terminology here. IMHO the supposed divide between organic and anorganic chemistry is obsolete since 1828, when Wöhler found the "anorganic" path to make Urea. Ever since "organic " and "anorganic" are just ways to loosly describe different areas of Chemistry, but there is no proper boundary. Claiming the first life was "formed from organic matter" is not helping your argument against a proponent of that outdated vitalism. regards ed

>
>
>
> To be repeatedly clear, my point is that every scientific explanation for the origin of life begins at the big bang, proceeds to the formation of the earth and involves a living cell. From the early earth to the first living cell there was some process. I am looking for evidence of whatever this process was. I have found very little.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29

[Thrinaxodon]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:37:25 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> "Thrinaxodon" <biol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:acd30fa9-fb72-402a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:46:39 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> >> "Thrinaxodon" <biol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:84341b24-5b41-415d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:11:19 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> "paul pawlenko" <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> ..
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > BULLSHIT!!!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No it isn't~
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Then you're supposed to say ...'yes it is' and then take
>
> >>
>
> >> your bat and ball and run home to mama.
>
> >>
>
> >> > My, what an ad hominem we got here.
>
>
>
>
>
> If by that you mean insult? Yes of course it is.
>
> I have a thing for 'one word' responses to a
>
> lengthly post. If someone can't say why they
>
> disagree, it's just spam.
>
>
>
> But maybe I should stop responding in kind.
>
> It is Easter after all~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> s
>
> >

An ad hominem, is where you attack the arguer, instead of the argument. That was clearly an ad hominem.

[jillery]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:00:38 +0100, alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote:

>On 31/03/2013 06:59, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:22:21 PM UTC-5, Roger Shrubber wrote:

>>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:02:12 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:20:44 -0700 (PDT), paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first >cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation >and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of >what actually did occur. >thanks What would qualify as EVIDENCE to you? > > As an example take the Big Bang Theory. The motion of the stars > exactly matches a mathematical model that can predict their future > and past location very accurately. There has never been a noted > exception Never has a star that just decides to completely disobey > this math model (not talking about dark matter, I’m referring to > decisive, gross deviations from the model). This model has been > validated for centuries. Therefore, if we assume this model is > the same today as it was yesterday…, then

> all the
> stars must > necessarily h
>>

>> ave originated from a single point in space as > predicted by the model. > > In the case of the origin of life, evidence includes: > • Duplication of the process in a lab > • Examining the process in another system > • Physical byproducts (fossils, or equivalent, of early cells and organelles) > • A computer model based upon direct physical laws > It's rather clear you are beyond your competence. The evidence is that you speak of stars rather than galaxies. We cannot interpolate backwards from the motion of stars to a smaller universe. The observations of the motions of stars according to gravitational models (those we've made for centuries) say nothing about the expansion of the universe. There's also a distinction between tracing motion back to center and identifying expansion. Your _understanding_ is sophomoric at best. You time would be better spent learning than pontificating.

>>
>> Hey Roger,
>> The sky is blue. Really.
>>
>
>Firstly, to note that your newsreader seems to have broken the
>formatting of messages.
>
>Secondly, while the sky is blue (in some places and at some times) the
>stars didn't originate from a single point. The majority of stars
>originate in clouds of gas and dust (giant molecular clouds) within
>galaxies.
>
>Nor did galaxies originate at a single point. They are also younger than
>the universe.
>
>What we know is that the universe was once very much smaller, very much
>denser and very much hotter, and that if you ignore quantum effects and
>extrapolate a General Relativity based model backwards you hit a
>singularity (a point). We know that we can't ignore quantum effects, but
>we don't know how to incorporate them into a model, so we don't know
>what happened at times before those at which quantum effects are small
>enough to be ingored.

I agree, but some of us know more about what those quantum effects
mean than the rest of us:

<http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X#reader_145162445X>

[Klaus Hellnick]

I have read through the thread again, and the ONLY explanation I can think
of for Roger Shrubber's strange posts is that he must be repeatedly
confusing me with Ed Wolf, despite my requests that he reread my posts.
Hint: I am Klaus Hellnick, not Ed Wolf!

[jillery]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:47:49 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Apparently logic is getting what it paid for.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kj9nhc$gup$1...@news.albasani.net>,

A joyous Easter to the Christians out there. And the pagans out there,
well have fun celebrating the Rites of Spring <ahem family news
froup>, so you won't be reading this until tomorrow.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Earle Jones]

In article <b69f508b-b691-4d69...@googlegroups.com>,

sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:

> > On Mar 29, 2:20�pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is

> > there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell
> > formed from inorganic matter? �I have found a lot of speculation > and
> > conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what

> > actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to
> > garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If
> > we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates
> > the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to
> > conclude from that deficit?
>
> good question
> The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with
> mythology and religion. The �wise tribal leaders� tell the masses what to
> think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be
> different. It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is
> science any different from religion and mythology?
>
> I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That
> does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can
> supply me with evidence, the more I find that the �scientific view� of the
> origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led
> by �wise tribal leaders��.same as always.

*
And what holds together the alternative view: That some non-evidenced
supernatural "God" decided to create the universe and all within?

"Indoctrination, social intimidation and wise (?) tribal leaders" is
probably the right answer.

earle
*

[ed wolf]

Am Sonntag, 31. März 2013 18:12:55 UTC+2 schrieb Klaus Hellnick:
snip for brevity

> You are using a strange definition of "organic". Organic, in chemistry,
>
> refers to the chemical make up of molecules.

Actually I suggested not to use the term at all, specially
when talking to vitalists and creationists, as it is not
at all defined in a meaningful way. Is it C-C, C-H,is CO2
in my breath organic or not?
Saying it is not defined is IMHO not a "strange definition"
But you telling me about Woehler is a sign you do not read
very carefully.
excuse the bitching,
cheers
ed

[eridanus]

The application of logic are not immune to errors. If you write software
you must be pretty aware of this fact. Sometimes we commit silly errors
applying the rules of an easy logic on trivial matters.

But the rules of logic are a sort of resume of some experience in a
particular field. But most of the times search in a particular field
is not a trivial pursuit. Most of the times, our work on a particular
is plagued with problems and failures. Then, unless we were considering
trivial logic, and trivial problems, the rule of thumb is that
certainties are rara avis. The awareness that in science our certitudes
are often fragile, does not impede the scientist to continue working.

Then, if you are criticizing science for the frailty of our certitudes,
you better go back to study the holy books, the Vedas, the Koran and
the Bible. Once you will be well armed with strong religious certitudes
come here to enlighten us and you will harvest the rejections you deserve
for these efforts.

Eridanus

[Klaus Hellnick]

Actually, I gave the most commonly accepted definition of organic, in
chemistry.
I said they are compounds containing carbon, which of course excludes
diamonds, graphite, and fullerenes.
I also said it excludes simple oxides, cyanides, and carbides. I also
mentioned there are some disputes and that some people believe the compounds
should include C-H bonds.
As for Wohler, I missed your first post, where you mentioned him.
Sorry about that.
Klaus

[Roger Shrubber]

Why are you obsessing? Very well, have it your way.

You responded to a claim about inorganic molecules
creating a cell with a declarative statement about how
"life" was already happening before cells. So rather than
address the obviously wrong aspect of the claim, the
misuse of the term organic, you retorted with a contestable
assertion.

<quote Klaus>

Life used organic chemistry long before there was

anything like a recognizable cell. </quote>
<https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5abf28ecc3ce28af>

That is a questionable assertion. It's one model but
it does not deserve that level of declarative emphasis.
It pressed a potential misuse of the term _life_ that
would not gain ready consensus and is easily attacked.
It does not help.

Later, you denied having been so emphatic but you were.
It's right there in the linked post.

Is it a big deal? It's not huge, but I really do
think you missed the direct refutation and substituted
one that was more confusing than helpful for the
fact that it presented one model as if it was the
singular correct answer. Answering any "origins of life"
question with such strong assertions is a problem.
We really just don't know. We have some very good ideas
but some of our really good ideas are apparently at
odds with other of our really good ideas. Scientists
who present any of these as _the_ answer make the
rest of us look like fools by association.

[Earle Jones]

In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE

> > that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
> > inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
> > what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur.

> > > thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
> > god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the common
> > fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
>
> Put God in Gaps? Iąm asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in science?
> Should we not question science always?
> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?

*
Should we not question religion always?
Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
scripture?

The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <kj9nhc$gup$1...@news.albasani.net>,
"Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

*
In a third-grade classroom, the teacher asked whether anyone knew what
"resurrection" was.

