What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz:
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Einstein...The Creationists' Friend.
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time Chapt 19 #221 Atom Totality
From: Joseki on 15 Jul 2010 08:08 On Jul 15, 7:48 am, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Joseki wrote: > > On Jul 15, 7:21 am, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...(a)invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > >> Joseki wrote: > >>> On Jul 15, 4:36 am, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On Jul 15, 1:53 am, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article <8a7c6vF3f4...(a)mid.individual.net>, Mark K Bilbo > >>>>> <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:02:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> Have you ever considered that God took the necessary chemical elements > >>>>>>> and combined them with each other to make life on this earth? > >>>>>> That would be abiogenesis. > >>>>> abiogenesis usually means that it happened by chance. > >>>> No. > >>>> PDW > >>>http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis > >>> The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. > >>> Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. > >>> a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are > >>> created from nonliving matter > >>> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn > >>> In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (, ) or biopoesis is the theory > >>> of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. ... > >>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis > >>> The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; > >>> such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; > >>> spontaneous generation > >>> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abiogenesis > >>> abiogenic - Of chemicals, not produced by means of biochemical > >>> activity of organisms while alive > >>> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abiogenic > >>> abiogenetical - Variation of abiogenetic > >>> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abiogenetical > >>> the hypothetical process where life spontaneously formed from organic > >>> material that had arisen from inorganic material. > >>>www.carm.org/evolution-terminology > >>> An ancient belief that life can emerge from inanimate matter. > >>> search.barnesandnoble.com/Students-Dictionary-for-Biblical-and- > >>> Theological-Studies/F-B-Huey/e/9780310459514 > >>> (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of > >>> life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer > >>> to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in > >>> the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number > >>> of intermediate ... > >>> wiki.smashits.com/wikipedia/Abiogenesis > >>> I guess major dictionaries including the one used in Princeton > >>> disagrees with the lot of you. > >> I guess English isn't a language you're familiar with. None of those > >> definitions even MENTION the words "by chance" or "random". > > > I am actually very Familiar with English and five other languages. > > > Here is what the denizen of talk.Origins say: > >http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Even_the_simplest_life_is_incr... > > Again, you just can't seem to follow a simple English sentence. > Maybe you should try one of your other "5 languages"?? > > This is NOT what the denizen(s) of talk.origins say. This is what > the boneheads at "creationwiki" say. They don't seem to understand > things any better than you. > > 3. Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the > fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not > have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity. > > http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html > > > > > 3. Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. > > > However, in a naturalistic model, it does come down to chance the > > chance the Big Bang produced the right type of universe, the chance of > > sufficient raw material being on a planet in the right orbit, the > > chance of getting the right molecules in sufficient concentrations for > > a sufficient number of trials, and so on. > > Then there is the random nature of molecular motion, which means that > > there is chance involved in getting specific molecules together to > > form the next step before they break down. > > The only way to eliminate chance is for life to have originated by > > means of an intelligent agent (God), which is the exact opposite of a > > naturalistic origin. > > So whether acknowledged or not, a naturalistic origin of life > > ultimately requires chance, and the only real question is: Are the > > odds high enough for it to be statistically possible? From your own site that you linked: This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth: Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose. Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres. Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA. Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner. The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003). Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall. Something that no one has thought of yet. --The English That I know calls this "chance". Lets define Chance: Chance is a layman word for probability. Probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred. In mathematics the concept has been given an exact meaning in probability theory, that is used extensively in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, and philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems. Since you are so good in English, you should know what the above means. When Creationist and evolutionist go around in their endless debate. they use the term chance as an opposite to direct involvement of intelligence or design. Every Biologist who confirms Evolution and look at origins, will mention chance. Of course they use technical words and phrases such as "Right Conditions" etc. Therefore Abiogenesis for biologists, refers to the right conditions for life to have started on it own naturally. Do want me to make this a bit more simpler --highschool science prehaps?
From: Joseki on 15 Jul 2010 08:22 On Jul 15, 7:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/15/10 6:43 AM, Joseki wrote: > > > However, in a naturalistic model, it does come down to chance the > > chance the Big Bang produced the right type of universe, the chance of > > sufficient raw material being on a planet in the right orbit, the > > chance of getting the right molecules in sufficient concentrations for > > a sufficient number of trials, and so on. > > Why are you convinced that creation of universes isn't essentially > the same every time? The right answer would be in Physics, "we don't know, but it is fun to guess"
From: Ips-Switch on 15 Jul 2010 11:04 "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1407101750430001(a)66-53-220-250.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com... > In article <4c3e38df(a)news.x-privat.org>, "Ips-Switch" > <Ips-Switch(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1307102321560001(a)67-150-120-159.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... >> > Do you honestly believe that life could evolve from non-life? >> > >> >> Yes. Why not? Why do you find it so hard to believe and accept? > > Because it does not happen by chance. We don't know that since none of us were here that early in the earth's lifetime to see what happened. We don't know exactly what conditions existed when life first began. A scientific answer makes more sense than a supernatural story about a magical invisible being suddenly poofing complex life into existence from mud or earth.... and then all the drama afterward with demons and angels......... > >
From: Parish *~ on 15 Jul 2010 11:39 "Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1407101757060001(a)66-53-220-250.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > I believe that it is illogical to believe that mankind could have come > about by chance. > Yet you believe a magical invisible supernatural "god" poofed everything into being despite the evidence against such a happening? That's logical to you? -- The Parrish *~, American-American-American. * * * * * * "The Mass is the most perfect form of making money." * * * * * * * *
From: Parish *~ on 15 Jul 2010 11:43
"Jason" <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1407102253190001(a)66-53-213-208.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > In article <8a7c6vF3f4U30(a)mid.individual.net>, Mark K Bilbo > <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:02:00 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Have you ever considered that God took the necessary chemical elements >> > and combined them with each other to make life on this earth? >> >> That would be abiogenesis. > > abiogenesis usually means that it happened by chance. > > How is it no one can penetrate your closed mind and educate you after all these years? -- The Parrish *~, American-American-American. * * * * * * "The Mass is the most perfect form of making money." * * * * * * * * |