Jump to content


Photo

Life Only Comes From Life


  • Please log in to reply
432 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:23 AM

I'm looking at that link and it looks like the change hasn't been made permanent yet. If it gets changed again before being implemented, maybe we are on someone's radar screen.

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:33 AM

I found the feature, and it's probably coincidence. Tons and tons of revisions, and it's not even a big article. They seem to have quite the dilemma: flush all credibility & propagandize, or publish 1/2 accurate information & suffer the consequences.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:40 AM

I found the feature, and it's probably coincidence. Tons and tons of revisions, and it's not even a big article. They seem to have quite the dilemma: flush all credibility & propagandize, or publish 1/2 accurate information & suffer the consequences.

View Post


I use Wiki a bunch but it's often as an antagonistic witness. So they can equivocate all they want. It usually makes the case against the bogus ideas easier to detect, once you know what you're looking at.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:30 PM

I just thought of something funny.

If scientists manage to make a Frankenstein cell in the laboratory cobbled together from existing proteins, let's say they get a membrane filled with DNA robbed from another organism to split once or twice, it will be a definitive day of momentous celebration. "Life from Non-life!" :rolleyes:

I'm personally not holding my breath, but still you never know what kind of parlor trick they'll be able to pull off with their intelligently designed and massively tax funded experiments. <_<

However, on the other hand, consistent and often repeated laboratory tests showing that oil, coal and diamonds take only short amounts of time to form means nothing because the scientists are already certain that these deposits in nature take millions of years to form. ;)

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 April 2009 - 07:49 PM

It's not a scientific law. If it ever was considered such, it's been thorough discredited as a law since Darwin. A law is a general observation with no known exceptions, and according to the evidence and analysis of this evidence, it appears very much that all life comes from non-life.

In any case, even if it's just a matter of dispute, it would fail as a law until the dispute is resolved, and the alleged exceptions are shown to fail as exceptions.

-Touchstone

View Post


Making the building blocks for DNA in pond scum does not make life from lifeless matter. You see Miller only went 50% of the way. The actual process for doing what is claimed has never been done, and never will be done. So all the Miller experiment did was show that the base for life can be made. So to claim all life comes from non-life. You'd first have to provide an "observable process".

Question:
1) Did Miller create life from lifeless matter?
2) Has anyone created life from lifeless matter?
no.

So what that proves is that implied life from non-life is still only implied. No one has absolutely seen it, no one has duplicated the alleged idea that this can some how happen.

So since the "observable - repeatable process" cannot be provided. We can also assume that the alleged conclusions made about this is only done because it is taboo to look in any other diection besides naturalism. But even naturalism requires see-able, redoable evidence. So even though one can assume life from lifeless matter, the standard in which both the scientific method, and naturalism requires cannot even be met.

Unless you would like to explain a scientific go around excuse card that allows one like yourself to believe in something that you cannot even provide a "observable process" for?

In other words, where is the jump from Millers experiment unto life itself? If I choose to answer this one for you it would be one of 2 ways:

1) Time God did it.
2) It cannot be done.

#26 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 April 2009 - 09:43 PM

Making the building blocks for DNA in pond scum does notmake life from lifeless matter. You see Miller only went 50% of the way. The actual process for doing what is claimed has never been done,an never will be done. So all the Miller experiment did was show that the base for life can be made. So to claim all life comes from non-life. You'd first have to provide an "observable process".

I don't think Miller-Urey even went 50% of the way. Barely a fifth, from the plausible recipes for abiogenesis I've read.

Question:
1) Did Miller create life from lifeless matter?
2) Has anyone created life from lifeless matter?
no.

So what thay proves is that implied life from non-life is stillonly implied. No one has absolutely seen it, no one has duplicated the alleged idea that this can some how happen.

I think 'inferred' is the word I would use, rather than 'implied' but yes, that's the case. We infer from the evidence of early life and the earlier evidence of non-life that some sequence of events occurred that resulted in a living cell being developed in step-wise fashion from organic (non-living) materials.

