the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:55 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:51 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  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. Natural selection can produce adaptation and variation of organisms. Natural selection CANNOT produce or evolve new life forms or families. The inmutable laws of genetics forbid this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2013, 10:03 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:34 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  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."

Grassé was an advocate of Lamarckism, "the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance)".

An example of Lamarckism would be if after generation upon generation of breeding Doberman pinschers and always docking their tails, they would one day begin to be born without tails! Grassé may have know much about termites, his primary subject of study, but he was simply being nationalistic by supporting his fellow Frenchman Lamarck.

When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species, he continued to give credence to what he called "use and disuse inheritance", but rejected other aspects of Lamarck's theories. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued (2009) as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
09-06-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 09:55 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:51 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  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.

So your theory of "We don't know so MAGIC!" vs evolution hmm this one is so one sided as to not even be funny. Do yourself a favor and go read a real science book before you appear in public spouting drivel. As for Dawkins he is at the very least a qualified expert in evolution, where as the best the opposition to it can do is one discredited scientist who admitted that his theory of Irreducible Complexity is junk science under oath in an american court.

(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, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2013 10:43 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 10:00 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:55 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate. Natural selection can produce adaptation and variation of organisms. Natural selection CANNOT produce or evolve new life forms or families. The inmutable laws of genetics forbid this.

You are also quite wrong. I thought you were only interested in abiogensis? Now, we've seemed to branch off into evolution.

Firstly, I would like to state I knew about evolution long before I ever knew who Richard Dawkins was. I've yet to read a book he's written. I do not consider him a "high priest" of anything. Although he's more than qualified as an evolutionary biologist to discuss evolution intelligently and efficiently. I find your overall tenor to be quite insulting to presume anyone would. But you do seem to make many assumptions -- as though you have all the answers already and if you do -- why come here at all? I don't join Christian forums and bager people -- telling them how wrong they are. Why would I? They are of little consequence to me.

Also there is plenty of evidence that exists that over the course of millions of years species have evolved. It's a very slow process. We have lots of examples in the fossil record already demonstrating this. I suggest you visit a museum of natural history and talk to people there. They're more than happy (most are delighted) to show you examples.

Edited to add the requisite "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
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-06-2013, 10:31 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 10:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:55 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate.

So your theory of "We don't know so MAGIC!" vs evolution hmm this one is so one sided as to not even be funny. Do yourself a favor and go read a real science book before you appear in public spouting drivel. As for Dawkins he is at the very least a qualified expert in evolution, where as the best the opposition to it can do is one discredited scientist who admitted that his theory of Irreducible Complexity is junk science under oath in an american court.

I simply adore you for bringing that up (complexity being junk science remark) I'd forgotten all about that! Heart


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, 10:40 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 10:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 09:55 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate.

So your theory of "We don't know so MAGIC!" vs evolution hmm this one is so one sided as to not even be funny. Do yourself a favor and go read a real science book before you appear in public spouting drivel. As for Dawkins he is at the very least a qualified expert in evolution, where as the best the opposition to it can do is one discredited scientist who admitted that his theory of Irreducible Complexity is junk science under oath in an american court.

Here, again, is the link to this terrific NOVA episode.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/i...trial.html

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
09-06-2013, 11:43 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2013 11:46 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I have a question for atheists. Modern science now knows that the living cell is staggeringly and marvellously complex together with the DNA and RNA genetic code that replicates the cell. Microbiologists are only scratching the surface as regards their understanding of the complexity of the cell.

What scientific explanation can atheists offer as to how the cell came into existence and then became a LIVING cell? Because there is a great difference between a dead cell and a living cell. What was the guiding force that caused the cell to come into existence? Any structure, great or small, must have a solid foundation. Atheists must provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator. So what evidence exists that this has happened? If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

Firstly, you should be asking this question to scientists, preferably those working and trained in cellular and molecular biology fields, as opposed to atheists at random as there is a low likelihood that the average atheist would have an advanced and specialized understanding of either of the fields concerned, a chemist might be helpful too as once you go far back enough, the realm of biology is no longer applicable and it falls into the hands and laws of chemistry.

Keep in mind, I am trained in none of those fields.

Now that is out of the way: My compatriots have given links to articles and videos regarding cells and abiogenesis. I wish to attempt to form a different path.

The answer to your first question is fairly simple, going by what current evidence and hypotheses are currently available; the first cell did not just exist and then become a living cell. The cell you mentioned would already qualify as living by it's nature of being a cell.

A cell is defined by biology online as:
Quote:Definition
noun
(Science: Cell Biology)
1. The structural, functional and biological unit of all organisms.
2. An autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as functional independent unit of life (as in the case of unicellular organism), or as sub-unit in a multicellular organism (such as in plants and animals) that is specialized into carrying out particular functions towards the cause of the organism as a whole.
3. A membrane bound structure containing biomolecules, such as nucleic acids, proteins, and polysaccharides.

Generally there are six points which are used to distinguish living from non-living things, I take my examples from my "Levels of Life" biology text book, referring specifically to cells. (depending on which text you have, the characteristics might change slightly):
Living things
  • Are complex and have organised structure.
  • Take in energy from their surroundings and use it
  • Preserve a composition that is chemically different from that of their external environment
  • Respond to stimuli
  • Are able to reproduce themselves
  • Grow and develop

Cells are the smallest biological unit capable of fulfilling all the above criteria and as such are the smallest unit of ling things of which humans are currently aware.

Now, how did cells themselves come into being? There are a few hypotheses regarding this, but you asked my opinion (or at least you demanded our opinions instead of scientific articles in a later post)

It is my, totally untrained opinion that they developed from simpler forms.

To be clearer: Eukaryotic cells were most likely derived from Prokaryotic cells as more advanced forms after the absorption and adaptation of what we now know as mitochondria (which was likely a form of bacteria-like molecule) and the development of a membrane surrounding the nucleus forming the nucleic envelope. Prokaryotes probably formed from more basic structures themselves, for instance, what are known as protobionts. These were incredibly basic forms, considered predecessor to prokaryotes; lacking organelles entirely and being little more than membrane surrounding many micro-spheres made of lipid membranes full of organic and inorganic compounds and water. These were likely the result of naturally occurring amino acids being formed and following the laws of chemistry, resulting the the advent of basic structures such as lipids and of course, primitive RNA. The materials for which already existed and could have been created through natural means at the time of early Earth, which was chemically rich and ripe with potential.

(09-06-2013 02:34 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 08:33 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  If you are going to refuse to look at the evidence that has been provided and/or use the tool called the internet which you are currently using to find out more about this wonderful, natural world (since you have so many questions) then there is hardly any merit to skipping around the bush with you. Your tactics are outdated and boring. You have no clear argument for anything better than"I don't know".

Learn something or go away.

Give me the name of a controlled scientific study that demonstrates the reality of abiogenesis

(09-06-2013 08:19 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 07:53 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Wow so I leave for 1 day and we get pleasejeebus 2.0 here who can't figure out how to click a link provided. You lack even a basic argument and are being intentionally ignorant on a subject you asked us about. In the words of our Dear MSBB Shoo fly!

Forget about the link. I want YOU to answer my question. Actually atheists are mentally lazy. They don't research but just swallow whole all the atheistic Dawkinistic propaganda. I get the impression they have other reasons for their atheism that has nothing to do with true science.

What interests me is that these two statements are entirely in contradiction of each other. Make up your mind sir and or madam.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 11:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Firstly, you should be asking this question to scientists
No. Real scientists should not have to deal with twits just to go to work every day.

Hey DS. You're so negative about Dawkins. Have you ever read anything of his ? 'Cos he's an intelligent guy.

You're argument so far is "you guys don't know how cell life originated therefore GOD". You don't see how one could find this unconvincing ? I mean, you KNOW the answer don't you, so all that remains is to FORCE us to admit that really we're just pretending, therefore GOD.

Ag, you know... I need more coffee. Why don'tcha come on over to Africa with your one question which confounds atheists ™ if you're such a hotshot missionary ? People are desperate for God out here. But the work's tough. Guaranteed to result in more pathetic believers hoping for a better *next* life though, because this one given to them by your loving God is so damn shitty. So much easier to be an armchair preacher innit ? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-06-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(09-06-2013 10:00 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate. Natural selection can produce adaptation and variation of organisms. Natural selection CANNOT produce or evolve new life forms or families. The immutable laws of genetics forbid this.

What "immutable laws of genetics" ?
There's a new one. The only "immutable" law is that things mutate, (however slowly).
Another field this person obvious knows nothing about.
So, no Cell Biology, no Evolution, and now no Genetics education.
Hmmm.
Adds up to troll.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2013, 12:43 AM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(10-06-2013 12:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-06-2013 10:00 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Richard Dawkins is the High Priest of atheistic evolution and its most vocal advocate. Natural selection can produce adaptation and variation of organisms. Natural selection CANNOT produce or evolve new life forms or families. The immutable laws of genetics forbid this.

What "immutable laws of genetics" ?
There's a new one. The only "immutable" law is that things mutate, (however slowly).
Another field this person obvious knows nothing about.
So, no Cell Biology, no Evolution, and now no Genetics education.
Hmmm.
Adds up to troll.

Either DS has been looking to "answers in genesis" or he's probably read the book, 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" which was a darn silly book (a family member gave me a copy) the science in that book was just awful. It appeared to me the authors didn't understand what they were talking about. Or they were being completely deceitful and disingenuous to their readers. I actually kinda hope they were just uninformed and not lying.


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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: