Abiogenesis
Switch89
I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesis
well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
Thanks,
Ryan
Mark VandeWettering
How plausible does something need to be to be simpler than the idea that
God created the universe, much less in six days only 6000 years ago? It
hardly seems like that's very plausible.
If the universe is implausible, then how much more would God be?
Mark
> Thanks,
> Ryan
Al
Timberwoof
<c7dbe547-6078-49d1...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Switch89 <Ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There was an article in Scientific American just the other month that
presented the metabolism-first hypothesis. The authors presented a
definition of life that made sense to me, and then showed that a cycle
of chemical reactions would be the simplest thing to allow that. Go to
your local library and look at recent issues. Alternatively, go to
Google and search on "metabolism first abiogenesis"; there are a lot of
articles waiting for you. :-)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." æ°—hris L.
Anlatt the Builder
(1) There are a lot of "theists" who take an entirely scientific view
on the origins of life on earth.
(2) When arguing with Biblical literalists (which is a little
different that "theists"), it is rare that any amount of plausibility
- or evidence or logic - will make any difference.
John Wilkins
> In article
> <c7dbe547-6078-49d1...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Switch89 <Ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone!
> >
> > I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesis
> > well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
> > life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
> > major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
> > life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
> > nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
> > proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
>
> There was an article in Scientific American just the other month that
> presented the metabolism-first hypothesis. The authors presented a
> definition of life that made sense to me, and then showed that a cycle
> of chemical reactions would be the simplest thing to allow that. Go to
> your local library and look at recent issues. Alternatively, go to
> Google and search on "metabolism first abiogenesis"; there are a lot of
> articles waiting for you. :-)
To be frank, at that stage the distinction between metabolism and
replicator would not be clear: nucleotides (or-sides) would possibly be
part of the energetic reaction cycle, perhaps as catalysts.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
IbeDavid
> Hi Everyone!
>
> I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesi
> life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
> major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
> life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
> nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
> proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
REPLY: Hello Ryan. Both atheists and theists require a certain
amount of faith since we cannot go back and see how it played out.
So, which sounds more plausible to you : 1. That rocks, dirt, and
hydrogen gas ultimately gave us first life and our highly personality
traits like abstract thinking, morality, reason, rationalization,
love, compassion, etc.....or....2 . that life and these traits came
from life itself from another personal entity having the same basic
makeup that we do ? Does the human anatomy look like something that
was haphazardly thrown together thru undirected, accidental collisions
upon accidental collisions, without any purpose or meaning ? No
'atheist' really believes that because it is absurd. If you
do...then, can you explain how rocks, dirt, and gas made it all
happen ? thanks.
IbeDavid
REPLY: 1. True. In fact, all of the Modern Founders of the
sciences were in fact Theists and Bible Beleiving CHristians. So,
REAL science and the Christian Faith are synonomous.2. Evidence and
logic are the foundations of the Christian Faith ; its a
philosophically biased person who doesnt think so. There are over 100
scientific facts and processes mentioned in the Old Testament written
down some 2-4,000 years before modern science finally got around to
confirming them as fact. If youd like to come up to speed , please
obtain the large Booklet entitled :"The 12 Points that Prove
Christianity" at www.impactapologetics.com ... also the source for
the featured best selling book called :"I Dont Have Enough FAITH to be
an Atheist" by Dr. Norman Geisler .. a very fairly written book which
even atheists have written in to say just how compelling it was.
Regards.
mcv
> On Nov 19, 1:45 am, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 9:47 pm, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesis
>> > well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
>> > life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
>> > major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
>> > life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
>> > nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
>> > proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
>>
>> (1) There are a lot of "theists" who take an entirely scientific view
>> on the origins of life on earth.
>>
>> (2) When arguing with Biblical literalists (which is a little
>> different that "theists"), it is rare that any amount of plausibility
>> - or evidence or logic - will make any difference.