Something similar to happening upon a terrible car wreck and having both the evidence that the driver was supposed to be driving this way on his commute home that day, and now he's dead, upside down in his car in the ditch. We don't know how he came to his death, what caused him to crash, but we infer that *some* sequence of events occurred that connect "driving home from work" and "dead in a ditch". In the case of the driver, the forensic opportunities are rich; we may expect to learn a lot more through investigation and analysis, having so much eveidence available to us. Abiogenesis is unfortunately not like that at all -- all of the evidence we might hope to use we cannot reasonably expect to still exist for inspection and analysis.

So since the "observable - repeatable process" cannot be provided. We can also assume that th alleged conclusions made about this is only done because it is taboo to look in any other diection besides naturalism.

For scientific inquiries, it is indeed self defeating to look beyond natural explanations. A supernatural explanation admitted into the mix destroys the foundations of scientific epsitemology.

Bt even naturalism requires see-able, redoable evidence. So even though one can assume life from lifeless matter, the standard in which both the scientific method, and naturalism requires cannot even be met.

Science doesn't and can't guarantee high confidence answers on all questions. On many questions, we can't reasonably expect to produce a scientific explanation that is strongly falsifiable, but only plausible as a natural explanation. The world is what it is, and if the evidence does not exist to reveal the necessary clues as to the answer, we are stuck.

Unless you would like to explain a scientific go around excuse card that allows one like yourself to believe in something that you cannot even provide a "observable prcess" for?

It's a simple evaluation. It's much more plausible that life emerged from non-living materials in a deep sea vent or in some other biotic setting than that a supernatural deity exists and intervened in the process, or that space aliens arrived from outer space to plant a starter kit here. It's just parsimony at work.

In other words, where is the jump from Millers experiment unto life itself? If I choose to answer this one for you it would be one of 2 ways:

1) Time God did it.
2) It cannot be done.

View Post

It appears more and more, as we uncover evidence and knowledge about physics, biology and chemistry, that life is an emergent property of non-living matter, "automatic" when the right raw materials and environment is in place.

-Touchstone

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 April 2009 - 05:41 AM

I don't think Miller-Urey even went 50% of the way. Barely a fifth, from the plausible recipes for abiogenesis I've read.


I agree. I was being nice in giving a higher percentage trying to avoid a debate on what Miller did.

I think 'inferred' is the word I would use, rather than 'implied' but yes, that's the case. We infer from the evidence of early life and the earlier evidence of non-life that some sequence of events occurred that resulted in a living cell being developed in step-wise fashion from organic (non-living) materials.


But how wold one believe this when no observable evidence can be provided?

Example:
You ask me: Where's God. I say: I cannot provide God for you to see so I have faith that he exists.
I ask you: You believe that life came from lifeless matter, and you cannot provide the process (like me not being able to provide God) but still believe? You would claim it's scientific, but I see no difference from what is required to be defined as faith.

Something similar to happening upon a terrible car wreck and having both the evidence that the driver was supposed to be driving this way on his commute home that day, and now he's dead, upside down in his car in the ditch. We don't know how he came to his death, what caused him to crash, but we infer that *some* sequence of events occurred that connect "driving home from work" and "dead in a ditch".  In the case of the driver, the forensic opportunities are rich; we may expect to learn a lot more through investigation and analysis, having so much eveidence available to us. Abiogenesis is unfortunately not like that at all -- all of the evidence we might hope to use we cannot reasonably expect to still exist for inspection and analysis.


I understand how conclusions are come to. But let's say there was an ice storm. And on the scene I am your boss. Your conclusion is that the weather caused the crash. My conclusion is that the brakes failed. I come to my conclusion based on that I don't want to agree with your conclusion, and as far as the accident scene goes. I'm more educated in that field. So when you say: there is no evidence for brake failure. I pull the "I'm more educated in that area than you card". And when you complain, I say that you are ignorant if you cannot see it my way.