A small boy said, "I don't know what it is, but if it lasts more than
four hours, you should call the doctor."

earle
*

[Glenn]

"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:earle.jones-6A22...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

No, it doesn't.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:40:50 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <kjaae5$gac$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:earle.jones-6A22...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE
>>>> that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
>>>> inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
>>>> what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did
>>>> occur.
>>>>> thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
>>>> god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the
>>>> common
>>>> fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
>>>

>>> Put God in Gaps? I¹m asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

>>> science?
>>> Should we not question science always?
>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
>>
>> *
>> Should we not question religion always?
>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
>> scripture?
>>
>> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
>>
> No, it doesn't.
>

Hmmm... there appears to be some who disagree with you.
<http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/newsletter/doubt_the_sin_god_hates_most>
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead>

And, of course, there's that whole John 20:24-29 thing.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:kjabn...@news4.newsguy.com...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:40:50 -0400, Glenn wrote
> (in article <kjaae5$gac$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >
> > "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:earle.jones-6A22...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> >> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE
> >>>> that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
> >>>> inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
> >>>> what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did
> >>>> occur.
> >>>>> thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
> >>>> god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the
> >>>> common
> >>>> fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
> >>>

> >>> Put God in Gaps? Iąm asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

> >>> science?
> >>> Should we not question science always?
> >>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
> >>
> >> *
> >> Should we not question religion always?
> >> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
> >> scripture?
> >>
> >> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
> >>
> > No, it doesn't.
> >
>
> Hmmm... there appears to be some who disagree with you.
> <http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/newsletter/doubt_the_sin_god_hates_most>
> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead>
>
> And, of course, there's that whole John 20:24-29 thing.
>

You should hum more.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:41:59 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <kjae0q$66m$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:kjabn...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:40:50 -0400, Glenn wrote
>> (in article <kjaae5$gac$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>>
>>> "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:earle.jones-6A22...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>>>> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any
>>>>>> EVIDENCE
>>>>>> that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
>>>>>> inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
>>>>>> what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did
>>>>>> occur.
>>>>>>> thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
>>>>>> god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the
>>>>>> common
>>>>>> fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
>>>>>

>>>>> Put God in Gaps? I¹m asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

>>>>> science?
>>>>> Should we not question science always?
>>>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Should we not question religion always?
>>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
>>>> scripture?
>>>>
>>>> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
>>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm... there appears to be some who disagree with you.
>> <http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/newsletter/doubt_the_sin_god_hates_most>
>> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead>
>>
>> And, of course, there's that whole John 20:24-29 thing.
>>
> You should hum more.
>

Lack of argument noted.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:kjaep...@news4.newsguy.com...

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:41:59 -0400, Glenn wrote
> (in article <kjae0q$66m$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> > news:kjabn...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:40:50 -0400, Glenn wrote
> >> (in article <kjaae5$gac$1...@dont-email.me>):
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:earle.jones-6A22...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> >>>> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any
> >>>>>> EVIDENCE
> >>>>>> that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
> >>>>>> inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
> >>>>>> what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did
> >>>>>> occur.
> >>>>>>> thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
> >>>>>> god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the
> >>>>>> common
> >>>>>> fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Put God in Gaps? Iąm asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

> >>>>> science?
> >>>>> Should we not question science always?
> >>>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
> >>>>
> >>>> *
> >>>> Should we not question religion always?
> >>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
> >>>> scripture?
> >>>>
> >>>> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
> >>>>
> >>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmmm... there appears to be some who disagree with you.
> >> <http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/newsletter/doubt_the_sin_god_hates_most>
> >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead>
> >>
> >> And, of course, there's that whole John 20:24-29 thing.
> >>
> > You should hum more.
> >
>
> Lack of argument noted.
>

Back at ya, butthead.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

At long last a valid logical response.
I do not dispute any evidence that indicating cellular similarities between any or all life on Earth including the data you present. I maintain my position that there is no evidence that supports the ORIGIN of this formation and your post provides none.

> It is the least complicated explanation needed to explain
>
> *ALL* the available evidence

Suppose geneticists used that measure to determine the scientific accuracy of a new gene sequence. By your logic, they could just find the least complicated explanation and claim victory. Except that geneticists have to be accurate and validate their findings with actual evidence. Now examine the origin of life using the real-life geneticists as the measure of what qualifies as “science”. By that measure we don’t just have “gaps” in the theory. We have total speculation. The truth is that we don’t know how life formed.

You seem to insist that “our best understanding” shows that science is correct. But “our best understanding” using *ALL* available evidence does not determine accuracy in science. Accuracy is determined by evidence and data. Physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, electrodynamics. These, and many others are based on evidence. They are true science. The science of the origin of life belongs with anti-gravity, time travel and invisibility. Maybe its true. Maybe we will figure out invisibility. When we actually do understand it *THEN* we can claim victory and teach children that science understands it.

Also, since you consider ALL the evidence, how do you explain ancient clay tablets with inscriptions upon them? These are universally regarded as products of intelligence without anyone witnessing their formation. What makes them so special? Why could they not be formed by natural process?

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 4:05:51 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > > paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE
>
> > > that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
>
> > > inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
>
> > > what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur.
>
> > > > thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
>
> > > god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the common
>
> > > fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
>
> >
>

> > Put God in Gaps? Iım asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in science?

>
> > Should we not question science always?
>
> > Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
>
>
>
> *
>
> Should we not question religion always?
>
> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
>
> scripture?
>
>
>
> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
>
>
>
> earle
>
> *

I don’t believe in religion.
I believe in logic and I believe that science is degrading into religion.
As Darth Vader once said “The circle is now complete.”

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

>> Then, if you are criticizing science for the frailty of our certitudes….
On the contrary, I think pursuing the truth of the origin of life is noble and valuable. I criticize the marketing of any type of conjecture and speculation as scientific fact, particularly when used to indoctrinate children into believing that “waving the flag of science” is the equivalent actually implementing reasoning.

Also, I don’t believe in religion, I believe that certain parts of science are turning into religion.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

I don't know what that means.

[jillery]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

[...]

>Suppose geneticists used that measure to determine the scientific accuracy of a new gene sequence. By your logic, they could just find the least complicated explanation and claim victory. Except that geneticists have to be accurate and validate their findings with actual evidence. Now examine the origin of life using the real-life geneticists as the measure of what qualifies as “science”. By that measure we don’t just have “gaps” in the theory. We have total speculation. The truth is that we don’t know how life formed.

You're right, we don't know how life formed. I will go one step more
and say we will never know exactly how life formed. With that
agreement, I ask you a question asked by others: So what? There are
lots of things science doesn't know, and will likely never know with
absolute certainty. So why are you obsessing about the origin of life
in particular?

>You seem to insist that “our best understanding” shows that science is correct. But “our best understanding” using *ALL* available evidence does not determine accuracy in science. Accuracy is determined by evidence and data. Physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, electrodynamics. These, and many others are based on evidence. They are true science. The science of the origin of life belongs with anti-gravity, time travel and invisibility.

The things you mention don't exist. Are you asserting that life
doesn't exist? Theories about anti-gravity are not the same as
anti-gravity itself, anymore than theories about the origin of life
are not the same as life itself.

>Maybe its true. Maybe we will figure out invisibility. When we actually do understand it *THEN* we can claim victory and teach children that science understands it.
>
>Also, since you consider ALL the evidence, how do you explain ancient clay tablets with inscriptions upon them? These are universally regarded as products of intelligence without anyone witnessing their formation. What makes them so special?

Lots of things are "universally regarded as products of intelligence
without witnessing their formation". There is nothing special about
clay tablets with inscriptions upon them. You just made that up.

>Why could they not be formed by natural process?

More word games. They 'could' have been made by natural processes.
However, we observe no known natural processes which could have made
those objects. And we observe people manufacturing similar objects
today. And we observe those objects in close association with other
objects known to be manufactured by people. So, despite a myriad of
possible 'could be's', the best inference, with high confidence, is
that they were made by people.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:03:24 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <kjaf8v$d6q$1...@dont-email.me>):

>>>>>>> Put God in Gaps? I¹m asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

>>>>>>> science?
>>>>>>> Should we not question science always?
>>>>>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Should we not question religion always?
>>>>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
>>>>>> scripture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... there appears to be some who disagree with you.
>>>> <http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/newsletter/doubt_the_sin_god_hates_most>
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead>
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, there's that whole John 20:24-29 thing.
>>>>
>>> You should hum more.
>>>
>>
>> Lack of argument noted.
>>
> Back at ya, butthead.
>