>
> REPLY: 1. True. In fact, all of the Modern Founders of the
> sciences were in fact Theists and Bible Beleiving CHristians. So,
> REAL science and the Christian Faith are synonomous.
Whoa! That's a serious non-sequitur you've got there. The founder of
something being a Christian does not make whatever he founded synonymous
with Christianity or Christian Faith. If it was, how could he already
be a christian before he founded it?
As for science, it is quite obviously not synonymous with christianity,
but (apparently a lot less obvious to some) it is also not necessarily
at odds with it either.
> 2. Evidence and
> logic are the foundations of the Christian Faith ;
No, faith in salvation through Christ is the foundation of christian
faith. Ofcourse logic is always useful in anything you do, but that
doesn't make it the foundation of everything.
On the whole, you come across as a rather confused individual.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
mcv
Nothing *wins* via Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is a great rule-of-thumb,
and excellent guideline, but not in any way a fundamental law. Also, what
you consider plausible, someone else might not. You might win the debate
inside your own head, but not in anyone else's.
Geoff
> On Nov 19, 1:45 am, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 9:47 pm, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone!
>>
>>> I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesis
>>> well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
>>> life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
>>> major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
>>> life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
>>> nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not
>>> be proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
>>
>> (1) There are a lot of "theists" who take an entirely scientific view
>> on the origins of life on earth.
>>
>> (2) When arguing with Biblical literalists (which is a little
>> different that "theists"), it is rare that any amount of plausibility
>> - or evidence or logic - will make any difference.
>
> REPLY: 1. True. In fact, all of the Modern Founders of the
> sciences were in fact Theists and Bible Beleiving CHristians. So,
> REAL science and the Christian Faith are synonomous.
Non sequitur.
> 2. Evidence and
> logic are the foundations of the Christian Faith ; its a
> philosophically biased person who doesnt think so.
What evidence is there to support a six-day creation, a global flood, or a
40-year waltz through the desert? None.
What logic is there to have an omni-everything god sacrifice himself to
absolve a sin committed thousands of years previously? Unless you're some
primitive that thinks human sacrifice does anything, there is none.
> There are over 100
> scientific facts and processes mentioned in the Old Testament written
> down some 2-4,000 years before modern science finally got around to
> confirming them as fact.
Yeah, riiiiiight. Look no further than Islam for competing claims that are
similarly bullshit.
> If youd like to come up to speed , please
> obtain the large Booklet entitled :"The 12 Points that Prove
> Christianity"
*cough* What a waste of money! If you have any proof, you can lay it out
here, spammer.
Kermit
> On Nov 18, 11:47 pm, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone!
>
> > I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesi
> > well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
> > life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
> > major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
> > life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
> > nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
> > proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
>
> REPLY: Hello Ryan. Both atheists and theists require a certain
> amount of faith since we cannot go back and see how it played out.
Really? How much faith do you need to not believe in leprechauns, or
not believe in the literal existence of Zeus?
> So, which sounds more plausible to you : 1. That rocks, dirt, and
> hydrogen gas ultimately gave us first life and our highly personality
> traits like abstract thinking, morality, reason, rationalization,
> love, compassion, etc.....or....2 . that life and these traits came
> from life itself from another personal entity having the same basic
> makeup that we do ?
Number 1. But I don't see any logical problem with an entity of some
sort setting it up to work out that way. Do you have any evidence that
this is how it happened, other than your own inability to imagine how
it would happen that way?
No offense, but I doubt that the universe is limited by your
intelligence or imagination or education. Heck, it's not even limited
by *mine ;)
My first teacher of evolutionary science was a devout Christian. He
said science was "studying how God does things". Why do you think that
believing in a creator god is incompatible with studying how the
universe works?
> Does the human anatomy look like something that
> was haphazardly thrown together thru undirected, accidental collisions
> upon accidental collisions, without any purpose or meaning ?