Denying an alternative because one wants another to be true does not make current view true by default. But it shows the lack of flexibility in thinking, a one mindedness, and no free thought. Using ones education etc... to prove an alternative view wrong is not scientific or fair. So the conclusions that science makes while denying design is nothing but bias and unfair and not within the scientific method. Just as the example of me being your boss, and showing you who the boss is by denying truth to prove it, does not make a new reality just because I have the power over you to do so.

For scientific inquiries, it is indeed self defeating to look beyond natural explanations. A supernatural explanation admitted into the mix destroys the foundations of scientific epsitemology.


Searching for "real truth" requires one to look at "all" alternatives. Making a truth requires one to apply restrictions on how truth can be found. Making one direction impossible while always making the other probable.

Example: If during your research on a certain type of evidence that you find. If you find yourself at the cross roads of naturalism and spiritualism. But the rules say you must always go down the naturalism path. Then the "rules" are what guides you and not the evidence. Taking away the freedom of direction of the evidence shows a preconceived conclusion and agenda is at hand to come to only one conclusion. How? If the rules tell you which path to research, then the rules also tell you what conclusion you are going to come to even before you get there. Which are all the conclusions that the path that the rule told you to go down.

So if you turn the other direction because the evidence led you in that direction. Is the evidence wrong, or the rule (scientific epistemology) you implied that you destroy when you disobey it? And which should rule in your conclusion?
1) The path the evidence takes you?
2) The rule that makes the decision on which path you should take to come to your conclusion on he evidence?

Making the evidence conform to a rule guided path is not science.

Science doesn't and can't guarantee high confidence answers on all questions. On many questions, we can't reasonably expect to produce a scientific explanation that is strongly falsifiable, but only plausible as a natural explanation. The world is what it is, and if the evidence does not exist to reveal the necessary clues as to the answer, we are stuck.


But you are allowed to imply that what you have found and concluded is an absolute truth, and that anyone who disagrees is lying when you cannot even guarantee high confidence answers?

It's a simple evaluation. It's much more plausible that life emerged from non-living materials in a deep sea vent or in some other biotic setting than that a supernatural deity exists and intervened in the process, or that space aliens arrived from outer space to plant a starter kit here. It's just parsimony at work.


Of course, when the rule guides your path because the evidence is not allowed to. There will always be only one logical conclusion that all the rules you must abide by point to. Ever wonder why it is that you continually see a need to use unscientific remarks to prove a scientific theory? It's because if the evidence really pointed to the conclusion, the evidence itself would support the accepted theory. And no rules would be required to "make" the evidence support the wanted conclusion.

Which put into more simpler terms is that the rules you make support the conclusion, not the evidence. So therefore when tested by real questions, the evidence fails and the rules stand. So using more rules you feel the need to take pot shots, and make credibility remarks. Because if there were so much science in the actual evidence. Then science could be used to defend it 100% of the time. But you resorting to other means that have nothing to do with science tells another story of how weak the theory is that science can no longer defend it, an therefore requires you to search for an alternative defenses.

It appears more and more, as we uncover evidence and knowledge about physics, biology and chemistry, that life is an emergent property of non-living matter, "automatic" when the right raw materials and environment is in place.

-Touchstone

View Post


Most atheist claim that if we could make God appear before them they would believe, correct? But you expect me to believe in a process that you cannot produce either? That's a double standard.

#28 chigaimasmaro

chigaimasmaro

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • The Stream of Time

Posted 18 April 2009 - 07:06 AM

It appears more and more, as we uncover evidence and knowledge about physics, biology and chemistry, that life is an emergent property of non-living matter, "automatic" when the right raw materials and environment is in place.

-Touchstone

View Post


Touchstone, do you know of any experiments or reports that has shown this to have happened, other than inference?

If life automatically started from non-life from raw materials and the right environment, what happens to the new life when all the raw materials gets used up? Or the environment changes? If anything in that process that created that life changes, how does the new life know that it has to change with the changes?

