20 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodey…It must have been spontaneously created from non-living matter?
It must have been spontaneously created from non-living matter? Well I suppose that there is no question that living organisms exists from the building blocks of nonliving forms of matter. Even the Bible says we were created from the dust of the Earth, however, the big question is, what made the nonliving come to life? Of course, the mystery is, is it of ...[text shortened]... a cell. Intead, this mystery catalyst is trapped in theory only where it will forever linger.
…
Correct -that is what I said.
…Well I suppose that there is no question that living organisms exists from the building blocks of nonliving forms of matter.
..…
Of course there is no question of it -we are made of “building blocks of nonliving forms of matter” even today! Would you say that the molecules of amino acids in my body are “living”? 😛
…. what made the nonliving come to life?
…
A physical occurrence that formed a cell-like structure that could divide, grow and carry inheritable characteristics.
…Of course, the mystery is, is it of divine intervention or random luck?
…
The physical process may not have been random because it may had some predictability. It may be inevitable that life will form under the right physical conditions.
….Scientifically, to say that it MUST have occurred randomly is problematic to say the least BECAUSE we can neither duplicate this nor observe it.
. …
How do you know that we would never duplicate this nor observe this in the laboratory?
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by sumydid…Describe a scenario that would suit you and for that matter the entire world
🙂 🙂
Flawless, reliable, and rational. Sounds easy! Describe a scenario that would suit you and for that matter the entire world because if only you were convinced, well, you'd be in the same boat as the rest of us... just another nutter with no evidence.
…
-the hypothesis that the Earth is round. Would I be just dismissed (by the rest of the world) for claiming that the Earth is round because I would be “just another nutter with NO evidence” 😛
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodey…What lies beyond it
I would only say that we can look as far back as the Big Bang and no further. What lies beyond it will forever be a mystery. In that sense all that we see and experience had a beginning.
…
I am not claiming that there is no “beyond it” (because I can only form totally wild totally unsubstantiated speculations about that) but how can you be sure there is a “beyond it”? -you talk as if this is an established fact 😛
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
A physical occurrence that formed a cell-like structure that could divide, grow and carry inheritable characteristics.
Sorry to nit-pick, but the first replicator is very unlikely to have been cell-like. Cells are exquisitely complex products of evolution.
My only motive for pointing this out is that you seem to be leaving an open goal for creationists and their abiogenesis arguments.
20 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Lord SharkWhat I mean by “cell-like” is nothing more than a membrane bag completely enclosing a soup of organic chemicals -I don’t see why that mere characteristic should be necessarily seen a particularly “complex” one to spontaneously forming -after all, “cell-like” structures have been observed to form spontaneously in the form of “microspheres”:
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]A physical occurrence that formed a cell-like structure that could divide, grow and carry inheritable characteristics.
Sorry to nit-pick, but the first replicator is very unlikely to have been cell-like. Cells are exquisitely complex products of evolution.
My only motive for pointing this out is that you seem to be leaving an open goal for creationists and their abiogenesis arguments.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microspheres
Although all the microspheres that have been observed to date are non-living, they prove that “cell-like” structures can spontaneously form under the right conditions.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh dear. Did you read all of that linked page? At least I should thank you for illustrating my open goal point so well. But scoring an own goal was above and beyond, so thanks. 🙂
What I mean by “cell-like” is nothing more than a membrane completely enclosing a soup of organic chemicals -I don’t see why that mere characteristic should be necessarily seen a particularly “complex” one to spontaneously forming -after all, “cell-like” structures have been observed to form spontaneously in the form of “microspheres”:
http://www. ...[text shortened]... iving, they prove that “cell-like” structures can spontaneously form under the right conditions.
Here is a quote from that very page:
"The final stage of chemical evolution involves the chance transformation of organic molecules and polymers into the unfathomably complex machinery of living cells. Here evolutionary speculation is so unrestrained by evidence, or even plausibility, that it fails to merit serious consideration."
In fact, a soup of chemicals in a globule is no more like a cell than a balloon full of jelly is like an eye. Yes they are both roughly spherical and have stuff inside. That's about it.
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Shark…"The final stage of chemical evolution involves the chance transformation of organic molecules and polymers into the unfathomably complex machinery of living cells. Here evolutionary speculation is so unrestrained by evidence, or even plausibility, that it fails to merit serious consideration."
Oh dear. Did you read all of that linked page? At least I should thank you for illustrating my open goal point so well. But scoring an own goal was above and beyond, so thanks. 🙂
Here is a quote from that very page:
"The final stage of chemical evolution involves the chance transformation of organic molecules and polymers into the unfathomably comple y is like an eye. Yes they are both roughly spherical and have stuff inside. That's about it.
…
That is just an unsubstantiated opinion. I copied and pasted the wrong link by mistake but now corrected that error by giving a link to a more scientifically orientated site.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSometimes it is better to stop digging I think.
[b]…"The final stage of chemical evolution involves the chance transformation of organic molecules and polymers into the unfathomably complex machinery of living cells. Here evolutionary speculation is so unrestrained by evidence, or even plausibility, that it fails to merit serious consideration."
…
That is just an unsubstantiated opinion. ...[text shortened]... istake but now corrected that error by giving a link to a more scientifically orientated site.[/b]
The notion that the first replicators a very unlikely to be remotely like modern cells is certainly not just an unsubstantiated opinion.
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Shark…The notion that the first replicators a very unlikely to be remotely like modern cells is certainly not just an unsubstantiated opinion.
Sometimes it is better to stop digging I think.
The notion that the first replicators a very unlikely to be remotely like modern cells is certainly not just an unsubstantiated opinion.
…
What made you think I would think they would be?
Obviously I don’t think the first replicators would be likely to be very like modern cells because they must have been much simpler.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What made you think I would think they would be?
I think it was when you said:
"A physical occurrence that formed a cell-like structure that could divide, grow and carry inheritable characteristics."
It is unlikely that the first replicators were remotely cell-like in structure.
Obviously I don’t think the first replicators would be likely to be very like modern cells because they must have been much simpler.
It is extremely unlikely that they were cell-like at all except in the most loose analogical way, since all cells are very complicated. A globule of soup is not at all cell-like. But clearly you want to argue, so here's a spade 🙂
20 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Lord Shark…It is unlikely that the first replicators were remotely cell-like in structure.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]What made you think I would think they would be?
I think it was when you said:
"A physical occurrence that formed a cell-like structure that could divide, grow and carry inheritable characteristics."
It is unlikely that the first replicators were remotely cell-like in structure.
Obviously I ...[text shortened]... globule of soup is not at all cell-like. But clearly you want to argue, so here's a spade 🙂
..…[/b]
-sorry; I took what you meant by the word “replicators” in this context to mean “independently self-replicating cells” but I can tell from the above statement that you mean something else by the word. There as been some suggestion that individual RNA/DNA (or at least RNA/DNA-like) molecules self-replicated and actually may have evolved even before the first cell-like structure formed -is this what you are referring to by the “first replicator”?
…A globule of soup is not at all cell-like.
…
I don’t understand; if it is completely contained in a membrane bag then in what way is it NOT “cell-like“? -I don’t understand why you insist that to call something “cell-like“ it must be very complex. Microspheres are often said to be “cell-like”:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/microsphere
“…a cell-like structure resembling a proteinoid...”
and yet they are quite "simple" structures.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 09
-sorry; I took what you meant by the word “replicators” in this context to mean “independently self-replicating cells”
That's odd, since the original context was abiogenesis and I said 'first replicators'.
Microspheres are often said to be “cell-like”:
By molecular biologists? They could be said to be cell like in a very loose analogical way, just like a baloon full of gelly could be said to be cell-like. It is still an open goal I'm afraid.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton====================
[b]…How do you ACCOUNT for the existence of laws of logic ?
… (my emphasis)
What is there to “ACCOUNT” for? All “laws” of logic are just tautologies.
…IF they are something CONCEPTUAL that the mind recognizes HOW do you know that they themselves are NOT the product of a mind ?
..…(my emphasis)
Of course if something is “CONCE ...[text shortened]... ogical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.[/b]
For example, a phrase like “X existed before time” can be demonstrated via logical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.
=================================
But it is hard to express something like the eternal life of God and that God "preceeded" the creation of the universe.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" informs people of faith that God must be uncreated, always, and the first cause of the universe.
"Indeed from eternity to eternity, You are God" (Psalm 90:2)
We are hard pressed for human words to discribe what we understand to be going on here. Before everything in some sense God always was. Sure there are logical problems with that utterance.
We'll have to live with those logical limitations. It does not mean that we cannot enjoy the love and communion and fellowship of God.
Now you do not have to tell me that what the book says doesn't matter to you. I know that already. And I had such an attitude for a time myself. But I changed gradually.
Now Mr. Hamilton, we are here. We've been here for a few thousand years. And if Christ tarries, I think will be here for a few more thousand years if need be.
You may assume a "More Logical Than Thou" attitude here. But some of us are impressed with the Bible, with Christ, and with what we have experienced with God. You said "The book says doesn't count." But we have a problem there. It's not just any book it seems.
Anyway, I would also be hard pressed to express something like the "curvature" of space. Now that is supposedly not in the realm of spirituality or metaphysics but science.
Einstien theorized about space being curved around mass. I don't know about you, but for me the idea of space being "curved" is very profound and hard to explain in human language.
Similiarly how God could be there in the beginning, in some sense "before" time or before time and space, is difficult to conceptualize or speak in human language.
That doesn't make it impossible. It may mean that we don't know enough.
20 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord Shark…Microspheres are often said to be “cell-like”:
[b]-sorry; I took what you meant by the word “replicators” in this context to mean “independently self-replicating cells”
That's odd, since the original context was abiogenesis and I said 'first replicators'.
Microspheres are often said to be “cell-like”:
By molecular biologists? They could be said to be cell like in a very loose analogic ...[text shortened]... e a baloon full of gelly could be said to be cell-like. It is still an open goal I'm afraid.[/b]
By molecular biologists?
..…
Why not? The term “cell-like” isn’t a scientific one but a loose one which simply vaguely means “like a cell” and doesn’t imply anything about it being very complex.
This is a link from who I assume to be molecular biologists or at least biologists:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_chem5.html
“…When the irradiated ice is later placed in water, oily, hollow droplets form with cell-like dimensions and obvious membranes made of organic matter…”
Ok, they say “cell-like dimensions” and not just “cell-like” -but they are using the phrase “cell-like” without implying stupendous complexity.
And just as a matter of interest:
“…The great majority of biologists argue that amoebas are definitely alive, but that the molecular contents of the organic soup are not.
…”
I just showed that because it seems that some people in these forums actually think that organic molecules are “alive” 😛