Natural selection is not random or accidental. It looks like it was
thrown together without purpose, yes.
Here's a thought for you to consider: God doesn't have eyebrows. He
doesn't have fingernails, or earlobes. All of the features humans have
are adaptations for living on this planet, with a hunter-gatherer
lifestyle. Were I still a theist, I would think that what makes humans
*people is our mind (folks born deformed are still people). When God
made humans in his image, he was speaking about the mind ( a theist
might say "soul"). He set up the universe, knowing that many planets
(and possibly other environments) would evolve life, and that many of
them would eventually evolve intelligence - the image of God.
I don't have any reason to think this, but if I thought that there was
a God, and it wanted us to call him Yahweh, my take on Genesis might
be something like that.
> No
> 'atheist' really believes that because it is absurd. If you
> do...then, can you explain how rocks, dirt, and gas made it all
> happen ? thanks.
How do satellites orbit? Some of us would say that this is one of the
things that happen when rocks and dirt move in space. Life is another;
it does not require any laws of physics or chemistry to be "broken".
We have no reason to think that the beginnings of life did, either.
What was the ultimate cause of the universe, and did it even need a
cause? Sometimes the correct answer to a question is "I don't know".
Kermit
ken
this:
Please be aware of a seriously delusional fuckheaded troll who is
relentlessly attempting to push is own perversly demented Taliban-
like
morals, his anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-sex,
anti-(any other religion other than his own) ideas, and will, no
doubt,
try to engage you in another of his useless, endless, mindless,
ceaseless, pointless, neverending, purposeless,
senseless, relentless, incessant conversations whose only intent is
pushing his point of view to the exclusion of any others.
The best course of action is to just ignore this complete and utter
waste of evolution..Ken
waste of human evolution
ken
same old stupid unsupported religious daveshite, just presented on a
different day and under a different address
IbeDavid
>
> - Show quoted text -
IbeDavid
>
> - Show quoted text -
REPLY: cough cough...if you arent really interested in investigating
the accuracy of the Christian Faith from a scientific standpoint, then
please stop pretending that 'youd believe if only you had the
evidence' . To you, its not about needed evidence...its all about you
philosophical bias so you can live life YOUR way by staying far away
from God as theistic Creator. An atheist looking for evidence, is
like a Thief looking for a Policeman !
IbeDavid
REPLY: Group, Please meet Ken a retired Chemist who cant put a
scientifically based sentence together and only spouts off vile and
foul language in an effort of impressing others and justifiying his
unjustifiable position (for the ulterior motive of sexual hedonism as
he will admit). He thinks of morality and ethics as 'Taliban
oriented Oppresion' which lines up well with his lifestyle
choices . How convienent. Perhaps many of you fall into the same
trap (???)
Greg Guarino
<norm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does the human anatomy look like something that
>was haphazardly thrown together thru undirected, accidental collisions
>upon accidental collisions, without any purpose or meaning ? No
>'atheist' really believes that because it is absurd.
I suggest you reflect on the meaning of what you wrote above. Perhaps
you are comfortable with the notion that millions upon millions of
people, many or most of whom are not atheists, by the way, are simply
lying about what they believe. If so, then you have terribly
simplistic understanding of your fellow human beings and their
motivations, but you would not be the first.
But if your thinking is sightly more sophisticated, an "absurdity"
that is held by so many people should be a red flag that maybe you
don't actually understand how they think and what it is they believe.
Your first sentence above is a straw man constructed of the very
flimsiest straw. Try something a little meatier, if only to resolve
the obvious conundrum: Why does every biologist in the world accept an
idea that you deem absurd?
Greg Guarino
wf3h
> On Nov 18, 11:47 pm, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> REPLY: Hello Ryan. Both atheists and theists require a certain
> amount of faith since we cannot go back and see how it played out.