My view could be wrong, but from what you are saying, its like with the right conditions and environment, a human baby is formed, and once formed knows that when its cold it should get a winter coat on, when its hungry how to feed itself. We know that human babies without instructions and caring die off , yet humans are at this point in time are inferred to be the highest of all evolutionary forms.

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 April 2009 - 07:18 AM

Which put into more simpler terms is that the rules you make support the conclusion, not the evidence.

View Post

Hey, that's the same thing David Hume did when he formulated his argument against miracles.

1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws

2. Natural laws can not be violated

3. Therefore miracles are impossible

If you make the rules you don't have to demonstrate anything, just convince people that your reasoning is scientific and not faith. Even though Hume's lack of proper logic is known among scholars his ideas are still prominent among people who were schooled decades ago.

David Hume didn't prove anything he just twisted his logic into a reasoning circle, purporting to prove what is already assumed.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 April 2009 - 07:37 AM

Touchstone, do you know of any experiments or reports that has shown this to have happened, other than inference?

If life automatically started from non-life from raw materials and the right environment, what happens to the new life when all the raw materials gets used up?  Or the environment changes?  If anything in that process that created that life changes, how does the new life know that it has to change with the changes?

My view could be wrong, but from what you are saying, its like with the right conditions and environment, a human baby is formed, and once formed knows that when its cold it should get a winter coat on, when its hungry how to feed itself.  We know that human babies without instructions and caring die off , yet humans are at this point in time are inferred to be the highest of all evolutionary forms.

View Post


Actually what this shows is that a controlled enviroment is required to make the life from zero life to form. Being that even Miller's experiment showed that over 90% of what was produced was toxic to any life to form showed the real world conditions, not controlled conditions, would not have favored life regardless of how many billions of years were available. For how can life form in a soup that is more than 90% against it?

TS,

So is life just automatic to where it will form regardless if all odds are against it? If so then that same life foming from the same soup should be continuing even today because all the materials required are still here. But that is not what we see now is it?

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 April 2009 - 07:50 AM

Hey, that's the same thing David Hume did when he formulated his argument against miracles.

1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws

2. Natural laws can not be violated

3. Therefore miracles are impossible

If you make the rules you don't have to demonstrate anything, just convince people that your reasoning is scientific and not faith. Even though Hume's lack of proper logic is known among scholars his ideas are still prominent among people who were schooled decades ago.

David Hume didn't prove anything he just twisted his logic into a reasoning circle, purporting to prove what is already assumed.

View Post


Rules that control the direction of the evidence, should not control real reality. When a person makes a rule that changes freedom of direction, then it becomes his attempt to make his "own" truth in hopes that others will conform to it and believe it also. It goes along the same path that new age teaches that what is true to you may not be true to me. And we all have our "own" realities. It just pure non-sense that if you believe it, then they can repogram your brain to accept everything else they want you to.

Because everytime they sell you on the idea of making your own realities, it's always followed by their versions of what reality should be. Which in simpler terms is brain washing.

#32 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2009 - 08:25 AM

I figured this would be your response.  Your words are meaningless in this forum.  Let's try backing up some of the things you assert.

First you are 100% wrong.  There is a Law of Biogenesis.  There is also the Cell Theory which is a repackaging of the Law of Biogenesis.

I believe the term comes from Pasteur who used this phrase as a means of refuting creationists, those who thought complex forms of life spontaneous poofed out out nowhere. John Needham left out cheese, or some boiled broth, and when he later returned to find fungus, he declared that life spontaneously arose overnight.

Pasteur published experiments that debunked that, showing that currently, we only see life arise from life. And that's still true, for us; life today only arise from non-life, observationally. As a law for today, it's quite forceful. As a universal law, it's completely implausible. The only way that law would hold is if life and the earth were infinitely old, and had no beginning.

The below quote is from Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog of Evolution) regarding the Theory of Biogenesis.  The article is here.  I hope you will read it all as it goes into a detailed history of the development of the theory, and the final realization that there are no known exceptions to the law.