Except that I _did_ advance an argument. I pointed out that theologians
disagreed with you, giving two examples. I further gave an additional example
from the Bible. You have made two responses, neither of which presents an
argument. The odds are excellent that you simply lack an argument with which
to respond.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:04:14 -0400, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote
(in article <ef7a07b5-ffb8-4efe...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, March 31, 2013 4:05:51 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
>> In article <f6492405-ffcb-456a...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:28:18 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>> paul pawlenko <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE
>>
>>>> that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from
>>
>>>> inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on
>>
>>>> what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did
>>>> occur.
>>
>>>>> thanks No, of course not. There are some gaps there that you can put a
>>
>>>> god in, if that's what you want. It seems likely he will suffer the
>>>> common
>>
>>>> fate of all gods of the gaps, eventually, Jan
>>
>>>
>>

>>> Put God in Gaps? Iım asking for EVIDENCE, is not that what we do in

>>> science?
>>
>>> Should we not question science always?
>>
>>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be scientific?
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> Should we not question religion always?
>>
>> Should we not demand evidence for things claiming to be based on divine
>>
>> scripture?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Bible teaches us: "To doubt is to sin."
>>
>>
>>
>> earle
>>
>> *
>

> I donâ t believe in religion.

I doubt this.

> I believe in logic

I have seen no evidence to support this.

> and I believe that science is degrading into religion.

> As Darth Vader once said â The circle is now complete.â
>

Only a master of evil, Darth.

[Paul J Gans]

Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <kj76sj$8co$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT), Thrinaxodon
>> ><biol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> >>On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:20:44 PM UTC-4, paul pawlenko wrote:
>> >>> Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first
>> >>> >
>> >>> cell formed from inorganic matter? I have found a lot of speculation
>> >>>
>> >>> and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of
>> >>>
>> >>> what actually did occur.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks
>> >>

>> >>Well, there is evidence of abiogenesis, such as the Miller-Urrey
>> >>experiments, of course, it's been falsified, but it started a new field:
>> >>prebiotic chemistry.
>>
>>
>> >What has been falsified? Abiogenesis? Or the Miller-Urey
>> >experiments? And how was it falsified?
>>
>> The Miller-Urey experiment depended on starting with the
>> atmosphere that was present on pre-life earth. We now know
>> that they used an incorrect assumption for the composition
>> of the atmosphere.
>>
>> That wasn't their fault. They used the best information
>> available at that time.
>>
>> The basic problem here isn't that. It is having folks understand
>> that science can not rely on supernatural explanations. You
>> know that, but many who want to compare religious explanations
>> to scientific ones do not.
>>
>> For their benefit: science is a methodology to attempt to
>> explain the observed universe by natural expanations. It
>> is in constant flux as new things are discovered. Religion
>> does not work this way. It starts by presupposing that
>> supernatural explanations can be used.
>>
>> Thus in reality science and religion can't be compared on
>> any real basis.

>*
>Paul Gans says that "...science and religion can't be compared on
>any real basis."

>There have been many attempts to reconcile science and religion ? some
>are idiotic and some are not. The best attempt to my knowledge is by my
>favorite biologist, Edward O. Wilson.

> "...We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
> spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
> a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
> Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
> universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
> is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
> same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
> and writ large."

>Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

>We are doing the same thing that early man did: Searching for meaning
>and significance. Only we have much better tools to do this than early
>man had.

I agree. Both you and I and Wilson are really saying the same
things.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:14:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Camp wrote:

>> On Mar 29, 2:20?pm, paul pawlenko <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there any EVIDENCE that shows a scientific account of how the first > cell formed from inorganic matter? ?I have found a lot of speculation > and conjecture on what COULD have happened but no real EVIDENCE of > what actually did occur. > thanks I don't know about "EVIDENCE," as opposed to garden-variety "evidence," but I do have a question about your question: If we assume there is no evidence whatsoever which scientifically illuminates the transition from non-life to life, what would you feel entitled to conclude from that deficit?

>good question
>The CAPS are added for emphasis to make this point: History is filled with mythology and religion. The ?wise tribal leaders? tell the masses what to think and the masses followed without thinking. Science was supposed to be different. It is supposed to be based on EVIDENCE. Without it, how is science any different from religion and mythology?

>I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated. That does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for anyone who can supply me with evidence, the more I find that the ?scientific view? of the origin of life is held together by indoctrination and social intimidation led by ?wise tribal leaders??.same as always.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Science has no real understanding of how
life originated, nor does it claim to. There is no scientific view
of the origin of life, so it cannot be held together by indoctrination
or social intimidation.

So that leaves the question of why you did not know this. Have you
any scientific education at all?

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kj76sj$8co$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Thus in reality science and religion can't be compared on
>> any real basis.

>OK, so we have to compare them on imaginary bases?

Exactly.