> So, which sounds more plausible to you : 1. That rocks, dirt, and
> hydrogen gas ultimately gave us first life and our highly personality
> traits like abstract thinking, morality, reason, rationalization,
> love, compassion, etc.....or....2 . that life and these traits came
> from life itself from another personal entity having the same basic
> makeup that we do
what he's really asking is
1. do the laws of chemistry exist?
2. has 'god did it' ever explained anything
for 2000 years religious fanatics have played the 'god did it'
card....and it led nowhere. that's why no one uses it
the laws of chemistry exist. they explain life. they explain much of
the world around us.
'god' does not.
if 'god did it' is science, then how did 'god' do it?
? Does the human anatomy look like something that
> was haphazardly thrown together thru undirected, accidental collisions
> upon accidental collisions, without any purpose or meaning ?
no science...chemistry...physics...geology....addresses 'purpose'.
that's a metaphysical construct outside of science. the religious
fanatics just can't accept that so INSIST that, in spite of thousands
of years of failure to find ANY 'purpose' in nature beyond their own
biases, there must be 'purpose' in nature
and that aint science. it's magic.
No
> 'atheist' really believes that because it is absurd. If you
> do...then, can you explain how rocks, dirt, and gas made it all
> happen ? thanks.
yeah for the same reason 'dead' DNA can produce a baby:
the laws of chemistry.
wf3h
> On Nov 19, 1:45 am, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote>
>
>
> sciences were in fact Theists and Bible Beleiving CHristians.
well, not all of them. einstein certainly wasn't. newton made up his
own bible and had beliefs much like the jehovah's witnesses.
So,
> REAL science and the Christian Faith are synonomous
when you look at the number of jews who've won nobel prizes in the
sciences, it's apparent that this statement is false.
.2. Evidence and
> logic are the foundations of the Christian Faith
if that's the case why is xtianity a faith of revelation? if reason is
its guide, why does it NEED a 'bible'? why arent its precepts self
evident?
its a
> philosophically biased person who doesnt think so. There are over 100
> scientific facts and processes mentioned in the Old Testament
and, of course, the muslims say the same thing about the quran....
for 2000 years xtianity killed scientific inquiry. it took the re
discovery of logic and reason to free western civilization from the
dead hand of theology...a lesson the muslims have yet to learn.
wf3h
> REPLY: Group, Please meet Ken a retired Chemist who cant put a
> scientifically based sentence together and only spouts off vile and
> foul language in an effort of impressing others and justifiying his
> unjustifiable position (for the ulterior motive of sexual hedonism as
> he will admit). He thinks of morality and ethics as 'Taliban
> oriented Oppresion' which lines up well with his lifestyle
> choices . How convienent. Perhaps many of you fall into the same
> trap (???)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wonder if 'ibedavid' has ever read the bible...if the bible is a guide
to morality, then god is necessarily evil.
ken
But you don't need to wonder how, as "ibedfavid" can be so easily
swayed by watching a few Youtube clips, watching DVD's or reading
drivel from some "off the deep end of how we faked the moon landings"
space conspiracy nuts, he has been so easily duped by 2000 year old
multi-translated superstitions and folk stories about imaginary "sky
fairies"
Honest Abe: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of
the people all the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of
the time"------>except for dimwitted david.
He always falls for whatever stupidity other equally delusional Dog
Addicts put out
skyeyes
Oh, no, lambchop. It's most *definitely* about the evidence. Got any
evidence for the existence of *any* god, for ex-nihlo creation, for a
global flood, or for thee 40 years of wandering around the Sinai
desert by a large group of people? If you do, please put it forth
immediately.
If you don't, stop flappin' your gums.
Brenda "Ex Born-Again Christian" Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
> On Nov 18, 11:47 pm, Switch89 <Ryansarc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone!
>
> > I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesi
> > well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
> > life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
> > major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
> > life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
> > nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
> > proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
>
> REPLY: Hello Ryan. Both atheists and theists require a certain
> amount of faith since we cannot go back and see how it played out.
We don't need a time machine. Science also works on inference, or
didn't you know that?
> So, which sounds more plausible to you : 1. That rocks, dirt, and
> hydrogen gas ultimately gave us first life and our highly personality
> traits like abstract thinking, morality, reason, rationalization,
> love, compassion, etc.....or....2 .
Human personality traits came from our primate ancestors, not from
rocks and dirt. However, although we don't know yet exactly *how*
life originated, there's evidence that it *did* develop right here on
earth. What there is *no* evidence of is that any life form was
created by magic, which is what *you* believe.
> that life and these traits came
> from life itself from another personal entity having the same basic
> makeup that we do ?
No, there's no evidence supporting that contention. Besides, the
bible god is about the nastiest, most vile life form one could
possible imagine. I would hate to think any part of my personality
came from something like that.
> Does the human anatomy look like something that
> was haphazardly thrown together thru undirected, accidental collisions
> upon accidental collisions, without any purpose or meaning ?
Yes, actually, it *does*. That's why the arches on human feet fall -
because they're faulty, and look exactly like we would expect them to
look and behave if they had evolved from something else. And that's
why humans have back problems - because the spine is poorly designed
for upright walking. Basically, it's a quadruped spine yanked
upright, and is consequently prone to all sorts of nasty problems,
some of which are plagueing me right now. And that's wny pregnant
human females are so fucking miserable during much of pregnancy -
instead of hanging nicely from the backbone, as happens in quadrupedal
placental mammals, the fetus rests on the bladder.
I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.
> No
> 'atheist' really believes that because it is absurd.
1. Many theists accept evolution as factual, so don't keep coming up
with that canard about being an atheist if you know evolution to be
true. As it happens, I *am* an atheist, but many on talk.origins are
theists of one flavor or another. See if you can wrap your pointy
little head around that fact.
2. There's nothing absurd about it - well, not to anyone who has a
smattering of education, which apparently does not include *you*.
> If you
> do...then, can you explain how rocks, dirt, and gas made it all
> happen ? thanks.
Chemistry. Study it sometime.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes
Of *course* he is. We know that. But the lurkers out there need to
know that his arguments are silly, and why. Just because he's and
idiotic asshole doesn't mean that these points, so frequently put out
by the funnymentalist community, don't need addressing.
Geoff
> REPLY: cough cough...if you arent really interested in investigating
> the accuracy of the Christian Faith from a scientific standpoint
It has been and has been found wanting.
> then
> please stop pretending that 'youd believe if only you had the
> evidence'.
For your information, dipshit, I was a Catholic for many years until I
realized just what bullshit it was.
> To you, its not about needed evidence...its all about you
> philosophical bias so you can live life YOUR way by staying far away
> from God as theistic Creator. An atheist looking for evidence, is
> like a Thief looking for a Policeman !
Wow...an ad hom and a false analogy all rolled up in one. Bravo!
Desertphile
<Ryans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone!
>
> I'm looking for someone here who knows the subject of Abiogenesis
> well. I want to know about the most recent ideas about the origin of
> life. As I have understood it, a lot of Abiogenesis research has had
> major problems. Is there a/some plausible models of the origin of
> life, and can you cite some peer reviewed papers? I understand that
> nothing has been proven yet, but when debating theists, it need not be
> proven, so long as it is plausible, it wins via Occam's Razor.
That's easy:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=abiogenesis&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Rupert Morrish
> IbeDavid <norm...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> In fact, all of the Modern Founders of the
>> sciences were in fact Theists and Bible Beleiving CHristians. So,
>> REAL science and the Christian Faith are synonomous.
>
> Whoa! That's a serious non-sequitur you've got there. The founder of
> something being a Christian does not make whatever he founded synonymous
> with Christianity or Christian Faith. If it was, how could he already
> be a christian before he founded it?
Indeed. That makes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project
synonymous with the Christian Faith, too.
Explains a lot, really.
[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------