We don't know of any that we can observe now, and shan't expect to find any. But we have very good reason to believe that there was a time when no life existed, and we also observe that life now exists, so we deduce from that that the history of the planet goes from "no-life" to "life" at some point. So, as a matter of current observation, the idea that life comes from life is quite consistent. But given the no life->life transition that is posited by the earth's history, as well as our understanding that while life comes from life, it does so with small variations, being that over enormous spans of time, life can evolve from something very close to non-life into what it is today, we understand that law to be instructive as a current guide, but impotent as a universal one.

Nope.  Sorry.  You'll have to back this one up!  Not one scientific publication can be put forth that discredits the Law of Biogenesis.  Period.  This is nothing more than atheistic faith at work.  In fact,  it was Darwin's supporters who declared the theory a law of nature after Darwin published his work.

Are you suggesting that there's no sceintific publications that dispute that the earth and life upon it is infinitely old, eternal? If we pull up all the astronomy papers on the formulation of the solar system and its planets, including the earth, each on of those would discredit the law of biogenesis. Even if you suppose some kind of panspermia scenario, the scientific evidence for the beginning of the entire universe is broad and strong, again falsifying the idea of the law of biogenesis as a universal.

The irony in your objection is that Huxley was trying to refute these ideas from creationists concerning spontaneous generation, happening all around them, in the view of the creationists. Huxley was certainly aware of Darwin's theories. Do you think he was just confused? No, his argument, like Pasteur's was aimed at showing how things worked now. Darwin's theory gives an account of how things got to be the way they are in terms of all the diverse life forms, but noone on the scientific side of things was thinking that abiogenesis, especially the fantastic creationist idea of "special creation" or "spontaneous generation" as opposed to abiogesis occurring gradually just once many many millions of years ago (they didn't suppose billions back then). Pasteur and Huxley were refuting *current* accounts of spontaneous generation and special creation, not the abiogenesis of all life originally, way back then. As I keep saying, logically it is necessary that life come from non-life at some point, else the earth and life bust be eternal.

Since this declaration the Law of Biogenesis is confirmed every day in every biologically oriented lab and hospital all around the world.  In fact, evolution demands that the law of biogenesis be true.  If it weren't then evolution would fall apart.

Evolutionary theory provides and account of how diverse life forms developed from a very simple, very rudimentary common ancestor. How that root ancestor population of living things came to be is out of scope for evolution. Evolution works as well with panspermia as the explanation for the root common ancestor as it does abiogenesis. What evolutionary theory does say is that the existing, developed forms of life we observe are the progeny of parents, with small variations in their genes and phenotypes.

But evolution does NOT proscribe abiogenesis occurring in a natural way, even now. It's plausible that abiogenesis has happened a million times, occurring in the enabled environments (deep sea thermal vents or some such). If it does happen, we just aren't likely to notice. Spallanzani showed that the same microbe growth Needham observed did NOT occur in a vacuum, dispelling the idea that the microbes come from nothing. In the scientific of abiogenisis, the formulation of a living cell is dependent on very particular conditions -- the right materials in the right environment, and even then, it's tricky, according to all experimental evidence.

So, science views abiogenesis as a one time catalyst billions of years ago giving rise to the abundance and diversity of life over the intervening billions of years. Now that life has been "bootstrapped", the life we see around us does indeed always come from some other life form very much like itself.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: This statement truly is deserving of the LOL smiley faces!

You are correct in your description of a scientific/natural law, but your statement that "all life comes from non-life" is just not true.  In fact you can't put one piece of evidence forth that indicates that life has come from non-life.  You can only assert your faith in naturalism.  The evidence demonstrates the LOB, not abiogenesis.


Anything that points to a finite planet, or a finite universe falsifies the LOB as a universal law. As a very solid rule of thumb for our observations currently, it works. As a scientific law in the sense and scope of, say, SLoT, it's not plausible at all, and isn't given even passing credibility as such, due to hte enormous amounts of evidence we have for finite timelines for the planet, and the universe itself.

Nope.  It doesn't fail as a law until an exception is known.  Period.  No scientist anywhere can provide that exception.  Abiogenesis is a philosophical faith.  It is not scientific.

We have overwhelming evidence that indicates it *cannot* be true, universally. In order to affirm the LOB as a universal law, we would have to reject all the evidence we have in astronomy and physics for the finitude of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe itself. There's very little we are less confident about than that the universe itself is not infinitely old, a conclusion which means that LOB as a universal is invalid.

Every abiogenesis theory relies on two principles.  One is evolution before life, and the other is spontaneous generation of life.  There is zero evidence of the first, and the second was falsified years ago.  But the faithful like you still pursue their faith.

View Post

What was falsified years ago? Abiogenesis? Link?

-Touchstone

#33 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2009 - 08:40 AM

This sounds like anodyne self-reassurance. Look, it doesn't matter if there is a parent universe, or a cyclic universe, or whether the universe just "poofed" into existence out of utter nothingness. None of that saves the law of biogenesis from defeat. Life cannot get through the Big Bang bottleneck. It's precisely BECAUSE our local universe is finite that the law of biogenesis cannot stand.


I would consider that circular reasoning,if you rely on the assumption of the big bang to validate life coming from non life.Even given the assumption of the big bang,how would that falsify theistic evolution?

View Post

An assumption is something you start with, and reason from. The Big Bang is a conclusion supported by several strong lines of evidence, including Hubble inflation and cosmic microwave background radiation. I seen nothing circular in that conclusion.

And the Big Bang *doesn't* falsify theistic evolution. If fits in quite nicely with it.

-TS

#34 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2009 - 10:08 AM

Touchstone, do you know of any experiments or reports that has shown this to have happened, other than inference?

No, various experiments have pushed things down the path in one area of assembly or another, but it's a complex process. Even once it's been sufficient reverse-engineered, engineering it remains a challenge, in the way that reverse engineering a log circuit does not mean you can automatically build one like it yourself. You have to acquire the tools and expertise to build logic circuits in *addition* to the knowledge you've gained in reverse engineering.

Organic life as an emergent property of physical law is a daunting challenge to reverse engineer. Because the processes and mechanisms appear to have been incidental, and the materials involved have long since totally vanished, it's much more difficult than reverse engineering that a telic engineer designed.

But science keeps chipping away at it, and progress is being made. Here's an interesting paper about to come out that details some new discovers of the thermodynamic affinity of 10 of the 20 amino acids needed for the proteins thought to be used in abiogenesis:

A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code

You can download the full PDF and read the whole thing. Just another piece of the puzzle. These amino acids have an "automaticness" in their interactions that we hadn't known previously, making that part of the sequence much more automatic and less coincidental/stochastic then we had thought previously.

If life automatically started from non-life from raw materials and the right environment, what happens to the new life when all the raw materials gets used up?

The trick is assembly. The actual material supply is not really a problem. But nevertheless, if we run out of the raw materials life needs to survive and propagate, life's in big trouble.

  Or the environment changes?  If anything in that process that created that life changes, how does the new life know that it has to change with the changes?

It doesn't 'know' anything in the strict sense, of course. One way that organisms adapt is through mutations, where individuals in a population with a more advantageous set of traits, acquired through mutation tend to survive and propagate more reliably than their peers. But other mechanisms exist for adapting, as well. Gene expression, for example, can be affected by environmental stress, triggering activation or deactivation of features that exist in the genome, but are inactive.

My view could be wrong, but from what you are saying, its like with the right conditions and environment, a human baby is formed, and once formed knows that when its cold it should get a winter coat on, when its hungry how to feed itself.  We know that human babies without instructions and caring die off , yet humans are at this point in time are inferred to be the highest of all evolutionary forms.

View Post

I think the piece you are missing is the massive number of trials and failures. It's something like a search algorithm, where a great multitude of different steps and paths are explored, and the vast majority do not result in some positive development. But if you can try one million different variations, just randomly, you only need one or several to succeed to pave a path to that adaptation. The other attempts fail, and if the adaptational pressure is high, they die off. If we were just talking about a single baby, or a single organism, it would be implausible indeed, that kind of "foresight". Evolutionary theory posits no foresight per se, but a brute search that is eeffective in finding nearby, adaptive solutions through a whole lot of trial and error.

I don't think evolutionary biologists consider humans "highest" in any fundamental sense. A biologist is as likely to tell you that a bacterium is the most highly evolved organism as he is to tell you that a human is. Humans certainly have complex features that are unique, like the cerebral cortex, but "higher" is a problematic term in the evolutionary paradigm. The highest forms of life, I would say, are the ones that have survived to the present day.

-Touchstone

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 April 2009 - 11:22 AM

Boy Touchstone, all this talk about reverse engineering and complex processes makes you sound like an Intelligent Design advocate. :rolleyes:

#36 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2009 - 01:04 PM

Boy Touchstone, all this talk about reverse engineering and complex processes makes you sound like an Intelligent Design advocate. <_<

View Post

Nah, that's just spin. Those kind of anthropomorphic terms are extraordinarily useful for discussion and communication -- we are design-centric beings, and our disposition is to think of and use language with a "telic flavor". Something like the way we refer to a ship as a "she", we anthropomorphize the ship, and say "look at her, she's beautiful!" all the while not supposing for a second that gender is something that truly applies to a sailing ship.

So, it's clever in its own way to say what you have, and I hear this often, but it's a lot like suggesting that when I say "look at her, she's a beaut!" that I really do, deep down, suppose that ship is a female.

The impersonal forces of law and process that science supposes are responsible for biological (and in fact, all) complexity are usefully regarded as a design. Design, in this case, being an emergent property of nature itself. When a raindrop falls through the sky, it gets "designed" by gravity and the area, working against the properties of the water in the drop, to effect the shape that it assumes. It's not a shape any engineer sat down and drew out, but just the outworking of complex interactions of physical law. Apprehending impersonal nature as a prolific and potent designer, if not an intelligent one, is one of the most profound milestones in thinking scientifically.

-TS

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 April 2009 - 01:58 PM

You've invested a lot of effort in to working out how to explain things away... <_<

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 April 2009 - 02:47 PM

Pasteur refuting special creation? That's piece of antihistory won't be voted "the most likely-to-succeed".

Huxley's different. This was a double-talk issue for him. In order to appear scientific, he'd acknowledge the law of biogenesis. But he also pushed Bathebius haeckelii.. He was no stranger to self-contradiction.

Now the dates couldn't be worse for the Huxley apologist, here. His "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" lecture (one source) was given in 1870. In 1868 he had named the "Bathybius" and the search for this substance continued until 1872. He was on both sides of the issue, no two ways about it. It's a simple trick he borrowed from politicians, and he employed it quite a bit.

#39 chigaimasmaro

chigaimasmaro

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • The Stream of Time

Posted 18 April 2009 - 05:41 PM

Design, in this case, being an emergent property of nature itself. When a raindrop falls through the sky, it gets "designed" by gravity and the area, working against the properties of the water in the drop, to effect the shape that it assumes. It's not a shape any engineer sat down and drew out, but just the outworking of complex interactions of physical law. Apprehending impersonal nature as a prolific and potent designer, if not an intelligent one, is one of the most profound milestones in thinking scientifically.

-TS

View Post




If you look at it from that view, then I guess you just made a lot of "artists" happy.. because you justified their art <_<

Does that same spin work for when they say they are looking at the purpose or function of the parts of cells? Why are we looking for purpose to these things if we know we are going to evolve into something better than ourselves? Is only because we need weapons? If sooner or later the theory of neo-darwinism is going to do what it needs to do, why even bother? Seems like a wasted effort to me.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 April 2009 - 05:46 PM

If you look at it from that view, then I guess you just made a lot of "artists" happy.. because you justified their art  <_<

View Post

You just uncovered the plea for ambiguity. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users