the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:16 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Good to be back after a five day hiatus. So this is our new PleaseJesus/ Heywood Jahblowme? Just read the thread, sounds like you guys have it under control Yes and since I have nothing original to add I'll just throw out some of my favorite quotes regarding the subject at hand.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy

God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Neil deGrasse Tyson

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
Socrates

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

Welcome back! Yeah, same old same ole round here.Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 09:27 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:12 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I'm sure this horse has been beaten thoroughly, but *no*, Atheists don't have to "provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator"... no more than theists have to "provide scientifically proven evidence that a Creator could come into existence without the divine intervention of another Creator". I know that theists believe that God simply "always existed", but when you accept that as a standard, what requires us to do other than assume life "always existed"? God came from a dimension outside of time and space? Then so did life, for all we know. But you can accept the existence of either without a creator until there is actual evidence of creation, and even theists don't suggest a model for how something is created without materials to build from.

But your main problem with accepting the scientific view on this issue is that you seem to believe there's a hard line between life and death. It would appear that life arose from self-replicating peptides, like strands of RNA that reproduced themselves. Are those living? Not by our current definition of life, but they did continue to proliferate nonetheless, and we know this because we can still find them in seawater today. How about when that turned to DNA? How about modern viruses which act like life but don't die... they merely "turn off" when not in the presence of stimulus? Life isn't as clear as you may think it is, and the start of life would be a hard point to define rationally.

That's a good point. There is no hard line between life and non-life. Even today virologists do not consider viruses "life", but they do replicate, by being parasites on cells.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...alive-2004
They have intact functioning RNA systems. The video (and it's series), I posted from Dr. Szhostack goes through the steps that they observed in his lab with phosphorylation, and membrane transport. No one can say what exact nano-second during that process, non-life starts to be "life", (or even in the long convoluted process of human fertilization, during the convoluted process of DNA replication, does the clump of atoms and molecules start be "life".
But simpletons need simple minded, kinny-garden answers.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-06-2013, 09:34 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:02 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I'm still waiting for you to answer my first question on how the first living cell came into existence and then came alive. What caused it to exist? SOMETHING or SOMEONE? If you can't explain that then the whole theory of atheistic evolution crumbles like one of Dawkins english biscuits.

No, it doesn't crumble. Evolution is the theory of change of living things, not the origin of life. Evolution is proven science.

There is good evidence for various possible mechanisms for life's origins. We weren't there, we didn't witness it. We are trying to reconstruct it. This is how science works, by the accumulation of data, formation of hypotheses, the testing of them, the construction of theories, the testing and subsequent acceptance or rejection of theory. We learn and we build.

If you require absolute answers, you will either have to accept lies or find a different universe. You appear to have done the former.

Before you theorize on how life evolved you have to explain how life ORIGINATED. Can you build a multistory building without a solid foundation? So the foundation for atheistic evolution is that life created itself together with the DNA RNA genetic code for self-replication. Even the great british astronomer and physicist, Fred Hoyle, didn't believe that life came into existence by blind, mindless chance. Like the great French zoologist, Grasse, once said "evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:34 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Before you theorize on how life evolved you have to explain how life ORIGINATED.

Ummm.......no I don't. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
09-06-2013, 09:39 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:34 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Before you theorize on how life evolved you have to explain how life ORIGINATED.

Ummm.......no I don't. Drinking Beverage

What a boorish clod this one is turning out to be. I'm waiting for an AIG quote but that might be giving this one too much credit.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
09-06-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
Evolution is not the possession of atheists, nor accepted by atheists any more than religionists, (except the fucktard fundies). Most religious scientists accept it's veracity.
Some people are REALLY obsessed with the (mental) NEED to have a complete simple answer TODAY. Like a 2 year old.
"Either you explain it all, and prove it TODAY" THE WAY I SAY, or I'll take my god and go home". Fucking baby.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-06-2013, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2013 09:58 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
Web of Science has citations for numerous papers dealing with the subject. Here are 6 papers written just this year. Please read these and tells us what you think of their conclusions.

* The Evolutionary Origin of Biological Function and Complexity
* The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
* From Cytoplasm to Environment: The Inorganic Ingredients for the Origin of Life
* Looking for chemical reaction networks exhibiting a drift along a manifold of marginally stable states
* Simplified protein design biased for prebiotic amino acids yields a foldable, halophilic protein
* A review on the spontaneous formation of the building blocks of life and the generation of a set of hypotheses governing universal abiogenesis

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that abiogenesis = evolution. Both are only indirectly related. Just in case you don't know, the first deals with the formation of the first forms of life. The second deals with the adaptation of that life to its environment and subsequent changes over the proceeding billions of years. My area of expertise lies in the latter, primarily primate behavior and evolution. I won't pretend to fully comprehend the biochemical evidence for abiogenesis, but I understand enough to find it a more plausible origin for life than what is presented in Genesis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like ghostexorcist's post
09-06-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:02 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I'm still waiting for you to answer my first question on how the first living cell came into existence and then came alive. What caused it to exist? SOMETHING or SOMEONE? If you can't explain that then the whole theory of atheistic evolution crumbles like one of Dawkins english biscuits.

Abiogensis, for the record, is the study of the beginning of life. All life. Evolution is about what went on after life began. Also, a small tidbit you might find interesting, most religions accept evolution by natural selection as the most likely reason for man's existence on this planet. So it's not simply "atheistic evolution" Smile

Nothing else required. It's interesting however, you keep bringing up Dawkins who is a biologist, yet you have failed to mention any of the vast majority of scientists who do believe in evolution through natural selection, as if he's the only one, or perhaps he's just the only one you've heard of?

I imagine that's another new term for you. Evolution through natural selection -- you can look that one up too.

Have a nice day and a pleasant tomorrow.

Shoo fly.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 09:53 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:34 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Like the great French zoologist, Grasse, once said "evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:51 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:02 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I'm still waiting for you to answer my first question on how the first living cell came into existence and then came alive. What caused it to exist? SOMETHING or SOMEONE? If you can't explain that then the whole theory of atheistic evolution crumbles like one of Dawkins english biscuits.

Abiogensis, for the record, is the study of the beginning of life. All life. Evolution is about what went on after life began. Also, a small tidbit you might find interesting, most religions accept evolution by natural selection as the most likely reason for man's existence on this planet. So it's not simply "atheistic evolution" Smile

Nothing else required. It's interesting however, you keep bringing up Dawkins who is a biologist, yet you have failed to mention any of the vast majority of scientists who do believe in evolution through natural selection, as if he's the only one, or perhaps he's just the only one you've heard of?

I imagine that's another new term for you. Evolution through natural selection -- you can look that one up too.

Have a nice day and a pleasant tomorrow.

Shoo fly.

Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: